Posted on 01/05/2003 6:00:03 PM PST by EthanNorth
How do modern Jews deal with the fact God tied together obedience to his laws and being your God (saving you?)
Jeremiah 7 22 For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you. 24 But they did not listen or pay attention; instead, they followed the stubborn inclinations of their evil hearts. They went backward and not forward.
Ezekiel 36 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. 29 I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and make it plentiful and will not bring famine upon you.
That is both an easy and a hard question, angelo. Easy because there are certain core beliefs which are agreed upon as essential among those who count the Word of God as authoritative and inspired by God (one of the essential points agreed upon), and hard because there is an aspect that is only knowable between each individual and God. Having said that, let me elaborate. The essential points that define Christian Faith are the Virgin Birth, the Sinless Life, the Death, Burial and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, son of Mary, son of David, and commonly known as the Christ, or the Messiah. Also held essential is the promise of His return at the End of the Age, and the Diety and pre-existence of Jesus as the Son of God, the Second manifestation of the One True God, YHWH. (I am trying to avoid various interpretations of these things and just hit the main points, without getting into doctrinal differences.)
I think the best example and exposition of the central, essential Christian doctrines is the so-called Apostles' Creed. Those of us who believe these core doctrines consider anyone else who professes faith in them and shows evidence of a life changed by faith in these doctrines to be a Christian. We believe that true faith is both the result of, and the cause of the New Birth, wherein a man (or woman) is "born again" as a result of receiving and believing the Gospel, which says that Jesus, the Son of God, died in their place for their sins, to free them from the penalty of their sins, so that they may be pleasing to God, and able to dwell with Him in Heaven. We do believe that true faith produces "fruit" in keeping with that faith, so it's not just saying the words, but producing the evidence of a life changed by the power of God, which gives us an objective way of determining who is a Christian.
I know that you may already have knowledge of these things, I'm not assuming that you don't. I just wanted to give your question an answer that was worthy of the question.
Another thing that I think is also important is that any true Christian will have a love in his or her heart for the Jews, because they are still God's Chosen People, and the people through which our Savior came to us. In my own opinion, anyone who claims to be a Christian, and yet hates or puts down the Jewish people, is at best ignorant, and at worst not a true Christian. How can someone who professes to be a child of God, Who IS Love, and Who loves the Jewish people, hate the Jews? Their salvation depends on a Jew! How can one love the Savior, and hate the Savior's people?
I hope that helps...
M-PI: "Let me count the ways.":
At the Reformation, the Reformers revived the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. Once the common people understood this doctrine, the power of Rome was broken. The people realized that:
They were the church
They were priests
Christ was the only mediator between God and man
They should confess their sins to God alone
Only God can forgive sins
Purgatory was a myth
Indulgences were a congame
Only God decides who goes into Heaven or Hell
The Catholic priests could no longer rule by fear and intimidation. The people rose up and drove them out of the church!
The Roman Catholic Church Is Structured According To O. T. Judaism Instead Of N. T. Christianity
A. Judaism --- B. Roman Catholic Church
A. The High Priest --- B. The Pope
A. Jewish Priests --- B. Catholic Priests
A. Continuous Sacrifices (Animal) --- B. Continuous Sacrifices (The Mass)
A. The Temple --- B. The Cathedral
A. The Holy City (Jerusalem) --- B. The Holy City (Rome)
A. Physical Discipline Even Unto Death --- B. Physical Discipline Even Unto Death
A. Passive Laity --- B. Passive Laity
A. Under Law/Good Works --- B. Under Law/Good Works
A. O.T. Worship with Incense, altar, etc. --- B. Worship with incense, Altars, etc.
A. Church/State As One --- B. Church/State As One
Why should we continue to follow an old covenant of law/works when Christ has established a New Covenant of grace/faith? ...
To continue reading, go HERE and type in the words: ROMAN CATHOLICISM TODAY in the search engine in the upper right hand corner. Type in the words: O.T. JUDAISM in the search engine also.
More:
HERE [also see #205, 210, & 214]
As usual, one of the emotion-driven basket cases who knew he couldn't legitimately refute the facts, but nevertheless still wanted to blindly cling to his beliefs in spite of them, asked that this thread be pulled. Hahahaha
That's OK. It's still available HERE
These ought to keep you busy for a while. Let me know if you want more.
angelo: "You should know what "oracle" means, and why using this expression about a Jew might be offensive. Might as well accuse me of adultery.
