Protestant Identity and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches

[John Brickley]

Yes!

Blessings
"Protestant" George

Our "Protestant" arrogance never ceases to amaze me.

[George Wallace]

Our "Protestant" arrogance never ceases to amaze me.

I don't find it arrogant at all, I find it consistent. Either you are Protestant or you are not it is very simple, and one does not need be proud or arrogant to believe in one's convictions.

This is a quote from the RP Church of Northern Ireland's web site (The are intimately familiar with Roman Catholicism in NI)


Roman Catholicism’s failure to accept such cardinal doctrines as the sole authority of Scripture and justification by faith alone, together with innovations such as its teaching on Mary and the development of the papacy, render it impossible for Reformed Presbyterians to accept it as a Christian church. It is recognised, however, that there may be individual Roman Catholics who are true believers and all harshness and ill-feeling between Protestants and Roman Catholics is to be deplored.

Note the underlined portion, again not arrogant just clear.

Blessings
George

[John Brickley]

I don't find it arrogant at all, I find it consistent. Either you are Protestant or you are not it is very simple, and one does not need be proud or arrogant to believe in one's convictions.

This is a quote from the RP Church of Northern Ireland's web site (The are intimately familiar with Roman Catholicism in NI)


Note the underlined portion, again not arrogant just clear.

Blessings
George

George,

It is one thing to say that you have theological differences with Roman Catholics and Orthodox, it is another thing entirely to say that they teach a false gospel. That is, in my opinion, very arrogant. In relation to the quote from the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Northern Ireland I think you have to consider the context, it is pretty hard for me to ignore the generations old divisions between protestants and catholics in Northern Ireland. So I think you have to take what is said with a least a grain of salt. So I find that less than convincing.

[Hans Deventer]

I don't find it arrogant at all, I find it consistent. Either you are Protestant or you are not it is very simple, and one does not need be proud or arrogant to believe in one's convictions.

I find it utterly arrogant. To believe in a certain position doesn't mean you have it all figured out and have reached a point where you can consider everything else "false gospel". Nothing that is in line with the Ecumenical Creeds of the Church is a "false gospel". Period.

[Benjamin Burch]

I find it utterly arrogant. To believe in a certain position doesn't mean you have it all figured out and have reached a point where you can consider everything else "false gospel". Nothing that is in line with the Ecumenical Creeds of the Church is a "false gospel". Period.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you 100x.

Protestant arrogance is the thing that makes me want to just go join the RCC. At least they have more of a reason to be arrogant. At least they're rooted in tradition.

Reformed folk who think that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic are False Gospelers/Heretics/Not Christians really just make me realize how gracious a God we serve.

Sorry George. A spade is a spade.

[George Wallace]

George,

It is one thing to say that you have theological differences with Roman Catholics and Orthodox, it is another thing entirely to say that they teach a false gospel. That is, in my opinion, very arrogant. In relation to the quote from the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Northern Ireland I think you have to consider the context, it is pretty hard for me to ignore the generations old divisions between protestants and catholics in Northern Ireland. So I think you have to take what is said with a least a grain of salt. So I find that less than convincing.

I am sorry you see it that way. Like I pointed out in the underlined portion of the quote I see know need to be rude, mean or whatever.. too or with the EO or RC, but IMO without an imputed alien righteousness there is NO, repeat NO Gospel. As stated in the quote there can be individual believer, faithful Christian within these sects, but that is in spite of nor because of their teaching. The EO and RC as organizations are not my brothers, but they are my neighbors, they are a mission field.

EDIT: I was on a class break and had to be quick. The actual derivation of the Imputed Righteousness is the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. So again, yes, there was a reason for the Reformation and there is still reason for separation. Justification - Sola Fide and Sola Gratia are Biblical, Protestant, - GOSPEL- principles worth dying for! You are either Protestant or your not, unless you are Anglo-Catholic, but that's a whole different Oprah episode ;)

Blessings
George

[John Brickley]

I am sorry you see it that way. Like I pointed out in the underlined portion of the quote I see know need to be rude, mean or whatever.. too or with the EO or RC, but IMO without an imputed alien righteousness there is NO, repeat NO Gospel. As stated in the quote there can be individual believer, faithful Christian within these sects, but that is in spite of nor because of their teaching. The EO and RC as organizations are not my brothers, but they are my neighbors, they are a mission field.

Blessings
George

Wow, I have to say George (and I don't mean to be offensive with this, honestly I don't) each attempt at clarification is just making the arrogance sound that much worse not better. There is an old saying, when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging.

So I am assuming then that you do not hold the ecumenical councils of the first 5 centuries of the church to be authoritative? Because it would seem to me that any body that holds to them as authoritative and their teaching is rooted in them (which in the case of the Eastern Orthodoxy they are far more rooted in those councils than most any other branch of Christianity) are ipso facto our brothers in Christ.

Don't you see how arrogant it sounds when you or I determine (regardless of a group's fidelity to the Ecumenical councils of the church) that that group is not Christian, irrespective of the fact that they both subscribe to the universally recognized benchmarks of the faith (heck, subscribe to it, they wrote them!!!). Honestly the arrogance of that position is quite staggering.

[Benjamin Burch]

I am sorry you see it that way. Like I pointed out in the underlined portion of the quote I see know need to be rude, mean or whatever.. too or with the EO or RC, but IMO without an imputed alien righteousness there is NO, repeat NO Gospel. As stated in the quote there can be individual believer, faithful Christian within these sects, but that is in spite of nor because of their teaching. The EO and RC as organizations are not my brothers, but they are my neighbors, they are a mission field.

EDIT: I was on a class break and had to be quick. The actual derivation of the Imputed Righteousness is the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. So again, yes, there was a reason for the Reformation and there is still reason for separation. Justification - Sola Fide and Sola Gratia are Biblical, Protestant, - GOSPEL- principles worth dying for! You are either Protestant or your not, unless you are Anglo-Catholic, but that's a whole different Oprah episode ;)

Blessings
George

Like I sad. We truly do serve a gracious savior. This is one of those areas where I believe that Christians will be saved in spite of unrepentant sin. This is clearly a sinful thing to say, and I doubt you'll ever repent of it. However, I believe Jesus is saying to the fathe "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

It's a shame that Christ's body is so broken.

I'm also sad that at this point George I have to understand that you see me as a mission field. Imputed righteousness is only "alien" to the text.

[George Wallace]

Wow, I have to say George (and I don't mean to be offensive with this, honestly I don't) each attempt at clarification is just making the arrogance sound that much worse not better. There is an old saying, when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging.

