← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 15223 | Posts: 39 | Started: 2004-10-05
2004-10-05 07:33 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.etherzone.com/2004/cron100504.shtml]Etherzone[/URL]
PURPOSELESS CHRISTIANITY THE NEED FOR SPECIFIC LEGAL MANDATES
By: Al Cronkrite
The Web page [URL=http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/]Biblical Discernment Ministries [/URL] edited by Rick Miesel contains lots of information about books, movies, and cults, much of it quite good, but all heavily coated with Dispensationalist theology.
Oblivious to the gapping holes this nontraditional eschatology leaves in the Christian mission an eight page denigration of [URL=http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/notes_on.htm]Christian Reconstructionism [/URL] is included under the title "Notes on Reconstructionism".
Dispensationalism is the predominant theology in America. It contends that the primary duty of Christians is evangelization. It is not concerned about the existing social order believing it will continue to deteriorate before the imminent Second Coming of Christ.
That this aberrant system is effete, ineffective, heretical and fruitless escapes consideration.
In the Footnotes to the Statement of Faith is the following definition of sin: "Sin can best be defined as anything contrary to the nature of God. The standard of God's nature is His holiness and His revealed will -- the Word of God. To fall short of God's holy standard is to sin."
I have been working on an essay concerning the esoteric nature of Evangelical Christian mandates and this definition of sin provides an excellent example. "His holiness and His revealed will -- the Word of God" is so lacking in specificity that its orderly application is impossible.
When righteousness cannot be specifically defined and translated into human behavior the sinful anarchy which now defines American society is a result.
Rick Miesel begins the Statement of Faith with the following: We believe the Scriptures -- both the Old and New Testaments -- to be the verbally inspired Word of God, written by men in God's control, inerrant and infallible, in the whole and in the part, in all areas (including creation, science, geography, chronology, history, and in all other matters in which it speaks), in the original manuscripts, and the complete and final authority in faith and life. We accept the grammatical-historical-literal system of interpretation of the Scriptures, and accept the historical record of the Bible as accurate and adequate.
The confliction involved in this statement becomes obvious when one compares it to Dispensational theology. Dispensationalists believe that the Mosaic Law was abolished at the death of Christ. After The Law was given the entire Old Testament platform involves The Law, if the Law was abolished at the death of Christ most of the Old Testament is anachronistic.
Without Law sin becomes nebulous and difficult to describe - law specifically defines sin!
Throughout the Old Testament obedience is exalted and revivals invariably began with a reading the Mosaic Law. Good Kings restored Israel to the Mosaic Laws, repented and undertook to obey it. When Godââ¬â¢s Laws were forgotten and disobedience became the norm, defeat and exile were often close behind.
My interest in Christian Reconstruction began when after over twenty years in the Charismatic movement I became concerned about the failure of extensive revival to impact American society. When up to 70 or 80 percent of our citizens claim to be Christians while the moral fiber of the nation continues to fall, a search for fruit must begin in ear nest.Conversionisnotfruit.Conversion changes the individual so that individual can produce fruit. Law provides the religious base of society without law there can be no fruit. Fruit is a product of obedience and obedience is a product of Law.
The aghastment of Christians when they read the list of capital offenses outline in the Mosaic Law is a testimony to their separation from Godly reality. American Christians are accustomed to living without Godly mandates and this lack of immutable standard has resulted in a life style that is no different from their humanist neighbors. As the Godly legal code given to Moses has become outmoded, the state has filled the void with humanistic laws. In place of the simple and liberty producing legal code provided by Godââ¬â¢s Laws volumes of ineffable human law has accumulated requiring hosts of judges and lawyers for interpretation. We are quite willing to accept the death penalty for treason against the State but are not willing to accept that same punishment for treason against God.
The following list of tenets is included in the "Notes on Reconstructionism". They seem to be quite accurate and though they are probably shocking to antinomian Christians they are the glue that holds Christianity together and the mandates that produce the fruit our Lord seeks.
(1) Authority -- Some Reconstructionists imply that the Scriptures by themselves are not sufficient as final authority for faith and practice. One individual indicates that there is a twofold authority, namely, the Bible and theology.
(2) Eschatology -- Reconstructionism is strongly opposed to Dispensationalism. Reconstructionism asserts that God intends the Mosaic Law to be in effect throughout history. By contrast, Dispensationalism teaches that the Mosaic Law was abolished when Christ died. Reconstructionism accuses Premillennialism of defeatism (seeing no victorious end to history), of regarding the history of the Church as irrelevant, of draining believers of the motivation to develop the Kingdom of God on earth, and of being a product of paganism. Reconstructionism rejects the idea that the Rapture and the Second Coming will be two separate events at different times. It insists that the Church will be raptured to meet Christ in the air while He is descending to earth in His glorious Second Coming on the last day of world history. Reconstructionists are convinced that the great majority of New Testament prophecies, including most of the Book of Revelation, have already been fulfilled. In fact, they believe that most of these prophecies were fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Reconstructionists teach that Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation are not about the Second Coming of Christ. Instead, they are prophecies about the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem and Israel as a national entity. Reconstructionism declares that the world coming in Revelation never refers to the physical return of Christ to the earth at His Second Coming; it insists that most Biblical references to Christ's coming are to periodic comings of divine judgment upon people and nations during this present age.
(3) Economics -- Reconstructionists are convinced of the eventual collapse of the American economy and the social breakdown of the American republic. They believe that when this collapse of the present apostate civilization takes place, the Kingdom of God can be developed in the world by the remnant that survives the collapse through the adoption of a medieval, feudalistic type of economy and lifestyle.
(4) Democracy -- Reconstructionists assert that a democracy in which ultimate authority resides in the whim of the people is the inevitable enemy of divinely revealed Christianity.