I do know what "oracle" means, that's why I used the word. And in spite of your "thought police" attempt to impute motives to me, my use of the word has nothing to do with "adultery":
Oracle: 2 Sam 16:23, 1 Kings 6:16, 8:6, 2 Chron.4:20, Ps 28:2
And as referenced here:
Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
Act 7:39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust [him] from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,
Act 7:40 Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for [as for] this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
Act 7:41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.
Act 7:42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices [by the space of] forty years in the wilderness?
Act 7:43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
Act 7:44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
Act 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
Act 7:46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.
Act 7:47 But Solomon built him an house.
Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act 7:49 Heaven [is] my throne, and earth [is] my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what [is] the place of my rest?
Act 7:50 Hath not my hand made all these things?
Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye.
Act 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Act 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept [it].
Act 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with [their] teeth.
Act 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord .."
Dictionary:
Oracle: 1 [a] A person through whom a deity is believed to speak. [b] A shrine in which a deity reveals hidden knowledge or the divine purpose through such a person. [c] An answer or decision given by an oracle. 2 [a] A person giving wise or authoritative decisions or opinions. [b] An authoritative or wise expression or answer.
M-PI: "I did. You just didn't like it. LOL"
angelo: "No you didn't; you asked me a question in return."
I was just following Jesus' example:
"...the chief priests, the scribes and the elders ... asked him, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you the authority to do these things?"
Jesus answered, "I will also ask you one question; then answer me and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. ....."
Of course, they refused to answer, so Jesus said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things." [Mark 11:27-33]
Of course, he was merely following his own advice and answered them according to his admonition in Proverbs 26:4-5.
Yeah! Embarrassing complaints for which they have no legitimate answers. That's why one of them hurredly had it pulled within a few minutes.
Reminds me of "Feminized Phil" Donahue trying to marginalize and/or silence the Christians he had on his show in December. He made a real jackass out of himself ... but what else is new? LOL
Hi Mom, I actually touched on this earlier in this thread. See my #126, about 1/3 of the way down.
Hi Mom, I actually touched on this earlier in this thread. See my #126, about 1/3 of the way down.
Yes, it did, thanks. The doctrines you listed are those commonly recognized as forming orthodox (small "o") Christianity. The problem remains, though: in the absence of any central authority, who defines orthodoxy? Do you accept the authority of the earlier ecumenical councils? At what point does the influence of the Roman church make reliance upon its definitions of orthdoxy problematic?
I think you missed my point.
Excellent questions, all. I hope I can do them justice. Firstly, I think it may be a failing at some level of Christianity as a whole to think in terms of an earthly central authority as being necessary for guiding the faithful. I personally think that the Holy Spirit is much more suited to the job. I realize that it was (and may stll be) necessary for some sort of organizational instrument to more or less decide orthodoxy, but man being man, it never seems to stop at just that. That's why we see situations like the RC's who stand or a more or less "three-legged stool", wich serves to reduce the importance of scripture and elevate the importance of man's interpretation of scripture. I know there are some who would not agree with my assessment, and I'm really not trying to pick a fight, just expressing my own thoughts and opinions on the matter.
The problem with man-made organizations is that they inevitably stifle and limit the moving of the Holy Spirit among God's people, even if unintentionally. It's a shame that happens, and I want to see more of the moving of the Holy Spirit in God's people. Too much of Christendom is more or less static and very slow to change, where I see God's Spirit as being dynamic, moving, making things happen.
Do you accept the authority of the earlier ecumenical councils?
I think that they did a lot of good in establishing the boundaries of correct doctrine, defining the errors that threatened to destroy True Christianity, and to establish a framework of defined doctrine essential to True Faith. They were necessary and proper actions for the time, and probably one of the reasons that Christian Faith in one form or another shaped much of our culture.
At what point does the influence of the Roman church make reliance upon its definitions of orthdoxy problematic?