So I am assuming then that you do not hold the ecumenical councils of the first 5 centuries of the church to be authoritative? Because it would seem to me that any body that holds to them as authoritative and their teaching is rooted in them (which in the case of the Eastern Orthodoxy they are far more rooted in those councils than most any other branch of Christianity) are ipso facto our brothers in Christ.

Don't you see how arrogant it sounds when you or I determine (regardless of a group's fidelity to the Ecumenical councils of the church) that that group is not Christian, irrespective of the fact that they both subscribe to the universally recognized benchmarks of the faith (heck, subscribe to it, they wrote them!!!). Honestly the arrogance of that position is quite staggering.

Again I do not, absolutely do not, view the statements as arrogant. I will say that I was on a class break trying to type quickly when I wrote this and probably could have phrased it more clearly. Somehow I am sure you will still find it inappropriate. So, for clarity sake lumping the EO and RC together is not always a good idea. So I will say that much of EO Doctrine is not as aberrant as that of the RC, but really at this point that is just nuance. Also, make no mistake about it I have never said, that they are not or cannot be Christians. I don’t save people. I don’t determine who is saved. The Triune work of God saves people. What I said is that I see NO Gospel, No Good News as I understand it, in most of their Theology.

I do emphatically insist that without Justification by Faith Alone there is no Gospel. PERIOD! So I see them as a mission field, call them a familiar mission field if you like, but still a mission field. I believe that they are wrong on Cardinal points of the Gospel, as added in my edit earlier I believe that Protestant Reformation was absolutely a move of God in reclaiming His Church, so I cannot in good conscience give that up and practice some Rodney King “Why can’t we all just get along” form of Christianity. The ability you and I have to discuss, debate and disagree about our Protestant Christian Faith is and was a hard fought Victory. You seem to forget that those in the RC have no such luxury. So was there a reason for Reformation or not? Either you are Protestant or you are not!

Zat Simple.


I.The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

Blessings
George

Before it is asked. Yes I do believe the Pope to be anti-christ. Not in some Tim Lahye Left Behind premil dispo sense; but since the Pope Claims to be THE vicar of Christ on Earth - I consider that the Pope's claim as usurpation of Christ Throne, that makes the Pope an Impostor king and antichrist.

[George Wallace]

Like I sad. We truly do serve a gracious savior. This is one of those areas where I believe that Christians will be saved in spite of unrepentant sin. This is clearly a sinful thing to say, and I doubt you'll ever repent of it. However, I believe Jesus is saying to the fathe "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

It's a shame that Christ's body is so broken.

I'm also sad that at this point George I have to understand that you see me as a mission field. Imputed righteousness is only "alien" to the text.

So ALL the Historic Protestant Confessions are sinful statements in need of repentance?

And yes of course you are a mission field!

Blessings
George

[Benjamin Burch]

So ALL the Historic Protestant Confessions are sinful statements in need of repentance?

And yes of course you are a mission field!

Blessings
George

If they say that EO and RCC are unredeemed and not part of Christ's Body.... then YES! ABSOLUTELY!

It is not hard to say, "They're Brothers in Christ though they are deeply, deeply, deeply mistaken about an issue (or two or three) I pray that God will lead them towards the truth on this issue."

It's only pride and arrogance that leads us to neglect this statement in favor of "I'm right, they're wrong, and what I'm right about is central to the Gospel so therefore they're not even Christians." Only Pride and Only Arrogance.

Come back to us, just a little bit, George. I have no problem with you believing the doctrines you do. Just don't get sucked in by the silly crazies who are calling part of Christ's Body not a part of Christ's Body.

Come back. Just a little bit. You're better than that.

[George Wallace]

If they say that EO and RCC are unredeemed and not part of Christ's Body.... then YES! ABSOLUTELY!

It is not hard to say, "They're Brothers in Christ though they are deeply, deeply, deeply mistaken about an issue (or two or three) I pray that God will lead them towards the truth on this issue."

It's only pride and arrogance that leads us to neglect this statement in favor of "I'm right, they're wrong, and what I'm right about is central to the Gospel so therefore they're not even Christians." Only Pride and Only Arrogance.

Come back to us, just a little bit, George. I have no problem with you believing the doctrines you do. Just don't get sucked in by the silly crazies who are calling part of Christ's Body not a part of Christ's Body.

Come back. Just a little bit. You're better than that.

Maybe you're in between classes like me and just aren't reading my statements thoroughly or maybe I haven't been clear. So lets do back up. I never said they as in individuals are not Christian. I agree with the North Ireland RP Church statement, individuals locked in that despotic system can and do come to a saving faith in Christ. First, what I said was as an organization or (institution) I do not (Note the I as in IMO) consider the RC Church to be a Christian Church. People in the RC Church may be Christian. That is also the position of ALL the Historic Protestant Confessions from Ausburg forward. ALL Protestants, ALL PROTESTANTS, to be protestant must affirm Justification by Faith ALONE!!! This means that I find silly the idiocy of current Pauline studies. You know this as I twice gave you the link and Reference to my Greek Profs. Refutation of Tom Wright's idea of the Righteousness of God, once as a BC post and once as a private link to use as a reference for one of your papers.

So if anyone needs to comeback into the fold it is you. Please don't be ashamed of your Protestant Heritage! Come back just a little; you are better than that!


Here is the point. If someone or some institution ("church") does not believe in Justification by Faith Alone then they do not understand the Gospel!! AND THEY ARE NOT PROTESTANT! Period. Therefore, they need to hear the true Gospel Proclaimed! Hence my comment pertaining to a mission field.

This was and is the Testimony of ALL Protestant Churches including yours!


9. We believe that justification is the gracious and judicial act of God by which He grants full pardon of all guilt and complete release from the penalty of sins committed, and acceptance as righteous, to all who believe on Jesus Christ and receive Him as Lord and Savior.

Ben, while we have both in the past, in jest called each others "Theology" Nuts. I also know that below the surface we each, to a certain degree actually find each others "Theology" disdainful. You have been clear about that on numerous occasions. I refrain from commenting on you Process Stuff as I only have a superficial understanding. What I have read does seem to border on the blasphemous, but since I really don't have a solid grasp of it i don't engage with it. I know enough to know that Process is not compatible with my hermeneutic, my reading of Scripture and most significantly my understanding in the Sovereignty of God. But you are calling me Prideful and Arrogant and calling the magisterial protestant Reformers crazies!? That is uncalled for and the height of Prideful Arrogance. Your ability to argue you point was paid for in Protestant Reformer blood! Else you'd be in a Top down system that said believe this or perish!