(5) Humanism and Public Education -- Reconstructionists believe that humanism and God's law are irreconcilable enemies. The modern state is dominated primarily by humanists, who use the state to enforce satanic control over other spheres of life.
(6) The Mosaic Law and Sanctification -- Reconstructionists strongly reject the idea that the Mosaic Law was abolished when Christ died. Instead of Christ's death abolishing the Law, it enabled man to keep the Law. They insist that God requires all nations, institutions, cultures, and individuals to be subject to the civil and moral aspects of the Mosaic Law. Reconstructionists are convinced that there are only two alternatives open to nations, institutions, cultures, and individuals -- obedience to the Mosaic Law or humanistic self-rule and lawlessness. According to Reconstructionists, Christians are dead to the Mosaic Law as the means of justification, but they are not dead to it as a rule of life. For the Christian, obedience to the Mosaic Law is required for practical living; keeping the Law is the Christian's means of sanctification.
(7) Evangelism and the Gospel -- Reconstructionists propose that personal redemption is not the do-all and end-all of the Great Commission, but our evangelism must include sociology as well as salvation; it must include reform and redemption, culture and conversion, a new social order as well as a new birth, a revolution as well as a regeneration.
It is time for Evangelicals to recognize that the time of the Second Coming of Christ is not discernable and that unless they are willing to allow Satan to overcome all of society, they had better return to the Laws God gave to Moses which are the fount of righteousness and the sinew of Christianity.
2004-10-05 15:15 | User Profile
I think the Reconstructionists are a force for good, on the whole, and I can agree with the vast majority of the points made below. Some disagreements: 1. Many of prophecies in the Book of Revelation have been fulfilled, but it is a mistake to say that they all have. This relegates the Book to a historical curiosity. 2. The Church has never held that society should be ordered according to a strict interpretation of Mosaic Law. The Old Testament is certainly not null and void, but the Incarnation changed the relationship between God and man. I think that fetishizing the Mosaic Law ignores that fact.
Otherwise, I find little to object to. I found this bit especially interesting:
(1) Authority -- Some Reconstructionists imply that the Scriptures by themselves are not sufficient as final authority for faith and practice. One individual indicates that there is a twofold authority, namely, the Bible and theology. Since sola scriptura is the bedrock of Protestantism, this surprised me. This isn't truly the same as the Catholic or Orthodox view, either, however, since both of those would say that the twofold authority is scripture and Tradition/the Church, not scripture and theology. I myself find this phrasing, 'scripture and theology,' somewhat troubling, since 'theology' can be made to say whatever men desire for it to say.
2004-10-05 15:20 | User Profile
Well Quantrill, don't forget that this allegation of reconstructionist unscripturalism comes from an apparently hostile source.
Petr
2004-10-05 15:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Well Quantrill, don't forget that this allegation of reconstructionist unscripturalism comes from an apparently hostile source. [/QUOTE] True, true. These points all sounded so sensible, that I almost forgot that they were supposed to be denigrating.
2004-10-05 15:36 | User Profile
I'm with Quantrill in that it is infinitely better than what we have today. But it strikes me as a little too much law and not enough gospel. On the subject, I would recommend the following to start with:
[url=http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/lawgospl.html]Walther, Law and Gospel[/url]
[url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14820]Law and Gospel[/url]
2004-10-05 15:40 | User Profile
I was listening to shortwave (I only listen to EWTN and foreign broadcasts) on Sunday night and happen to listen in on one of those Bible-thumping programs (just to feel superior). This preacher was speaking about the mark of the beast and that all that apocalyptic stuff and then said, essentially, that Bush is an operative of Satan. This guy was not one of those white racialists but just some extreme Bible preacher. Quite shocking and refreshing to hear some good ol' Bible-based Bush-bashing. :thumbsup:
2004-10-05 16:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Otherwise, I find little to object to. I found this bit especially interesting: Since sola scriptura is the bedrock of Protestantism, this surprised me. This isn't truly the same as the Catholic or Orthodox view, either, however, since both of those would say that the twofold authority is scripture and Tradition/the Church, not scripture and theology. I myself find this phrasing, 'scripture and theology,' somewhat troubling, since 'theology' can be made to say whatever men desire for it to say.[/QUOTE] Yes, but "Tradition/the Church" of the Catholic position largely includes the theology of the Church Fathers. And if latter Christian theology is not mere footnotes on the Fathers, then it deviates from it and is thus suspect, just as writing a thesis on American democracy that was inconsistent with the Founding Fathers would be rubbish.
2004-10-05 16:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]Yes, but "Tradition/the Church" of the Catholic position largely includes the theology of the Church Fathers. And if latter Christian theology is not mere footnotes on the Fathers, then it deviates from it and is thus suspect, just as writing a thesis on American democracy that was inconsistent with the Founding Fathers would be rubbish.[/QUOTE] I agree, however, if 'theology' means 'Tradition/the Church,' then they would be better off just saying 'Tradition' or 'the Church.' My concern is that an allegiance to some generic 'theology,' without further qualification, is dangerous, since anyone with a Scofield Bible and a 5th-grade education can invent a 'theology.'
2004-10-06 07:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Quantrill]I think the Reconstructionists are a force for good, on the whole, and I can agree with the vast majority of the points made below. Some disagreements: 1. Many of prophecies in the Book of Revelation have been fulfilled, but it is a mistake to say that they all have. This relegates the Book to a historical curiosity.[/QUOTE]
I think that the prevailing view among Catholics is that Revelation is about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The imagery relates to various aspects of the Mass. The image of the Virgin Mary and Queen of Heaven has always been an integral part of the Mass, as has the Lamb Enthroned. The imagery of the beast and the Whore of Babylon relates to the historical context in which the Sacrifice of Christ was made, and in which the great Roman persecutions of the Church took place. Nero and his ancestors, Herod and his ancestors. Jerusalem and Rome.