Pretty simple, really. When those definitions are demonstrably contrary to the Written Word, and Canonical Scripture. Orthodoxy is only valid when it is in harmony with the Word. There is a lot that is called orthodox because "it's the way we've always done it". Orthodox is often taken to mean "we accept it because it's old and historic", rather than "we accept it because it's the Word of God." It's sometimes hard to tell the difference without serious study. I am very much in agreement with Paul: "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good."
I personally think that the Holy Spirit is much more suited to the job. I realize that it was (and may stll be) necessary for some sort of organizational instrument to more or less decide orthodoxy, but man being man, it never seems to stop at just that.
Great points, both. There must be some sort of optimal middle ground between no organization and too much organization. Where I still see the problem remaining is, appealing to the Holy Spirit as the ultimate authority for proper interpretation doesn't really get you any further. One person says the Holy Spirit is a third person of a trinitarian Godhead. Another says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but is not a separate Person. Each cites scripture. Each believes himself to be guided by the Holy Spirit to a proper understanding of scripture. They can't both be right.
I see no clear solution to this dilemma.
angelo: "I think you missed my point."
As a member in good standing of the politically correct/legalistic thought police, you had two points:
Point [1] I am guilty of deliberately trying to offend Jews. (That's because I should "know" that Jews might take offense if I use the word, "oracle").
Point [2] As a result of what I "should know" you said that I might as well be accusing you of adultery.
Which of those two points did I miss?
Talking about points being missed, did you miss one of my points in #206, or are you merely deliberately ignoring it (as is your habit when I respond to the questions you have asked)?:
The dilemma is only in your mind. There IS NO DILEMMA:
When the Roman church went into apostasy between Augustine's day and the 16th Century, those who protested (called "Protestants" ) this apostacy began the task of reforming the doctrines and conforming them to the universal church that the Rock (Jesus) began. This effort is officially known as "The REFORMATION".
The reformers kicked the Romanist apostates out of the Christian church.
Romanists revere two "Holy Fathers" which they are "obliged to obey" -- one living on earth in Italy and one in heaven.
St. Paul calls himself a Father to those whose conversion he had been an instrument of (1 Co. 4:15; Phil. 10); but he pretends to no dominion OVER them, and uses that title to denote, not authority, but affection: therefore he calls them not his *obliged*, but his *beloved*, sons. [1 Co. 4:14]
Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for ONE is your Master, [even] Christ; and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN.
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for ONE is your Father, which is IN HEAVEN.
Jesus warned his disciples against the elite class of "professional interpreters" of Scripture and tradition who loved pretentious titles and positions of influence.
Scripture indicates that church officers in the New Testament were chosen by the whole congregation, and that final governing authority -- in NT churches -- rests with the whole church.
The reasoning behind that is that [1] accountability to the congregation provides a safeguard against temptations to sin. [2] some degree of control by the entire congregation provides a safeguard against the leadership falling into doctrinal error. [3] government works best with the consent of those governed.
In addition to those, there is another reason for restricting the authority of church officers [4] a.) the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture and b.) the doctrine of the __priesthood of ALL__ believers (the regenerate).
The NT affirms that ALL regenerate Christians have access to God's throne in prayer and ALL share as members in a "royal priesthood".
[1 Pet.2:9; cf. Heb. 10:19-25; 12:22-24] show that ALL Christians have some ability to INTERPRET SCRIPTURE and some responsibility to seek God's wisdom in applying it to situations. ALL have access directly to God in order to seek to know his will.
The NT allows for no special class of Christians who have greater access to God than others. Therefore it is right to include all believers in some of the crucial decision-making processes of the church. "In an abundance of counselors there is safety." [Prov.11:14]
When one studies the history of New Testament "church government", one can readily see that the bottom-up, checks and balances, Republican form of LIMITED government that America's Framers gave us, is based straight out of the New Testament CHURCH GOVERNMENT example. [Acts 6:3; 1:15, 22, 23, 25; 2Cor.8:19, etc.] Paul, Barnabus and Titus are shown as installing the elders that were chosen by the congregations [Acts 6:3-6; 14:23 and Titus 1:5].
Paul says to the whole church congregation: "Pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom whom we may appoint to this duty." (of servant aka deacon)
The apostles had the *UNIQUE AUTHORITY* to found and govern the early church, and they could speak and write the words of God*. Many of their written words became the NT Scripture.