I rarely say this due to the OT connotations but here it is warranted you are being foolish.

Blessings
George

[Benjamin Burch]

Maybe you're in between classes like me and just aren't reading my statements thoroughly or maybe I haven't been clear. So lets do back up. I never said they as in individuals are not Christian. I agree with the North Ireland RP Church statement, individuals locked in that despotic system can and do come to a saving faith in Christ. First, what I said was as an organization or (institution) I do not (Note the I as in IMO) consider the RC Church to be a Christian Church. People in the RC Church may be Christian. That is also the position of ALL the Historic Protestant Confessions from Ausburg forward. ALL Protestants, ALL PROTESTANTS, to be protestant must affirm Justification by Faith ALONE!!! This means that I find silly the idiocy of current Pauline studies. You know this as I twice gave you the link and Reference to my Greek Profs. Refutation of Tom Wright's idea of the Righteousness of God, once as a BC post and once as a private link to use as a reference for one of your papers.

So if anyone needs to comeback into the fold it is you. Please don't be ashamed of your Protestant Heritage! Come back just a little; you are better than that!


Here is the point. If someone or some institution ("church") does not believe in Justification by Faith Alone then they do not understand the Gospel!! AND THEY ARE NOT PROTESTANT! Period. Therefore, they need to hear the true Gospel Proclaimed! Hence my comment pertaining to a mission field.

This was and is the Testimony of ALL Protestant Churches including yours!



Ben, while we have both in the past, in jest called each others "Theology" Nuts. I also know that below the surface we each, to a certain degree actually find each others "Theology" disdainful. You have been clear about that on numerous occasions. I refrain from commenting on you Process Stuff as I only have a superficial understanding. What I have read does seem to border on the blasphemous, but since I really don't have a solid grasp of it i don't engage with it. I know enough to know that Process is not compatible with my hermeneutic, my reading of Scripture and most significantly my understanding in the Sovereignty of God. But you are calling me Prideful and Arrogant and calling the magisterial protestant Reformers crazies!? That is uncalled for and the height of Prideful Arrogance. Your ability to argue you point was paid for in Protestant Reformer blood! Else you'd be in a Top down system that said believe this or perish!

I rarely say this due to the OT connotations but here it is warranted you are being foolish.

Blessings
George


No. I'm sorry. Saying that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are true Churches, always have been, always will be, and that to assert otherwise out of our own limited perspective in a way that elevates us over them as the only "true Church" is prideful and arrogant is not prideful and arrogant. Lol.

It's also not foolish. We can't say they're all three true Churches? I simply do not understand that.

We've essentially cut out the trunk of tradition and said "Well, when I read the Bible I read it well enough to discount the other guys who stand as the trunk of the tree I claim to be a part of."

That's crazy, prideful, and arrogant all in one. Like I said, I love you to death, but a spade is a spade.

Also, Wright's version of the New Perspective is hardly the only one and his idea of "The Righteousness of God" is hardly the crux of current Pauline interpretation. He outlines this pretty well in his introduction to Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision

The attempt to use his reading or J.D.G. Dunn's reading as normative misses all the other work being done in the field as a whole, be it Martyn, Watson, Campbell, Donaldson, Longenecker, Hays, Gorman, Daniels, etc.

P.S. I have no problem with "Faith alone." I have a problem with the understanding of Faith inherent in Protestant confessions. I think it sorely misses the mark.

[John Brickley]

Again I do not, absolutely do not, view the statements as arrogant. I will say that I was on a class break trying to type quickly when I wrote this and probably could have phrased it more clearly. Somehow I am sure you will still find it inappropriate. So, for clarity sake lumping the EO and RC together is not always a good idea. So I will say that much of EO Doctrine is not as aberrant as that of the RC, but really at this point that is just nuance. Also, make no mistake about it I have never said, that they are not or cannot be Christians. I don’t save people. I don’t determine who is saved. The Triune work of God saves people. What I said is that I see NO Gospel, No Good News as I understand it, in most of their Theology.

I do emphatically insist that without Justification by Faith Alone there is no Gospel. PERIOD! So I see them as a mission field, call them a familiar mission field if you like, but still a mission field. I believe that they are wrong on Cardinal points of the Gospel, as added in my edit earlier I believe that Protestant Reformation was absolutely a move of God in reclaiming His Church, so I cannot in good conscience give that up and practice some Rodney King “Why can’t we all just get along” form of Christianity. The ability you and I have to discuss, debate and disagree about our Protestant Christian Faith is and was a hard fought Victory. You seem to forget that those in the RC have no such luxury. So was there a reason for Reformation or not? Either you are Protestant or you are not!

Zat Simple.


I.The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

Blessings
George

Before it is asked. Yes I do believe the Pope to be anti-christ. Not in some Tim Lahye Left Behind premil dispo sense; but since the Pope Claims to be THE vicar of Christ on Earth - I consider that the Pope's claim as usurpation of Christ Throne, that makes the Pope an Impostor king and antichrist.

Wow, George, this conversation is getting very sad. The only thing I have left to say in this matter is to quote from a theologian (from your tradition) who has been as influential to me and my theology as anyone. In The Mediation of Christ T.F. Torrance shared the following about a tour that he took of Jerusalem:


Then by design the guide brought us at the end to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and to Calvary, the spot where, as far as can be determined, or near which, Jesus was crucified. My wife and I knelt with the other pilgrims in silence, awe and prayer, while our Israeli guide stood back a little, waiting. As we came away he took me aside and said he could never understand why Christians were divided at that place. I stood rooted to the ground, appalled and overcome with shame. I do not think I had ever before realized with such force the blasphemy against the blood of Christ which we perpetuate by our divisions in the Christian Church... That state of affairs at Calvary indicates the fearful wound which we have inflicted by our divisions upon the Church which is the Body of Christ.

God addressed to me through our Israeli guide a word that is mutely mediated to us everywhere through the Jews. How can we Christians claim to proclaim atoning reconciliation through the Cross of Christ when we contradict it by refusing to be reconciled with one another or to allow reconciliation through the body and blood of the Saviour to be translated into our church divisions? And how can we in that condition bear witness to the Jews about Jesus Christ as the Mediator of reconciliation with God, for what we do shouts down what we say?... Only when the deepest schism of all is healed in the body of the one people of God and His Christ, will it be possible for the Gospel of the atoning love of God, by which he makes even the wrath of man to praise him, to be proclaimed, to be believed, and to take root in all the peoples and nations of mankind.

The extent to which with your words and your thoughts you not only support but perhaps even deepen the deepest schism of all, truly saddens me.

[George Wallace]

It's also not foolish. We can't say they're all three true Churches? I simply do not understand that.