We re-live Revelation every Sunday.
[QUOTE]2. The Church has never held that society should be ordered according to a strict interpretation of Mosaic Law. The Old Testament is certainly not null and void, but the Incarnation changed the relationship between God and man. I think that fetishizing the Mosaic Law ignores that fact.[/QUOTE]
Well, true. But I think their position makes sense. Jesus made it clear that the whole law remains in effect, except of course as to those points that He specifically abrogated. The dietary laws. The rules governing divorce.
Reconstructionism also ignores the legislative authority Christ delegated to the Church. "What ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven." He wasn't kidding about that. The Church has the authority to make celestial law.
But of course the Church's legislative authority is guided by Scripture and limited by the Natural Law. As I said, Jesus made it clear that the Law of Moses remains in effect, and I think that the Church kept to the spirit of the Mosaic Law, at least in the great Middle Ages. I respectfully submit that we had the Law of Moses in effect in Europe until the rise of Humanism, with some variations. There was no usury, for example. There was the death penalty for murder, apostasy, and so forth.
That's all good, Dog.
We've gotten away from that, having placed man at the center of our thinking about law, and I fear that the some chuchmen, even high churchmen, became infected with these humanist notions. The law is severe. The law is judgement. It brings death, as St. Paul tells us. The Spirit guides us to temper that severity with mercy, but the severity remains. Indeed, without the sharp edge of the law as a counterpoint, mercy itself becomes meaningless.
The Reconstructionists return the shap edge to the law, and thereby offer an important and much-needed corrective. Maybe they carry it too far, but given the context of our times, their voice is an important part of the conversation. It may even be prophetic.
[QUOTE]I found this bit especially interesting: Since sola scriptura is the bedrock of Protestantism, this surprised me. This isn't truly the same as the Catholic or Orthodox view, either, however, since both of those would say that the twofold authority is scripture and Tradition/the Church, not scripture and theology. I myself find this phrasing, 'scripture and theology,' somewhat troubling, since 'theology' can be made to say whatever men desire for it to say.[/QUOTE]
Well, I think that they're groping here toward an acceptance of the authority of Holy Tradition. Sola Scriptura is ultimately an untenable position, as it is the root of the very problems Recontructionism seeks to address.
I feel that they're trying to say "we believe this because that's the way it was always understood by the Tradition that gave birth to the Scritptures that we interpret." But they can't actually say that without rejecting Calvin, and so they resort to these contortions about some authoritave "theology."
That dog won't hunt, as my friend from Mississippi would say.
IMHO, of course.
But that's actually something of a quibble. Rushdoony is da man.
But nobody answered my question about what Pat Robertson has in common with Rushdoony. Robertson is a Dispensationalist and believes all this stuff about the rapture and so forth. I think that Rushdoony did not. What's up with that?
Walter
2004-10-06 07:54 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed] - "Robertson is a Dispensationalist and believes all this stuff about the rapture and so forth."[/COLOR]
I have no idea of what this man really believes or pretends to believe in.
(Check out this thread)
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15224[/url]
Petr
2004-10-06 15:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Well, I think that they're groping here toward an acceptance of the authority of Holy Tradition. Sola Scriptura is ultimately an untenable position, as it is the root of the very problems Recontructionism seeks to address.
I feel that they're trying to say "we believe this because that's the way it was always understood by the Tradition that gave birth to the Scritptures that we interpret." But they can't actually say that without rejecting Calvin, and so they resort to these contortions about some authoritave "theology."
This is my feeling also. By making each person's personal interpretation of Scripture the highest authority, Calvin started a snowball rolling that is difficult to stop. It leads to a perpetually revolutionary mindset. When it comes time to say 'thus far and no farther,' there must be a higher authority to which to appeal. I know that people will say that that higher authority is God, and I don't dispute that. However, when each person interprets God's will for himself, then people can interpret it into meaninglessness.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]But that's actually something of a quibble. Rushdoony is da man.
Yes, he is, and I don't want to give offense to any of the many Protestants on this board with my statements above. Rushdoony had some penetrating insights, especially as regards nations and culture.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]But nobody answered my question about what Pat Robertson has in common with Rushdoony. Robertson is a Dispensationalist and believes all this stuff about the rapture and so forth. I think that Rushdoony did not. What's up with that?[/QUOTE]
If Robertson ever claimed Rushdoony, I'm sure it was merely to gain 'street cred' among the Reconstructionists. Robertson is the epitome of the emasculated Judeochristian.
2004-10-06 16:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Well, true. But I think their position makes sense. Jesus made it clear that the whole law remains in effect, except of course as to those points that He specifically abrogated. The dietary laws. The rules governing divorce.
So should we regenerated Gentiles rush out and get circumcised so we might be "better saved"? Of course not and St. Paul addresses this at length (no pun intended) in his epistles to the Romans and Corinthians.
I reject the theonomist/reconstructionist position with regards to the (third) use of law for the regenerated, as well as their postmillennial eschatology I believe their theology springs from. It would invariably lead to a hellish legalism that utterly corrupts and/or drowns out Christ's gospel message. It's within the pale of orthodoxy, but theirs are not my views.
The Reconstructionists return the shap edge to the law, and thereby offer an important and much-needed corrective. Maybe they carry it too far, but given the context of our times, their voice is an important part of the conversation. It may even be prophetic.
Good point, but I don't think their horse is going to ride. The world is decaying and will continue to decay until our blessed Lord and Saviour returns in all His glory and we move to the heavenly kingdom.
Well, I think that they're groping here toward an acceptance of the authority of Holy Tradition. Sola Scriptura is ultimately an untenable position, as it is the root of the very problems Recontructionism seeks to address.