In order *to qualify as an apostle someone had to have seen Christ with his own eyes after he rose from the dead* **AND** *had to have been specifically installed/appointed by Christ as an apostle.*
In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the NT.
Those *New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolute authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church.*
Because of that, there is no need for any direct "succession" or "physical descent" from the apostles. -- READ IT AGAIN -- .
In fact it was not the Jerusalem apostles who ordained Paul and Barnabas, but people in the church at Antioch who laid hands on them and sent them out. [Acts 13:3] Ordaining is ultimately from the Lord, himself [Acts 20:28; 1Cor.12:28; Eph.4:11].
(Some of my comments about church government above were partially derived or paraphrased from Wayne Grudem's book on Systematic Theology Copyright 1994)
Here is more from Matthew Henry's Commentary (on-line) from the Blue Letter Bible website [snips]:
"Matt. 8–10. It is repeated twice; Be not called Rabbi, neither be ye called Master or Guide: not that it is unlawful to give civil respect to those that are over us in the Lord, nay, it is an instance of the honour and esteem which it is our duty to show them; but, 1. Christ’s ministers must not affect the name of Rabbi or Master, by way of distinction from other people; it is not agreeable to the simplicity of the gospel, for them to covet or accept the honour which they have that are in kings’ palaces. 2. They must not assume the authority and dominion implied in those names; they must not be magisterial, nor domineer over their brethren, or over God’s heritage, as if they had dominion over the faith of Christians: what they received of the Lord, all must receive from them; but in other things they must not make their opinions and wills a rule and standard to all other people, to be admitted with an implicit obedience. The reasons for this prohibition are,
(1.) One is your Master, even Christ, v. 8, and again, v. 10. Note,
[1.] Christ is our Master, our Teacher, our Guide.
[2.] Christ only is our Master, ministers are but ushers in the school. Christ only is the Master, the great Prophet, whom we must hear, and be ruled and overruled by; whose word must be an oracle and a law to us; Verily I say unto you, must be enough to us. And if he only be our Master, then for his ministers to set up for DICTATORS and *to pretend to* a SUPREMACY and an INFALLIBILITY, is a daring USURPATION of that honour of Christ which HE WILL NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER.
(2.) ALL ye are brethren. Ministers are brethren not only to one another, but to the people; and therefore it ill becomes them to be masters, when there are NONE for them to master it over but their brethren; yea, and we are all younger brethren, otherwise the eldest might claim an excellency of dignity and power, Gen. 49:3. But, to preclude that, Christ himself is the first-born among many brethren, Rom. 8:29. Ye are brethren, as ye are all disciples of the same Master. School-fellows are brethren, and, as such, should help one another in getting their lesson; but it will by no means be allowed that one of the scholars step into the master’s seat, and give law to the school. If we are all brethren, we must not be many masters. Jam. 3:1.
Secondly, They are forbidden to ascribe such titles to others (v. 9); "Call no man your father upon the earth; constitute no man the father of your religion, that is, the founder, author, director, and governor, of it.’’
The fathers of our flesh must be called fathers, and as such we must give them reverence; but God ONLY must be allowed as the Father of our spirits Heb. 12:9.
Our religion must not be derived from, or made to depend upon, any man. We are born again to the spiritual and divine life, not of corruptible seed, but by the word of God; not of the will of the flesh, or the will of man, but of God. Now the will of man, not being the rise of our religion, must not be the rule of it. We must not jurare in verba magistri—swear to the dictates of any creature, not the wisest or best, nor pin our faith on any man’s.
St. Paul calls himself a Father to those whose conversion he had been an instrument of (1 Co. 4:15; Phil. 10); but he pretends to no dominion over them, and uses that title to denote, not authority, but affection: therefore he calls them not his obliged, but his beloved, sons. 1 Co. 4:14.
The reason given is, ONE is your FATHER, who is IN HEAVEN.
God is our Father, and is ALL -- IN -- ALL in our religion. He is the Fountain of it, and its Founder; the Life of it, and its Lord; from whom ALONE, as the Original, our spiritual life is derived, and on whom it depends.
He is the Father of all lights (Jam. 1:17), that one Father, from whom are all things, and we in him. Eph. 4:6.