Then you don't know what it means to be Protestant. You just enjoy the benefits the Reformers secured for you while discounting everything they stand for. Typical of Contemporary Christianity and very sad! No there is only one true Church; always has been only one and always will be only one.


We've essentially cut out the trunk of tradition and said "Well, when I read the Bible I read it well enough to discount the other guys who stand as the trunk of the tree I claim to be a part of."

I guess we are just talking passed each other because the above IS exactly what I believe you are doing. Doesn't it bother you that you are jettisoning everything that Protestantism stands for? Don't you realize that the position you hold is basically brand new and NO PROTESTANT ever viewed his Christianity that way until very recently.


That's crazy, prideful, and arrogant all in one. Like I said, I love you to death, but a spade is a spade.

You are either Protestant or you are not!

Blessings
Protestant George

Isn't it funny how when I used to sign off with Reformed George some thought it offensive; now even being Courageously Protestant is offensive. Oh well, Paul said it that the Gospel is foolishness.

[George Wallace]

Wow, George, this conversation is getting very sad. The only thing I have left to say in this matter is to quote from a theologian (from your tradition) who has been as influential to me and my theology as anyone. In The Mediation of Christ T.F. Torrance shared the following about a tour that he took of Jerusalem:



The extent to which with your words and your thoughts you not only support but perhaps even deepen the deepest schism of all, truly saddens me.

Torrance is a Barthian! He is not from my tradition! Barthian thought and neo-orthodoxy are perversions of the Reformed Faith.

Allow me to quote a Reformed Theologian


The way to preserve the peace of the church is to preserve its purity.
Matthew Henry

And the not so Reformed


3. For all this is no more than a dead faith. The true, living, Christian faith, which whosoever hath, is born of God, is not only an assent, an act of the understanding; but a disposition, which God hath wrought in his heart; "a sure trust and confidence in God, that, through the merits of Christ, his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favor of God." This implies, that a man first renounce himself; that, in order to be "found in Christ," to be accepted through him, he totally rejects all "confidence in the flesh;" that, "having nothing to pay," having no trust in his own works or righteousness of any kind, he comes to God as a lost, miserable, self-destroyed, self-condemned, undone, helpless sinner; as one whose mouth is utterly stopped, and who is altogether "guilty before God." Such a sense of sin, (commonly called despair, by those who speak evil of the things they know not,) together with a full conviction, such as no words can express, that of Christ only cometh our salvation, and an earnest desire of that salvation, must precede a living faith, a trust in Him, who "for us paid our ransom by his death, and fulfilled the law of his life." This faith then, whereby we are born of God, is "not only a belief of all the articles of our faith, but also a true confidence of the mercy of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ." John Wesley

Both Men quoted above were Protestant Christians.

Blessings
George

[Benjamin Burch]

Then you don't know what it means to be Protestant. You just enjoy the benefits the Reformers secured for you while discounting everything they stand for. Typical of Contemporary Christianity and very sad! No there is only one true Church; always has been only one and always will be only one.



I guess we are just talking passed each other because the above IS exactly what I believe you are doing. Doesn't it bother you that you are jettisoning everything that Protestantism stands for? Don't you realize that the position you hold is basically brand new and NO PROTESTANT ever viewed his Christianity that way until very recently.



You are either Protestant or you are not!

Blessings
Protestant George

Isn't it funny how when I used to sign off with Reformed George some thought it offensive; now even being Courageously Protestant is offensive. Oh well, Paul said it that the Gospel is foolishness.

Yes, lol. Paul did. And we've done a marvelous job of twisting it to mean what we want it to mean. It's foolishness because in it we profess that to save one's life they must lose it and pick up their cross - just as Christ did.

Anyways...

Being Protestant is first and foremost a return to the primacy of Scripture - and an attempt to get rid of what we've been taught and test it by Scriptures.

Sadly, the reformed "confessional" Churches are the best at no longer doing this. Instead, they answer to tradition and how it has read the Scriptures. The most faithful here are the Liberal Protestants. They go to Scripture and in so doing have tended to find a few things:

- Scripture is hardly inerrant
- Scripture doesn't always agree with Scripture
- We therefore need a unifying hermeneutic and this is where Tradition (Early Church, Creeds, Councils) are most helpful
- The more we learn about the Bible the more we learn the Earliest Greek thinkers had a lot of things right and we began messing some stuff up in the Reformation, though the Reformation was necessary given the contemporary state of the Catholic Church
- I think Calvin and Luther would urge the same approach and would end up with these folks, not with the "Confessional" folks.

That is what it means to be Protestant - to go back to Scripture in spite of any "tradition" - and N.T. Wright has said as much in multiple places.
Luckily we've found that the earliest theology had the most important stuff terribly correct. Such as the central theme of atonement being Christus Victor and our participation in that.

[John Brickley]

Torrance is a Barthian! He is not from my tradition! Barthian thought and neo-orthodoxy are perversions of the Reformed Faith.

Allow me to quote a Reformed Theologian



And the not so Reformed



Both Men quoted above were Protestant Christians.

Blessings
George

Since he's not from "your" tradition (funny I thought you were a presbyterian which Torrance was) that automatically discounts what he says huh??? Wow, you just keep digging don't you? :smilies0161::smilies0161::smilies0161:

It is interesting to me how much importance you place on being a Protestant as if that is your identity in Christ. I don't recall Jesus call us to be protestants, he called to be His followers, and while it may be of utmost importance to you to be called Protestant (especially since you get to define what that means), for me it is enough to be called Christ's.

You seem intent reinforcing the schisms within the body of Christ, which is something I have no interest in being a part of so I am bowing out of this conversation. Its really been sad.

[George Wallace]

Anyways...
Being Protestant is first and foremost a return to the primacy of Scripture - and an attempt to get rid of what we've been taught and test it by Scriptures. .

That is half of the point or Sola Scriptura The Formal Principle of the Protestant Reformation.

You missed the other half Sola Fide The Material Principle of the Reformation


Sadly, the reformed "confessional" Churches are the best at no longer doing this.

No the Reformation Church has always followed Reformata et semper Reformanda
But certain things do not need to be reformed! Most all Doctrines are to be held humbly but not loosely. Like Luther they say Here I Stand, if persuaded by Scripture I’ll recant.