Uh, yeah right... You're at it again, Walter. :)
2004-10-07 02:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I reject the theonomist/reconstructionist position with regards to the (third) use of law for the regenerated, as well as their postmillennial eschatology I believe their theology springs from. It would invariably lead to a hellish legalism that utterly corrupts and/or drowns out Christ's gospel message. It's within the pale of orthodoxy, but theirs are not my views.
Good point, but I don't think their horse is going to ride. The world is decaying and will continue to decay until our blessed Lord and Saviour returns in all His glory and we move to the heavenly kingdom. [/QUOTE]I do think that Reconstructionists do make some good points about the continual applicability of God's law, but like most I get uneasy at their seeming dogmatism, especially with respect to people that seem imminently reasonable to me, like Francis Schaeffer, and his "dominion theology" of Cornelius Van Til. It is funny to me to hear these guys gripe about Schaeffer.
Reconstructionism makes some good points, and its amazing how many conservatives find and study this obscure theology, but I think the fact we do just indicates the spiritual poverty of the mainstream spiritual world more than anything.
2004-10-07 03:03 | User Profile
Dispensationalism is the predominant theology in America. It contends that the primary duty of Christians is evangelization. It is not concerned about the existing social order believing it will continue to deteriorate before the imminent Second Coming of Christ.[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I'm with Quantrill in that it is infinitely better than what we have today. But it strikes me as a little too much law and not enough gospel. On the subject, I would recommend the following to start with:
[/QUOTE] I know any system of applying biblical principles, let alone law, is going to have its weak points. But I think the basic strength of the reconstructionists is not that they are perfect but just that they are honest, and do take the job of using the Bible as a guide to casting a light within our culture seriously. Sure they have their weak points, but I think it is a simply a view of trying to rhetorically overcorrect what are the weakneses in evangelical culture.
The sheer vacuity in evangelical culture today is hard to over emphasize. The evangelism cop out is typical. So I tend to grant reconstructionists the benefit of the doubt in their public pronouncements, even though I suspect they waste a lot of time arguing with each other over theological angels on the head of the pin.
Whatever weakness there are in reconstructionism I think by and large would be addressed just by letting theology give life and culture a certain minimal amount of autonomy, which I think most of them wuld noit try to label "anti-nomianism".
2004-10-07 05:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I do think that Reconstructionists do make some good points about the continual applicability of God's law, but like most I get uneasy at their seeming dogmatism...
Almost Pharisaical at times, but admittedly I have a real low threshold for legalism. I've seen way too many Christian brothers and sisters leave the faith because of dogmatic legalism.
Reconstructionism makes some good points, and its amazing how many conservatives find and study this obscure theology, but I think the fact we do just indicates the spiritual poverty of the mainstream spiritual world more than anything.[/QUOTE]
There's a lot of truth in that statement as I also see the recons as a sort of "blowback" of mainstream, American evangelicalism.
2004-10-07 05:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I know any system of applying biblical principles, let alone law, is going to have its weak points. But I think the basic strength of the reconstructionists is not that they are perfect but just that they are honest, and do take the job of using the Bible as a guide to casting a light within our culture seriously. Sure they have their weak points, but I think it is a simply a view of trying to rhetorically overcorrect what are the weakneses in evangelical culture.
True and I really don't want to over-criticize my Reformed brethren, but overcorrection is a general tendency of theirs. By that I mean specifically their application of human reason to "complete" their theology (predestination, election, etc.) and not being content to rest in the paradoxes I believe Scripture leaves us with.
The sheer vacuity in evangelical culture today is hard to over emphasize. The evangelism cop out is typical. So I tend to grant reconstructionists the benefit of the doubt in their public pronouncements, even though I suspect they waste a lot of time arguing with each other over theological angels on the head of the pin.
Yes.
Whatever weakness there are in reconstructionism I think by and large would be addressed just by letting theology give life and culture a certain minimal amount of autonomy, which I think most of them wuld noit try to label "anti-nomianism".[/QUOTE]
Well they would certainly not hesitate to label Luther and my Lutheran church as antinomians, that's for sure. Of course I can't speak for others, but coming out of a somewhat legalistic Baptist background, I don't think I ever experienced the true joy and freedom of the pure Gospel until I became a confessional Lutheran. God is good.
2004-10-07 06:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]This is my feeling also. By making each person's personal interpretation of Scripture the highest authority, Calvin started a snowball rolling that is difficult to stop. It leads to a perpetually revolutionary mindset. When it comes time to say 'thus far and no farther,' there must be a higher authority to which to appeal. I know that people will say that that higher authority is God, and I don't dispute that. However, when each person interprets God's will for himself, then people can interpret it into meaninglessness. [/QUOTE]I think the idea in sola scriptura is that the Holy Spirit guides the individual in interpretating the Bible. Which, given the fact that there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations in the U.S. alone, means one of two things, either 1) the Holy Spirit is narcoleptic, or 2) sola scriptura is fundamentally flawed.
But alas, the smoke of Satan has thoroughly seeped into Christ's [historical] Church. We need more than a few anti-Luthers to fight this looming final battle with the Devil.
2004-10-07 06:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]I think the idea in sola scriptura is that the Holy Spirit guides the individual in interpretating the Bible. Which, given the fact that there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations in the U.S. alone, means one of two things, either 1) the Holy Spirit is narcoleptic, or 2) sola scriptura is fundamentally flawed.
That's the usual misinterpretation offered up by the Orthodox and Catholics and which might have some impact if their own "Holy Traditions" actually spoke in a unified voice on all matters doctrinal and ecclesiastical. Of course they don't, but they don't really advertise that up front and center.