Christ having taught us to say, Our Father, who art in heaven; let us call no man Father upon earth; no man, because man is a worm, and the son of man is a worm, hewn out of the same rock with us; especially not upon earth, for man upon earth is a sinful worm; there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not, and therefore no one is fit to be called Father.~~ [end excerpts] ~~
There is only ONE who is worthy of the title, "Holy Father" and he is in heaven.
There is only ONE worthy of the title, "Mediator" [between God and man], and that is Jesus Christ.
ALL the (living and dead) regenerate (in whom is the Holy Spirit of God), are saints and are members of the invisible universal (catholic) church.
The temporal (visible) church is composed of both the regenerate and the UNregenerate (the wheat and the tares -- the sheep and the goats).
God's redeemed (the Justified) are scattered all over in earth in *and out* of --
(depending upon the spiritual maturity [Biblical Christianity] that God has brought them to [sanctification process] at the moment)
-- all sorts of orthodox and UNorthodox VISIBLE church organizations of men.
The visible church of God is not headquartered in Italy, even though there no doubt are some spiritually immature Christians that belong to it and think that it is. :D
Origionally posted on 6/22/02 3:05 PM Eastern by Matchett-PI HERE.
Ethan: Interesting statement. So, maybe angelo isn't a Jew. It works both ways. Perhaps, though, there are a certain set of core, basic doctrinal beliefs that constitute and distinguish modern Talmudism (i.e., "Judaism") from, say, Islam. Or would angelo say there is no difference? To say there is a difference is to presuppose a set of core doctrinal distinctives that are to be contrasted against other doctrinal distinctives.
Angelo the Muslim has a real problem. If he says he is not a Muslim and is, in fact, a Jew, on what rational basis does he make such an assertion of distinction if, and I quote, "We Jews have a hard enough time figuring out "who is a Jew." Maybe they're Muslims and don't know it.
angelo: "In the absence of any central authority (for example, Rome) to declare what is "orthodox" and what is "heretical", how do you define "who is a Christian"?"
Ethan: It is wrong to project the (supposed) lack of ability of Jews to identify Jewish religious belief upon others as normative. I have yet to encounter another Jew that confuses a Muslim to be a Jew. In every case, they seem to have no problem telling "who is and isn't a Jew." It is doubtful that any of them have ever looked philosophically into the horizon and mused, "maybe I'm a Chinese Mormon...who can tell?"
The rest is specifically addressed to my Christian brothers and sisters.
We have, as many readers of this thread have observed, the situation where Douglas, the non-christian cultist, is telling angelo the non-christian gentile turned Tulmudist that he [angelo] is a "better Christian" than the Christians. If one steps back and ponders the epistemology of such statements it is evident that such stuff is truly of the bizarre.
Angelo, throwing out an epistemological red-herring, has essentially stated, "who are you to say what is Christian truth and what isn't Christian truth?" And it needs to be kept clearly in mind that the adherents of Armstrongism do not hold the view that "all roads lead to God," but clearly and quite aggressively claim that Armstrongism — and only Armstrongism — is the "truth." The writings of Herbert Armstrong, where the United Church of God derives its doctrinal content, are quite conclusive on this assertion. The cults have attacked the Christian faith, not vice versa. Cultists will cry "foul" when the Christian obeys Scripture and defends the faith to the finish (Jude 3), but the facts are clear.
While angelo and Douglas may have very real differences doctrinally and theologically — whether they care about them or not is another issue — the one thing they can agree upon with enthusiasm is their repudiation of the Christian faith and Christ's church.
The entire premise of demanding a human institutional "authority" to determine what is truth and what is not is faulty, and at its core is anti-intellectual and childish ("who will tell us what to believe?!").
It is analagous to an atheist saying, "not everyone believes in the same god therefore god doesn't exist." It is an illogical statement. Likewise, that some people claim to be Christians yet deny and/or pervert central teachings of the Christian faith or that some legitimate Christians have disagreements on peripheral issues, doesn't negate the existence of the propositional truth of Scripture or the knowability of Scripture as a verbal, propositional revelation from God to men.
We acknowledge that Scripture is inspired, consistent with itself and perspicuous. The "main things are the plain things." Regardless of angelo's attempting to assert the "truth" that the truth cannot be definitively known, there is a corpus of Biblical doctrinal essentials that define the Christian faith as Christian and not some other religion.