Instead, they answer to tradition and how it has read the Scriptures. The most faithful here are the Liberal Protestants. They go to Scripture and in so doing have tended to find a few things:

No Liberal Protestant place Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Biology … Ad infinitum on par with or Superior to Scripture and many deny Cardinal Doctrines of the Faith. Over 60% of Ordained PCUSA ministers do not believe in the exclusivity of Christ in Salvation. The PCUSA and the ELCA are absolutely hemorrhaging members and Congregations. I put little faith in numbers especially as pertinent to Market Driven Church growth but when you see the gushing geyser of members and congregations….. Well, it makes you wonder?


- Scripture is hardly inerrant.
No Scripture is fully inerrant


- Scripture doesn't always agree with Scripture.

No Scripture never Contradicts Scripture


- We therefore need a unifying hermeneutic and this is where Tradition (Early Church, Creeds, Councils) are most helpful.

I have a unifying hermeneutic The Grammatico-Historical method under-girded by Covenant Theology.


- The more we learn about the Bible the more we learn the Earliest Greek thinkers had a lot of things right and we began messing some stuff up in the Reformation, though the Reformation was necessary given the contemporary state of the Catholic Church.

That’s what the Reformers did! The skipped over the Scholastics re-embraced the original languages and reclaimed the early Gospel. Not my fault you stubbornly refuse to see that.


- I think Calvin and Luther would urge the same approach and would end up with these folks, not with the "Confessional" folks.

Well until the resurrection I guess we won’t know what a deceased person “would" have done, and maybe not even then. But, based upon their writings, legacy and input to the original Confessions, I highly doubt that the Reformers would side with Liberal Theology. Think snowball, in Miami, in July!


That is what it means to be Protestant - to go back to Scripture in spite of any "tradition" - and N.T. Wright has said as much in multiple places. Luckily we've found that the earliest theology had the most important stuff terribly correct. Such as the central theme of atonement being Christus Victor and our participation in that.

I am glad Christ was Victorious also, but Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a primary part of the Gospel. Lucky you don’t have to have a handle on the why and how, but only the who!

Seriously, you might find Warfield’s Plan of Salvation interesting even if you do not always agree.

Part One (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/WarfieldPlan01.html)
Part Two (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/WarfieldPlan02.html)
Part Three (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/WarfieldPlan03.html)
Part Four (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/WarfieldPlan04.html)
Part Five (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/WarfieldPlan05.html)

Also helpful is John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied (http://www.amazon.com/Redemption-Accomplished-Applied-John-Murray/dp/0802811434)

With Murray you gotta be careful about his Covenant Theology but here he is solid.
Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

Since he's not from "your" tradition (funny I thought you were a presbyterian which Torrance was) that automatically discounts what he says huh??? Wow, you just keep digging don't you? :smilies0161::smilies0161::smilies0161:

Well, there are a bunch of different flavors of Presbyterian. In fact you are a Presbyterian! That is Presbyterianism is just at the core the subscribed form of Church government. The Church of the Nazarene holds to a modified (and really only slightly) form of Presbyterian Church government. And you and I probably have about as much in common theologically as I do and my form of Presbyterianism does with Torrance. We don’t even study Barth except for refutation purposes, nor would any Christian of the Reformed Faith. We are not Neo-orthodox. A pastor can be removed from office for propagating such nonsense. Just like some have become enamored with the New Perspectives. If they refuse to repent then they are also removed from office in Ecclesiastical Court in similar fashion to Nazarene Presbyterian government. What is now The PCUSA is not even remotely reformed. Here are those denominations which haven't jumped the shark in North America NAPARC (http://www.naparc.org/) and Elsewhere ICRC (httphttp://www.icrconline.com/://)



It is interesting to me how much importance you place on being a Protestant as if that is your identity in Christ. I don't recall Jesus call us to be protestants, he called to be His followers, and while it may be of utmost importance to you to be called Protestant (especially since you get to define what that means), for me it is enough to be called Christ's.

That is because the early church, although still working out the Faith was not the quagmire of Corruption that the RC Church became and is. Ask Mary while you are in purgatory she'll tell you!

If you feel, as I do, that the Protestant Reformation was God’s means of Gospel rescued then how else would I feel? Being Protestant is being Christian!

Post Tenebras Lux


You seem intent reinforcing the schisms within the body of Christ, which is something I have no interest in being a part of so I am bowing out of this conversation. Its really been sad.

No the RC Church and others are the ones who reinforce Schism. If they would simply accept the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone as ALL TRUE PROTESTANTS have, then there would be Unity. (Along with jettisoning a bunch of satanic doctrine, but that’s another Oprah)

No there was and is a reason for the Reformation. I will not be bound to an Ecumenism that costs the heart of the finished work of Christ! Ain’t happening!

To read your words I guess then there was never a reason for martyrdom? So what about all those Protestants who are and were in fact persecuted for their Protestantism their Protestant Christian Faith? Waddya say, oops sucks to be you! Much fuss over nothing! Sorry, but you guys were wrong.

Ask Arminius’ about his family and say that there is no difference between Protestants and Catholics! You think he’d be singing “We are Family I got all my sister with me…

PLEASE!

Man up and stand for something!

Is there nothing you won't compromise on?

Blessings
George

[John Brickley]

Well, there are a bunch of different flavors of Presbyterian. In fact you are a Presbyterian! That is Presbyterianism is just at the core the subscribed form of Church government. The Church of the Nazarene holds to a modified (and really only slightly) form of Presbyterian Church government. And you and I probably have about as much in common theologically as I do and my form of Presbyterianism does with Torrance. We don’t even study Barth except for refutation purposes, nor would any Christian of the Reformed Faith. We are not Neo-orthodox. A pastor can be removed from office for propagating such nonsense. Just like some have become enamored with the New Perspectives. If they refuse to repent then they are also removed from office in Ecclesiastical Court in similar fashion to Nazarene Presbyterian government. What is now The PCUSA is not even remotely reformed. Here are those denominations which haven't jumped the shark in North America NAPARC (http://www.naparc.org/) and Elsewhere ICRC (httphttp://www.icrconline.com/://)




That is because the early church, although still working out the Faith was not the quagmire of Corruption that the RC Church became and is. Ask Mary while you are in purgatory she'll tell you!

If you feel, as I do, that the Protestant Reformation was God’s means of Gospel rescued then how else would I feel? Being Protestant is being Christian!

Post Tenebras Lux



No the RC Church and others are the ones who reinforce Schism. If they would simply accept the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone as ALL TRUE PROTESTANTS have, then there would be Unity. (Along with jettisoning a bunch of satanic doctrine, but that’s another Oprah)

No there was and is a reason for the Reformation. I will not be bound to an Ecumenism that costs the heart of the finished work of Christ! Ain’t happening!