You papists really short change the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Remember Him? Perhaps it is God's will for thousands of particularist flavors of worship and organization. After all, we argue for the same principle here on this board in the matter of nations. Believe it or not, more than a few Protestant Christians and/or churches have no trouble spotting and exposing heresy and doctrines that fall outside the pale of Scriptural orthodoxy and they didn't need a pope to tell them what to think about it. My personal motto is unity in essentials and charity in non-essentials.
But the bottom line in the matter of Sola Scriptura is that it is the doctrine the Scripture claims for itself as the very Word of God. If you oppose that doctrine then you are coming out of the starting gate with the unstated position that God is not really sovereign, didn't really mean what He plainly states in his Word and can't really work the fancy of His divine will here on earth and within the Christian Church. I'm certainly not ready to make those arguments. No sir.
2004-10-07 07:28 | User Profile
[SIZE=4]"Is Sola Scriptura a Protestant Concoction?"[/SIZE]
by Dr. Greg Bahnsen (noted reconstructionist)
Excerpt: - "not beyond what is written"
[COLOR=DarkRed]"In I Corinthians 4:6, we have what amounts to a virtual declaration of the Protestant doctrine or principle of Sola Scriptura! I Corinthians 4:6, Paul says, "Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us you might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." Paul says, "Brothers, I have applied (I've used a figure of speech) I've applied these things (I think he's referring here "these things" about pride in men, or in their ministries) -- I've applied these things to myself and to Apollos for your benefit in order that you might learn by us," the saying, "not to go beyond the things which are written.
Isn't that amazing? Here's Paul (long before Luther, long before Calvin, long before the controversy in the late 20th century) saying, I want you to learn the meaning of this, "Not to go beyond the things which are written!" That you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written!" (That's the NIV.) The RSV says, "that you may learn by us to live according to Scripture." Or in the Tyndale Commentary on this verse, Leon Morris says, "that what Paul is referring to is a 'catch' cry familiar to Paul and his readers, directing attention to the need for conformity to Scripture." A 'catch' cry, a popular slogan! "Not to go beyond the things written!" And Paul says I want you to learn the meaning of that! That is an important principle for you! It is very simply the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura."[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/glb_sola.html[/url]
Petr
2004-10-07 09:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE]My personal motto is unity in essentials and charity in non-essentials.[/QUOTE]
You and [URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm]St. Ignatius of Loyola[/URL]!
That of course begs the question of what is "essential." I think that the Nicean Creed is the eternal standard for us all. Our more orthodox Protestant brothers have almost all of it, whereas in contrast the Mormons contradict it nearly point for point.
He who is not against us is with us. (Mark 9:40) And the point is to stop bashing each other, at least long enough that we can mount some sort of defense against the paganism that is engulfing us all. After we win, then we can re-fight the 30 Years War. Actually, on second thought, let's avoid that, too.
On the issue of Holy Tradition, the Evangelicals and Catholics Together initiative came up with a [URL=http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0208/articles/ect.html]statement[/URL] that I suggest we can all live with:
[QUOTE]There always have been, and likely will be until our Lord returns in glory, disputes and disagreements about how rightly to discern the teaching of the Word of God in Holy Scripture. We affirm that Scripture is to be read in company with the community of faith past and present. Individual ideas of what the Bible means must be brought to the bar of discussion and assessment by the wider fellowship. ââ¬ÅThe church of the living God is the pillar and bulwark of truthââ¬Â (1 Timothy 3:15). Because Christââ¬â¢s Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, in disputes over conflicting interpretations of the Word of God the Church must be capable of discerning true teaching and setting it forth with clarity.[/QUOTE]
We need some way to avoid personal solipcism, which is of course a spiritual dead end, and that means an abiding regard for Tradition, especially the writings of the Church Fathers and at least the early Councils.
Walter
2004-10-07 09:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][SIZE=4]"Is Sola Scriptura a Protestant Concoction?"[/SIZE]
by Dr. Greg Bahnsen (noted reconstructionist)
Excerpt: - "not beyond what is written"
[COLOR=DarkRed]"In I Corinthians 4:6, we have what amounts to a virtual declaration of the Protestant doctrine or principle of Sola Scriptura! I Corinthians 4:6, Paul says, "Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us you might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." Paul says, "Brothers, I have applied (I've used a figure of speech) I've applied these things (I think he's referring here "these things" about pride in men, or in their ministries) -- I've applied these things to myself and to Apollos for your benefit in order that you might learn by us," the saying, "not to go beyond the things which are written.
Isn't that amazing? Here's Paul (long before Luther, long before Calvin, long before the controversy in the late 20th century) saying, I want you to learn the meaning of this, "Not to go beyond the things which are written!" That you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written!" (That's the NIV.) The RSV says, "that you may learn by us to live according to Scripture." Or in the Tyndale Commentary on this verse, Leon Morris says, "that what Paul is referring to is a 'catch' cry familiar to Paul and his readers, directing attention to the need for conformity to Scripture." A 'catch' cry, a popular slogan! "Not to go beyond the things written!" And Paul says I want you to learn the meaning of that! That is an important principle for you! It is very simply the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura."[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/glb_sola.html[/url]
Petr[/QUOTE]
Paul also writes about Tradition, which he specifically states can take written (i.e. Scripture) and oral form:
[QUOTE]2 Thessalonians 2 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, [B]whether by word, or our epistle[/B].[/QUOTE]
Paul initially brought an oral Tradition, and then he later set down the essential points of that Tradition in his epistles, thereby creating Scripture.
[QUOTE]2 Peter 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother [B]Paul [/B] also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in [B]all his epistles[/B], speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other [B]scriptures[/B], unto their own destruction.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]1 Corinthians 11 1 (1) Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. 2 Now (2) I praise you because you (3) remember me in everything and (4) [B]hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you[/B]. [/QUOTE]
That's the pattern. Paul was the living carrier of Tradition, which he then normatized by writing epistles. And as Peter, the first Pope, attests, Paul's word was Scripture.