Cognitive relativism is always, by definition, self-defeating; the cognitive relativist has nothing legitimate to say about anything and still be self-consistent with his own relativistic premises. His most self-consistent, honest response to any cognitive issue should always be, "I don't know." The thinking person should recognize his position for what it is and ignore it. Reason only works with reasonable persons. With unreasonable persons, nothing works.
There is doctrinal content to historic, Biblical Christianity, and it is propositional truth. If a person is ignorant of these facts, perverts them or attacks them, it is completely irrelevent to the existence and knowability of said body of facts.
Anything that attacks or perverts the nature, Person and work of Jesus Christ, anything that attacks or perverts His bodily Resurrection, anything that attacks and perverts the Gospel, are all grounds to placing oneself outside of historic, Biblical Christianity. That the angelo's of the world will attempt to throw in a flavor of epistemological agnosticism is absolutely irrelevent. In short, that is his problem. The Christian faith and the truth is not affected.
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.7)
Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the sole rule of faith. This is the historic Christian principle of Sola Scriptura.
The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.4; A.D. 1646).
It is the historic position of the faith once for all delivered (Jude 3):
"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture" (Athanasius, de Synodis, 6; circa A.D. 359)"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn. (Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9; circa A.D. 190).
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith" (Alexander Roberts & W.H. Rambaugh Translators, The Writings of Irenaeus, Against Heresies.; circa A.D. 180 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874), 3.1.1
The material sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture is the historic, Biblical Christian position; the Bible presents doctrinal truth as knowable and definable; there are central core doctrines of the faith that have been believed since apostolic times to this day, definitional content that makes the Christian faith Christian. C.S. Lewis aptly expressed these as "Mere Christianity."
These truths are not the sum total of all Christian doctrine or the fullest systematic expression of the Christian faith but simply the foundational, core Biblical doctrines that are definitional. That the angelos and Douglas' of the world may attack, pervert or denigrate these facts, in the final analysis, is wholly irrelevant to the truth.
Some things are absolutely central to the faith itself and there can be no compromise or perversion permitted as they are central to the very content of what makes the Christian faith Christian. This is the Biblical position.
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8-10).
Likewise, some things are peripheral and there can be honest differences tolerated with charity among brothers and sisters as they do not deny or pervert a central teaching as to the Gospel, the nature, Person and work of Jesus Christ, etc.:
"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God" (Romans 14:5-6).
The Biblical worldview is not an agnostic worldview; while God has not made everything exhaustively revealed, He has revealed what is necessary, and what He has revealed is true knowledge, in verbal propositional form that is understandable. As the late Francis Schaeffer expressed it, "we can't know exhaustively but we can know truly." In other words, the Almighty isn't a "postmodern."
Simply because persons such as angelo or others are ignorant of the word of God or pervert it to their own shame does not negate the fact that God's word is essentially clear and its truth is knowable in propositional form, according to the normal rules of grammar and context.
"And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (John 8:32)."Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:3-4, emphasis mine).
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11). Note: It doesn't say, "they checked with the High Priest and the Rabbis" — they checked the Scriptures. They were viewed as materially sufficient, clear, and the legitimate source of authority. Doctrinal agnosticism apart from some organizational human authority was not the worldview expressed.
Moreover, the notion of arguing for (or intimating the necessity of) the need of a human institutional "authority" to act as an infallible interpreter of Scripture has produced far more cults, schisms, and profound disagreements than the historic, Biblical (and most consistently expressed by Reformed theology) principle of Sola Scriptura.
While we that legitimately hold to and from an informed position embrace Sola Scriptura do have disagreements, these are intramural disagreements between brothers on peripheral matters of the faith that do not deny or pervert the nature of God, the nature, Person and work of Jesus Christ, the nature, inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, or the very Gospel itself which is the power of God to save. In short, we agree on the central, core Biblical doctrines that make the Christian faith Christian and not some other religion. We, with few exceptions, consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ. Sola Scriptura produces far greater unity and clarity of doctrine on the core matters of the Christian faith than any organizational system that uses Scripture and a human "authority."