To read your words I guess then there was never a reason for martyrdom? So what about all those Protestants who are and were in fact persecuted for their Protestantism their Protestant Christian Faith? Waddya say, oops sucks to be you! Much fuss over nothing! Sorry, but you guys were wrong.

Ask Arminius’ about his family and say that there is no difference between Protestants and Catholics! You think he’d be singing “We are Family I got all my sister with me…

PLEASE!

Man up and stand for something!

Is there nothing you won't compromise on?

Blessings
George

George,

As I said, I am done with this conversation. There is no point in conversing when someone is the source of their own authority and is absolutely convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong. So I leave you to your position. It is a sad one and lonely one, but it is yours.

[Benjamin Burch]

That is half of the point or Sola Scriptura The Formal Principle of the Protestant Reformation.

You missed the other half Sola Fide The Material Principle of the Reformation

Only because, in their reading, their understanding of Sola Fide was found in Scripture. However, when that no longer flows from the Formal Principle, the material principle must change. That is staying true to the Formal Principle and therefore to the heart of the Protestant tradition itself.



No the Reformation Church has always followed Reformata et semper Reformanda
But certain things do not need to be reformed! Most all Doctrines are to be held humbly but not loosely. Like Luther they say Here I Stand, if persuaded by Scripture I’ll recant.

That is incredibly untrue. "do not need to be reformed" does not come from an "objective" reading of Scripture... but a reading of Scripture deeply imbedded and indebted to Reformed Confessional Tradition. It is not open to being "persuaded by Scripture."

Because, when the attempt is made (Barth, Torrence, Wright, etc), the battle cry is sounded and they come back to defend good, confessional, Reformed theology. Just read Piper's The Future of Justification.

One is not allowed to read Scripture differently than the Reformers did if it causes them to reform the Reformers' doctrines. It's all based in "magisterial" tradition. It is the antithesis of the Protestant Spirit.



No Liberal Protestant place Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Biology … Ad infinitum on par with or Superior to Scripture and many deny Cardinal Doctrines of the Faith. Over 60% of Ordained PCUSA ministers do not believe in the exclusivity of Christ in Salvation. The PCUSA and the ELCA are absolutely hemorrhaging members and Congregations. I put little faith in numbers especially as pertinent to Market Driven Church growth but when you see the gushing geyser of members and congregations….. Well, it makes you wonder?

Because the imperfect, "guide" nature of Scripture and what we've learned about Scripture by STARTING with "Scripture alone" has led us to realize that "Scripture alone" is not good enough and it invites us to engage the other avenues of thought.



No Scripture is fully inerrant

Says your tradition and the way your tradition has taught you to read certain verses of the Bible. Sounds like "Tradition" more than "Sola Scriptura"



No Scripture never Contradicts Scripture


See above. It's funny, "Sola Scriptura" relies as heavily on Philosophy as Process Theology does. Yet... it claims not to.



That’s what the Reformers did! The skipped over the Scholastics re-embraced the original languages and reclaimed the early Gospel. Not my fault you stubbornly refuse to see that.

Uh, except they didn't "reclaim the early Gospel." Instead, they came up with Penal Substitution which is absent in the Early Fathers. Odd. They recovered Augustine's theology and hardened it with their own Philosophical ideas which were generated by the sociological structures and thought of their day. Sounds kinda like Scholasticism.

This whole "sola Scriptura" thing is a nice fantasy. But it's exactly that. Fantasy. Just because it is a nice one doesn't make it "correct." It's still fantasy.

[Shea Zellweger]

Then you don't know what it means to be Protestant. You just enjoy the benefits the Reformers secured for you while discounting everything they stand for. Typical of Contemporary Christianity and very sad! No there is only one true Church; always has been only one and always will be only one.

1) We are not Protestant on any of the grounds that you are Protestant. Our "protestant" tradition began with a king's desire to divorce his wife, not on any theological grounds. From there, the Methodists were effectively forced out of the Anglican church, and the Church of the Nazarene left the Methodist Church because it had apparently left its roots. At no point were Lutheran or Calvinist ideas at play in our departure from Rome.
2) What you claim is NOT "everything the Reformers stood for." Luther did not want to be separated from Rome, he wanted Rome to change (which they have been doing ever since, starting with the Counter-Reformation). Other reformers were of a similar mind. You describe an anti-Roman sentiment which was far more common among the later reformers than among those who began the movement.
3) There is indeed only one true church. Its membership just happens to be a bit more inclusive than you care to recognize.




I guess we are just talking passed each other because the above IS exactly what I believe you are doing. Doesn't it bother you that you are jettisoning everything that Protestantism stands for? Don't you realize that the position you hold is basically brand new and NO PROTESTANT ever viewed his Christianity that way until very recently.

Which position? The non-PS view of salvation? That's existed as long as protestantism's been around. Universal Atonement? I can trace that back to the roots of the Reformation as well. That Catholics are Christians? Again, plenty of protestants, both laity and clergy alike, have held that view. Apart from Process Theology, I have not encountered a single position of Ben's which does not have its root in both the Protestant tradition and in other traditions as well, and something tells me Process Theology is not the topic of conversation here.



You are either Protestant or you are not!

Okay then, I'm not.

[George Wallace]

1) We are not Protestant on any of the grounds that you are Protestant. Our "protestant" tradition began with a king's desire to divorce his wife, not on any theological grounds. From there, the Methodists were effectively forced out of the Anglican church, and the Church of the Nazarene left the Methodist Church because it had apparently left its roots. At no point were Lutheran or Calvinist ideas at play in our departure from Rome.
2) What you claim is NOT "everything the Reformers stood for." Luther did not want to be separated from Rome, he wanted Rome to change (which they have been doing ever since, starting with the Counter-Reformation). Other reformers were of a similar mind. You describe an anti-Roman sentiment which was far more common among the later reformers than among those who began the movement.
3) There is indeed only one true church. Its membership just happens to be a bit more inclusive than you care to recognize.

You are absolutely correct as you have it stated. But the statement is a bit misleading, not a lot just a bit. Henry’s departure was not “really” for Doctrinal reasons, he did not depart over true theological error. His reasons as you stated were more personal and during his time His C of E was just a defacto RC Church wrenched from Rome and given to Canterbury. You are correct when you say that “At no point were Lutheran or Calvinist ideas at play in our departure from Rome.” Those theologies did not have anything to do with Henry’s divorce. But that statement leaves me with the impression that you want folks to believe that those theologies did not impact the C of E. That is false. I could be reading more into what you said. I know you are aware of the Early version of the BCP 1552? and the 39 Articles, and the Lambeth Articles, and the 42 Articles of the Reformed Episcopal Church.1860s

You are right none of the Magisterial Reformers wanted a new Church they wanted a re-formed Church. Rome is the schematic entity.