We see then that the oral Tradition precedes Scripture, and that Scripture is the child of Tradition, not its parent. Scripture is the NORMATIVE exposition of that pre-existing, living Tradition. Scripture thus most emphatically does NOT CONTAIN the entire Tradition, which continues its own existence, and which is contained largely (but then again, not entirely) in a large body of secondary literature, including the writings of the Church Fathers and the early Councils of the Church. The point is that Scripture's function is to provide an essential NORMATIVE STANDARD by which later developments can be judged as to whether they are truly within the Tradition.
So, we all agree that we must never go "beyond what is written" in the sense that we cannot contradict Scripture. At the same time, it is a simple matter of logic that our interpretation of Scripture must be based upon Tradition - upon how any question of doctrine was always understood by the Church.
Walter
2004-10-07 19:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]We see then that the oral Tradition precedes Scripture, and that Scripture is the child of Tradition, not its parent. Scripture is the NORMATIVE exposition of that pre-existing, living Tradition. Scripture thus most emphatically does NOT CONTAIN the entire Tradition, which continues its own existence, and which is contained largely (but then again, not entirely) in a large body of secondary literature, including the writings of the Church Fathers and the early Councils of the Church. The point is that Scripture's function is to provide an essential NORMATIVE STANDARD by which later developments can be judged as to whether they are truly within the Tradition.
Absolutely not. In fact, that's pretty much backwards. Tradition is only valid in light of its accordance and agreement with Scripture and not vice versa. The Word of God is the sole, normative standard that everything must be judged in light of and is completely and wholly sufficient in that task. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) If it were not for 'sola scriptura' the gross errors and abuses of roman catholicism might never have been rooted out and corrected. Praise God.
2004-10-07 19:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Absolutely not. In fact, that's pretty much backwards. Tradition is only valid in light of its accordance and agreement with Scripture and not vice versa. The Word of God is the sole, normative standard that everything must be judged in light of and is completely and wholly sufficient in that task. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)[/QUOTE] Christ created a Church on the earth. He did not write a book. The Church had been in existence for over 200 years before the New Testament books were settled on. Who decided what books were included? The Church. Who decided what books were excluded? The Church. The historical fact is that the Church produced the Scriptures; the Scriptures did not produce the Church. [QUOTE=Texas Dissident]If it were not for 'sola scriptura' the gross errors and abuses of popery might never have been rooted out and corrected. Praise God.[/QUOTE]Firstly, there was no shortage of critics of papal excesses among the Catholics or Orthodox of the day, and neither group believe in sola scriptura. Secondly, I think Walter pretty much agress with your point. He wrote: [Quote=Walter Yannis]The point is that Scripture's function is to provide an essential NORMATIVE STANDARD by which later developments can be judged as to whether they are truly within the Tradition. Those statements seem pretty similar to me.
2004-10-07 19:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]The historical fact is that the Church produced the Scriptures; the Scriptures did not produce the Church.
The Holy Spirit produced the Scriptures. They are the Word of God and without error.
Those statements seem pretty similar to me.[/QUOTE]
They may seem pretty similar Quantrill, but they're really not. The key point is that there is no authority over and above the Scriptures. Not holy tradition or popes or interpretations or doctrines that derive their so-called authority or have it resting in the hands of any mere man and/or group of men. God is the sole authority and the Scriptures are the true and infallible Word of God. Once one starts putting their faith and trust in fallible and sinful, fallen man, then you're really opening up yourself to many potential errors and abuses as evidenced by the historical record. And again, this is plainly stated in the Scriptures themselves so there's really not much to argue about that I can see.
Let me add that to some it may seem like it's a very fine, splitting hairs kind of distinction, but it's really not. One's view of the Scriptures and where and how they gain their authority and where it resides is absolutely critical to every aspect of doctrine and most importantly, salvation itself.
2004-10-07 20:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]The Holy Spirit produced the Scriptures. They are the Word of God and without error. I don't disagree.
[quote=Texas Dissident]Once one starts putting their faith and trust in fallible and sinful, fallen man, then you're really opening up yourself to many potential errors and abuses as evidenced by the historical record.[/QUOTE] Tex, we agree on this point completely; our disagreement turns upon what constitutes 'putting faith and trust in fallible and sinful, fallen man.' You maintain that it is putting our trust in the Church, since the Church is comprised of fallen men. I maintain that it consists in each person believing that his own personal interpretation of Scripture is infallible, and casting aside the historical judgement of the corporate body.
2004-10-07 21:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I don't disagree.
Tex, we agree on this point completely; our disagreement turns upon what constitutes 'putting faith and trust in fallible and sinful, fallen man.' You maintain that it is putting our trust in the Church, since the Church is comprised of fallen men. I maintain that it consists in each person believing that his own personal interpretation of Scripture is infallible, and casting aside the historical judgement of the corporate body.[/QUOTE]
You accept or believe the Scriptures are the authoritative Word of God because Holy Tradition, or in the Catholics' case, the Pope, says they are authoritative.
Lutherans and Protestants believe the Holy Scriptures are the authoritative Word of God because the Holy Spirit, through the Word, state that they are and also leads and convicts us to believe same. 1 Thess.2:13
IOW, it's all about God and speaking personally, I rest much easier knowing that is the case.
2004-10-08 02:46 | User Profile
Brothers,
Reviewing the thread I see that I may have come off a bit too harsh. Definitely defensive. My apologies. Y'all should know I love you.
Rgds,
TD
2004-10-08 05:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Texas Dissident]The Holy Spirit produced the Scriptures. They are the Word of God and without error.[/QUOTE] Yes, but the historical fact remains that He wrote the Scriptures via the medium of men acting in concert in a specific historical movement called the Church.