Such "Scripture + organizational human interpretative authority" systems have produced great disunity, as such systems produce an extreme polarity of antithetical bodies of belief. Such organizational systems that adhere to Scripture plus an organizational human authority as necessary would include Roman Catholicism; the various branches of Eastern Orthodoxy; Mormonism; the Jehovah's Witnesses; the various splinters of Armstrongism (United Church of God; Global Church of God; Philedelphia Church of God, et. al.), and thousands of other cults, all considering each other heretics and false.
A common and pernicious error that circulates today, not simply among the cults but among many of the neo-fundamentalists, is that a right belief about the Bible naturally leads to right belief. The one (holding the Bible to be the word of God) does not automatically mean the other (sound Biblical doctrine and not heresy will be believed and confessed).
Sola Scriptura does not mean "let's summarily jettison the entire Christian faith and 2,000 years of history and doctrinal study as irrelevant and let's reinvent the theological wheel from scratch"; but, rather, it means that Scripture, and only Scripture, is the sole and final rule of faith.
Angelo asked "by what authority?" The answer is the authority of the word of God, which though ignorant and unlearned men hostile to the faith may distort to their own shame, is materially sufficient, consistent and clear in its normal grammico-historical context.
Timothy Enloe expressed it well:
"Properly understood, sola Scriptura states that all truths necessary for salvation are revealed in Scripture, and that the visible Church is one of the means by which we can come to know the truths revealed in Scripture. Note how the claims of the Christian worldview are neatly encapsulated here: God's revelation (in Scripture) is the basis of our knowledge, but the visible Church is one means by which we come to understand that knowledge. The Church is important, but not in the same way Scripture is. The Church is the minister of truth, not the source of truth""Yet, confessional, historic Protestants are not "Fundamentalists"--we do not pretend that we can step back in time to the Apostolic Age, discarding all our own blinders to "just" know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth simply by individually reading our modern English translations. While we affirm that all matters essential for salvation may be obtained from the mere reading of Scripture, we deny that individuals operating solely by their own lights can determine all truth for themselves by their own private reading of Scripture. A person may (and should, given the nature of logic and language) come to see the Trinity plainly taught in Scripture, but this does not mean that person has no use for the Council of Nicea or the Definition of Chalcedon as supplementary aids to his understanding of the Trinity." (Tim Enloe, "What is Truth? How Some Roman Catholic Apologists Are Their Own Worst Enemies." http://www.aomin.org/Porvaz2.html).
The creeds and confessions are not "the authority" but are simply concise statements of what the Bible teaches on specific doctrinal subjects. As my particular denomination expresses it, confessions are "subordinate standards," or more formally expressed:
The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decress of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.10).
The creeds of the early Church are catholic in the sense that they are universal in articulating the belief of the Christian faith. They are not "Roman Catholic" as [a] the Roman Catholic church, i.e., the Papacy, did not exist at the time and [b] many of the councils, while being universal, were overwhelmingly councils of the Eastern church, not specifically the Western or Roman church, therefore it is specious to claim these as "Roman Catholic" councils. They were Christian councils of the catholic, or universal, church.
The Westminister Confession of Faith; The 39 Articles of Religion; The London Baptist Confession, et. al., are in agreement on the foundational, central teachings of the Christian faith that make it Christian and not some other religion. The Bible is the source and final bar of doctrine, from the early apostolic and early church creeds, to the great confessions of the Reformation, to the present, there is a historic continuity to the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3; cf. Matthew 16:18).
By "what authority" do Christians hold to the central doctrines? By the authority of the word of God.
"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them. 2 Peter 3:16; Psalms 19:7; Psalms 119:130." (London Baptist Confession of 1689. 1.7).
Epistemological red herrings of doctrinal agnosticism notwithstanding.
I was right, you missed my point.
If you really care to know, my point was that by calling me an "oracle", you were accusing me of violating one of the commandments:
There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer,
or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. (Deuteronomy 18:10-11)
Furthermore, it was a meritless claim. Which is why I said that you might as well accuse me of adultery. I am no more an "oracle" than I am an "adulterer".
Talking about points being missed, did you miss one of my points in #206, or are you merely deliberately ignoring it (as is your habit when I respond to the questions you have asked)?:
Let me look at it again... Sorry, the only thing I see you doing is continuing to avoid answering my question. That is your prerogative. But don't expect me to be impressed by your blather.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.