You are also right about the one true church and I am sure it has RC, and others in it, God is truly gracious in spite of their pernicious error. But the entities as institutions do not preach the true Gospel, therefore it is error to affirm that they do.


Which position? The non-PS view of salvation? That's existed as long as protestantism's been around. Universal Atonement? I can trace that back to the roots of the Reformation as well. That Catholics are Christians? Again, plenty of protestants, both laity and clergy alike, have held that view. Apart from Process Theology, I have not encountered a single position of Ben's which does not have its root in both the Protestant tradition and in other traditions as well, and something tells me Process Theology is not the topic of conversation here.

Sorry, if I wasn’t clear. I thought we had effectively dealt with PS. It is not compatible with Wesleyan theology. Two years ago I had a discussion with Kevin Rector in which I implied that it was, frankly at that time I did not truly understand the difference between Penal Substitution and Substitution. Now I do understand and I thought I was reasonably clear there. I was specially engaging Ben about Justification by Faith Alone pertaining to its necessity in Protestant theology. I never said Roman Catholics are not Christians. I said the Roman Catholic Church is NOT a Christian Church. If it is/was then there would be no reason to remain divided. If it were a Christian Church then we should all stop being Nazarenes and Baptist and Presbyterians and just dive into Rome, or at least swim the Bosporus. .[/QUOTE]


Okay then, I'm not.

Finally, some honesty! But I don’t really believe that. I believe that you do believe in Justification by Faith Alone. I think you just don’t want to exclude those who don’t. That is just error, confusion and arrogance.

We all get like that at times.

Blessings
George

[Rich Schmidt]

When did this become its own thread? :)

[Benjamin Burch]

I was specially engaging Ben about Justification by Faith Alone pertaining to its necessity in Protestant theology. I never said Roman Catholics are not Christians. I said the Roman Catholic Church is NOT a Christian Church. If it is/was then there would be no reason to remain divided. If it were a Christian Church then we should all stop being Nazarenes and Baptist and Presbyterians and just dive into Rome, or at least swim the Bosporus. .

Or we could just accept that we're all broken and that the only need for separate churches is all peripheral issues.

For instance, Justification by Faith Alone is only an issue in two books of the New Testament. One of them is rather short, too. Maybe it's more peripheral than we think? Maybe it's as peripheral as the Greek Theologians throughout the first 5 centuries thought it was?

Maybe the only reason I'm NOT a Catholic is that Process Theology isn't quite as welcome there and that I'll find a more happy home in The Church of the Nazarene, the United Methodist Church, or the Episcopalian Church.

But trust me, George. I've got my trunks on and I've been training for two years now. In a few years now I may be ready to jump into the Atlantic and start swimming back.

Or, what's more...

Maybe we believe that the Scriptures teach quite plainly that "faith" is active and action, and is itself "works" for lack of a better word. Maybe we think that when Paul spoke of "works of the law" he literally meant following the decalogue and dietary laws as well as circumcision. Maybe Paul meant that THAT was not the way to salvation, but a "way" initiated, evidenced, and made possible by Christ.

Thus, Justification by Faith Alone is a belief that ultimately the RCC and the Orthodox Church hold to, it's just that we as protestants understand it poorly (wrong?).

Maybe We are Protestant because we do believe in Scripture Alone as the primary and first grounds of doing theology and we find a lack of reason to hold to some of the ideas that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches do.... so we are separate... even though we find those issues peripheral.

There are many ways and reasons to be Protestant without believing there is something at stake in the Gospel.

Now, maybe it's all evidence of our brokenness. I'll accept that.

[Benjamin Burch]

When did this become its own thread? :)

A little while ago. I had to delete some posts, have Shea separate a post, and then make two new posts and merge them. It was a lot of work but I think it was worth it and will make both discussions more fruitful.

[Shea Zellweger]

But that statement leaves me with the impression that you want folks to believe that those theologies did not impact the C of E. That is false. I could be reading more into what you said. I know you are aware of the Early version of the BCP 1552? and the 39 Articles, and the Lambeth Articles, and the 42 Articles of the Reformed Episcopal Church.1860s
And the Nazarene Articles of Faith... yes, you've traced the supposed heritage before. I think the C of E knew what it was doing when it excluded certain key Reformed claims (some of them subsequently reinserted by the REC). I also think the C of E knew what it was doing when it did not expel the Anglo-Catholics from its fellowship.


You are also right about the one true church and I am sure it has RC, and others in it, God is truly gracious in spite of their pernicious error. But the entities as institutions do not preach the true Gospel, therefore it is error to affirm that they do.
The True Gospel as proclaimed by whom? The true Gospel according to my reading is that Christ died, once for all, yet you have claimed Christ did not die for all. My reading says that we are free to choose Christ, and yours does not. Mine and yours both state that grace precedes faith- something which is played out intricately in Roman Catholic theology. Last I checked, Vatican II concluded that the non-RC denominations are not heretics, and therefore there is salvation apart from Rome, which would indicate to me that these folks are much closer to the belief in salvation by grace through faith than you give them credit for.




Finally, some honesty! But I don’t really believe that. I believe that you do believe in Justification by Faith Alone. I think you just don’t want to exclude those who don’t. That is just error, confusion and arrogance.

No, I believe in Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone, and that Grace precedes Faith. I also believe that for those who do not receive the Gospel, faith in Christ is not a soteriological necessity. I further believe that the Catholic message of salvation is in fact orthodox.

[George Wallace]

George,

As I said, I am done with this conversation. There is no point in conversing when someone is the source of their own authority and is absolutely convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong. So I leave you to your position. It is a sad one and lonely one, but it is yours.

No if you were truly done you’d just drop it. I am not my own source of authority nor am I convinced that I am absolutely right on everything. Here I am just firmly convinced that Justification by Faith Alone is truly part of the Gospel. The RC Church does not believe or teach Justification by Faith Alone; therefore they teach a different Gospel. I would refer you to Galatians Chapter 1. Thus the RC Church does not preach the true Gospel and in not a Christian Church. Like it or not that is THE Protestant position, has been for almost 500 years, it doesn’t matter if you are Lutheran, Baptist, Nazarene or Reformed. It’s been going strong since 1517! It is not “my” position it is THE Protestant position. It’s not sad it is glorious, to worship with brothers and sister in the faith without (or with minutely little) strife and division! No Big Top Circus Christianity, why can’t we get along crap. We are truly brothers. It is not Sad it is vibrant and fresh and we worship with Reverence and Awe in Spirit and Truth!