The Scriptures proceeded from that movement, as the Scriptures cited above make clear. Paul brought initially to his converts a Tradition, not Scriptures. The Epistles/Scriptures that Paul wrote were to keep the living, breathing Tradition growing along orthodox lines.
[QUOTE]They may seem pretty similar Quantrill, but they're really not. The key point is that there is no authority over and above the Scriptures.[/QUOTE]
Catholics do not believe that there is any authority over the Scriptures. They are, after all, in their totality, the Word of God, as was Christ Himself. Christ was a living Bible walking around on this Earth. We have no authority above Christ, and so we have no authority over the Scriptures.
Nobody disputes the authority of Scripture. We do, however, dispute that Scripture is the sole source of authority. Scripture itself testifies to an authoritative Tradition (including the Councils of the Church, starting with the first Council of Jerusalem contained in Acts), as well as containing an unambiguous delegation of celestial legislative authority by Christ Himself to Peter and his successors.
I know you don't accept that, and I won't belabor the point. If we agree on the authority of the Scriptures, we agree on so much that only really smart people could find enough to fight the thirty years war over. I hope that I'm never that smart. I have absolutely no desire to fight my fellow believers. Not ever. No more brother wars among Christians. We have common enemies at the gate, after all.
Can we at least agree moving forward with the statement of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together quoted above that I paste again here for convenience?
[QUOTE]There always have been, and likely will be until our Lord returns in glory, disputes and disagreements about how rightly to discern the teaching of the Word of God in Holy Scripture. We affirm that Scripture is to be read in company with the community of faith past and present. Individual ideas of what the Bible means must be brought to the bar of discussion and assessment by the wider fellowship. ââ¬ÅThe church of the living God is the pillar and bulwark of truthââ¬Â (1 Timothy 3:15). Because Christââ¬â¢s Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, in disputes over conflicting interpretations of the Word of God the Church must be capable of discerning true teaching and setting it forth with clarity. [/QUOTE]
This means in particular that any disagreement as to Scriptural interpretation will be resolved in light of the Church Fathers and the early Councils of the Church, say, through Chalcedon.
Do you agree?
Walter
2004-10-08 15:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The Scriptures proceeded from that movement, as the Scriptures cited above make clear. Paul brought initially to his converts a Tradition, not Scriptures.
As an apostle with divine revelation, he brought the living, breathing Gospel, especially to the Gentiles.
The Epistles/Scriptures that Paul wrote were to keep the living, breathing Tradition growing along orthodox lines.
I would say the living, breathing Gospel.
Catholics do not believe that there is any authority over the Scriptures.
Maybe on paper, but in practice I think Luther found out otherwise, for just one example.
Nobody disputes the authority of Scripture. We do, however, dispute that Scripture is the sole source of authority.
I think the dispute is over from where Scripture derives its authority and yes, whether or not it is the sole authority.
Can we at least agree moving forward with the statement of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together quoted above that I paste again here for convenience?...This means in particular that any disagreement as to Scriptural interpretation will be resolved in light of the Church Fathers and the early Councils of the Church, say, through Chalcedon.
Well, no I wouldn't sign off on that. Unity is great, but it has to take a seat well behind faithfulness to the Scriptures.
So I wouldn't agree about that, but that doesn't mean we can't be friends and fight the pagans together! :) :thumbsup:
2004-10-08 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]You papists really short change the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Remember Him? Perhaps it is God's will for thousands of particularist flavors of worship and organization. After all, we argue for the same principle here on this board in the matter of nations. Believe it or not, more than a few Protestant Christians and/or churches have no trouble spotting and exposing heresy and doctrines that fall outside the pale of Scriptural orthodoxy and they didn't need a pope to tell them what to think about it. [/QUOTE]I am sympathetic toward your position and I sometimes envy the simplicity of a Christian faith based on strict biblicalism (except when I see what becomes of such strict Biblicalism or Koranicism). My initial formal theological education was Protestant and I wrote a graduate thesis on the Princetonians (Hodge, Alexander, et al.) and the [Protestant] doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
As for the Holy Spirit, well, the historical Christian Church (Catholic and Orthodox) hammered out this doctrine over a millennium before a mental-case Kraut priest could find his nails and rip the Christian Church apart. But we will unite again before it is all over.
2004-10-08 17:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]You accept or believe the Scriptures are the authoritative Word of God because Holy Tradition, or in the Catholics' case, the Pope, says they are authoritative. [/QUOTE] You do know that this is St. Augustine's position and he said so explicitly, don't you?
2004-10-08 18:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]...before a mental-case Kraut priest...[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your input, Jack. While I think your derisive insults and blame should be directed at the other party in said dispute with the Kraut you mention, at least I know where you stand.
I'll leave you with your pope. I'll stand with Jesus Christ.
Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sole Christo
2004-10-08 21:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thank you for your input, Jack. While I think your derisive insults and blame should be directed at the other party in said dispute with the Kraut you mention, at least I know where you stand.
I'll leave you with your pope. I'll stand with Jesus Christ.
Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sole Christo[/QUOTE] Come on, I was just trying to be a little humorous. Sorry for personally insulting an historical figure who lived over a half-millennium ago. If I was serious about insulting Herr Doktor Luther I would use his own words. :thumbsup:
Frankly, with everything that is going on in the world I am amazed you, Walter, and Quantrill can muster up enough motivation to argue over denominational issues. I'm out of here and back to the political/foreign affairs forums.
2004-10-09 00:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy] Frankly, with everything that is going on in the world I am amazed you, Walter, and Quantrill can muster up enough motivation to argue over denominational issues. I'm out of here and back to the political/foreign affairs forums.[/QUOTE] Jack, Tex, Walter, and I are three of OD's more theologically-minded posters. We have a minor Sola Scriptura vs Tradition cage match every couple months, but it never gets personal. Plus, all three of us, especially the prolific Mr Yannis, can argue about denominational issues, and still have enough motivation left over to argue about secular ones. :wink: Seriously, though, I am of the opinion that theology and religion are central. Politics and society depend upon culture, and culture is nothing more than the external manifestation of a people's religion. Therefore, I think that the dichotomy between political issues and religious ones is a false one. When properly understood, almost everything is a religious issue.
2004-10-09 04:02 | User Profile
I was just wondering if Tex or Okie, or any of you, have heard of Brother R.G. Stair ? I am a Catholic, so I do not agree with him on some things, and sometimes he can appear to be self-aggrandizing, calling himself the " Last Day Prophet of God " , but he has had a very active life preaching for decades, and has a community in Walterboro, South Carolina, where people can go and live there and live off the land. I have been listening to him on Shortwave radio ( mostly WWCR ) for 6-7 years. Their website is [url]http://www.overcomerministry.com[/url]. I would be interested in hearing what Tex and Okie think of him, especially after reading in this thread that the current state of Evangelism is vacuous.
2004-10-09 16:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]Come on, I was just trying to be a little humorous. Sorry for personally insulting an historical figure who lived over a half-millennium ago. If I was serious about insulting Herr Doktor Luther I would use his own words. :thumbsup:
That's fine, Jack. No harm done as we've all got pretty thick skin here.
Frankly, with everything that is going on in the world I am amazed you, Walter, and Quantrill can muster up enough motivation to argue over denominational issues. I'm out of here and back to the political/foreign affairs forums.[/QUOTE]
What? Are you kidding? :) I'm of the belief that everything that is going on in the world stems from denominational issues. That's the root source, brother.
But hey, no need to take off. Even you papists are welcome in this forum. :) You never know, I just might get some Luther in your head and straighten you out.
2004-10-10 08:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][SIZE=4]Isn't that amazing? Here's Paul (long before Luther, long before Calvin, long before the controversy in the late 20th century) saying, I want you to learn the meaning of this, "Not to go beyond the things which are written!" That you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written!" (That's the NIV.) The RSV says, "that you may learn by us to live according to Scripture." Or in the Tyndale Commentary on this verse, Leon Morris says, "that what Paul is referring to is a 'catch' cry familiar to Paul and his readers, directing attention to the need for conformity to Scripture." A 'catch' cry, a popular slogan! "Not to go beyond the things written!" And Paul says I want you to learn the meaning of that! That is an important principle for you! It is very simply the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura."[/COLOR]
Simple? I assume you are aware of how the Bible came into existance and that the vast majority of Protestants don't even use the whole Bible! How can people justify "sola Scriptura," but then reject many books of the "Scriptura?"
2004-10-10 09:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Simple? I assume you are aware of how the Bible came into existance and that the vast majority of Protestants don't even use the whole Bible! How can people justify "sola Scriptura," but then reject many books of the "Scriptura?"[/QUOTE]
I've taken an interest in Rousas John Rushdoony of late - a stalwart Calvinist who saw fit to name his [URL=http://www.chalcedon.edu/]Foundation[/URL] after an [URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm]Ecumenical Council of the Church, Chalcedon[/URL].
I find it hard to understand how he can hold two apparently contradictory thoughts in his mind at the same time. Here we have a very intelligent and no doubt inspired fellow who rejects all authoritative Tradition and ecclesiastical authority in Scriptural interpretation (sola scriptura) while simultanously availing himself of the authority of the Council of Chalcedon as the final word on Christology.
That dog won't hunt!
Our Protestant brothers have the Scriptures, or at least the great majority of them. And with the more orthodox among them, we share the Nicean Creed, although they tend to get a bit fuzzy on notions like the [URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm]Communion of Saints[/URL], but we share the basics with the more orthodox Lutherans and Calvinists. In truth, I have much more in common with them than with one of my "Catholic" siblings who believes in a "woman's right to choose" and "gay rights." And she in turn has much more in common doctrinally speaking with liberals of the many Protestant denominations than she has with me or, say, Tex.
We orthodox with a small "o" of whatever stripe need to understand that.
Walter
2004-10-11 12:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] I find it hard to understand how he can hold two apparently contradictory thoughts in his mind at the same time. Here we have a very intelligent and no doubt inspired fellow who rejects all authoritative Tradition and ecclesiastical authority in Scriptural interpretation (sola scriptura) while simultanously availing himself of the authority of the Council of Chalcedon as the final word on Christology.
That dog won't hunt!
Yes, I would agree. There seems to be a gaping contradiction.
Our Protestant brothers have the Scriptures, or at least the great majority of them. And with the more orthodox among them, we share the Nicean Creed, although they tend to get a bit fuzzy on notions like the [URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm]Communion of Saints[/URL], but we share the basics with the more orthodox Lutherans and Calvinists. In truth, I have much more in common with them than with one of my "Catholic" siblings who believes in a "woman's right to choose" and "gay rights." And she in turn has much more in common doctrinally speaking with liberals of the many Protestant denominations than she has with me or, say, Tex. [/QUOTE]
I think there's definitely a point beyond which a church or individual ceases to be Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. Those who advocate such insanity as homosexual "marriages" and abortion I think have reached that point. As I have said before, there's obviously a core theology and doctrine that I would call traditional Christianity upon which I can certainly find common cause with folks like Tex and other non-dispensational Protestants.
Dispensationalists will require consideration on an individual basis. From a standpoint of morality, many dispensationalists are good people who could teach many of us some lessons. Its when we get into theology, especially as it relates to Jews and the Second Coming, that a massive headache starts developing!