Take an hour and read the Westminster Confession of Faith that is a faithful summary of the Christian Faith as we understand it. No time? Take 20 minutes and read the Westminster Shorter Catechism that will help you understand Protestant Christianity. Too Reformed? Then read Wesley’s edited or abridged version, which will help you understand Wesleyan Protestant Christianity.

It is not Lonely. There are NAPARC and ICRC Churches as I have already stated, to them I would also ad many others who are not part of these associations such as the Bible Presbyterian church since they no longer allow a premil dispo view. To them I would add FIRE the Fellowship of Reformed Evangelicals, Sovereign Grace Ministries, The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Reformed Baptists, Evangelical Anglicans and the list goes on and on… Even Nazarenes who embrace Justification by Faith Alone. My position is not nearly as exclusive as you have claimed in your “I’m not done, I’m done” statement.

Blessings
George

[Dale Cozby]

I'm also sad that at this point George I have to understand that you see me as a mission field. Ben you aren't a mission field to George. Don't you already know that a Sovereign God has already decided what sins you will commit and whether He will forgive them or not is totally up to Him and him alone.

Why pray for you, or work on your beliefs or actions...God has already decided before the creation of the world you are going to hell ...uh or heaven by His own Sovereign will.

You my friend are the product of FATE(aka Divine Providence) alone. :smilies1722:
there is no freedom or freewill...just predestined response.

So all this talk is really a mute point.

[George Wallace]

Ben you aren't a mission field to George. Don't you already know that a Sovereign God has already decided what sins you will commit and whether He will forgive them or not is totally up to Him and him alone.

Why pray for you, or work on your beliefs or actions...God has already decided before the creation of the world you are going to hell ...uh or heaven by His own Sovereign will.

You my friend are the product of FATE(aka Divine Providence) alone. :smilies1722:
there is no freedom or freewill...just predestined response.

So all this talk is really a mute point.

Of course Dale that is all just an un or misinformed caricature. All the Protestant Confessions affirm Free will.

Westminster normally Affirmed by the Scots and some Brits.
Chapter IX Of Free Will
I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.
II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.
III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.
V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.

Belgic normally affirmed by the Dutch
Article 14: The Creation and Fall of Man
We believe that God created man from the dust of the earth and made and formed him in his image and likeness-- good, just, and holy; able by his own will to conform in all things to the will of God.
But when he was in honor he did not understand it^21 and did not recognize his excellence. But he subjected himself willingly to sin and consequently to death and the curse, lending his ear to the word of the devil.
For he transgressed the commandment of life, which he had received, and by his sin he separated himself from God, who was his true life, having corrupted his entire nature.
So he made himself guilty and subject to physical and spiritual death, having become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways. He lost all his excellent gifts which he had received from God, and he retained none of them except for small traces which are enough to make him inexcusable.
Moreover, all the light in us is turned to darkness, as the Scripture teaches us: "The light shone in the darkness, and the darkness did not receive it."^22 Here John calls men "darkness."
Therefore we reject everything taught to the contrary concerning man's free will, since man is nothing but the slave of sin and cannot do a thing unless it is "given him from heaven."^23
For who can boast of being able to do anything good by himself, since Christ says, "No one can come to me unless my Father who sent me draws him"?^24
Who can glory in his own will when he understands that "the mind of the flesh is enmity against God"?^25 Who can speak of his own knowledge in view of the fact that "the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God"?^26
In short, who can produce a single thought, since he knows that we are "not able to think a thing" about ourselves, by ourselves, but that "our ability is from God"?^27
And therefore, what the apostle says ought rightly to stand fixed and firm: "God works within us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure."^28
For there is no understanding nor will conforming to God's understanding and will apart from Christ's involvement, as he teaches us when he says, "Without me you can do nothing."^29
^21 Ps. 49:20 ^22 John 1:5 ^23 John 3:27 ^24 John 6:44 ^25 Rom. 8:7 ^26 1 Cor. 2:14 ^27 2 Cor. 3:5 ^28 Phil. 2:13 ^29 John 15:5

Baptist (Basically a repeat of Westminster)
CHAPTER 9 OF FREE WILL
Paragraph 1. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.1
1 Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19
Paragraph 2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God,2 but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.3
2 Eccles. 7:29
3 Gen. 3:6
Paragraph 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;4 so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin,5 is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.6
4 Rom. 5:6, 8:7
5 Eph. 2:1,5
6 Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44
Paragraph 4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin,7 and by His grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;8 yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he does not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.9
7 Col. 1:13; John 8:36
8 Phil. 2:13
9 Rom. 7:15,18,19,21,23
Paragraph 5. This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in
the state of glory only.10
10 Eph. 4:13

Ausburg or Lutheran
Article XVIII: Of Free Will.
Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2,14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. "Evil" I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc.
They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.

Anglican
Article X: Of Free-Will
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

Article XI: Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

I include Article 11 because that is what we were discussing - Justification. Not the Free Will of Man nor God’s Sovereignty in salvation.

One does not need be Reformed to believe in Justification by Faith Alone, just Protestant. Wesley and Arminius prove that.

Isn’t God’s Grace truly Amazing!

Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

Ben, based upon you following post from another thread:


Word and Sacrament.

I don't care if it's on a boat. I don't care if you sing hymns or heavy metal. I don't care if you do indian rain dances for Jesus. I don't care if you ditched church worship to go feed the poor on Sunday morning.

But the Body of Christ practices unity and celebrates unity together in Christ on the Lord's Day. Unity is ultimately accomplished, celebrated, and practiced as we gather in unity around the Table.

Do you believe that The Roman Church practices the Sacraments aright?

Do you believe that they use the Word aright?

Like say their "holy" Scripture of 2 Maccabees 15:38

If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.


Blessings
George

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, based upon you following post from another thread:



Do you believe that The Roman Church practices the Sacraments aright?

Do you believe that they use the Word aright?

Like say their "holy" Scripture of 2 Maccabees 15:38

If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.


Blessings
George

I'm more interested in you engaging in my posts and responses to you above. When you engage in responding to those, I'll engage in responding to this. Thanks.

[David Graham]

"Barthian thought and neo-orthodoxy are perversions of the Reformed Faith."

That's an interesting perspective on someone who in all probability was the most significant theologian of the 20th century. He himself regarded himself as reformed, and the "Barmen Declaration" is regarded as a Reformed document on behalf of the independant Reformed churches in Germany.

Sure, he departed from Calvin with regard to Predestination especially upon the basis of doctrine. Calvin based his thought strictly upon the Sovereignty of God and therefore ended up with "double Predestination" because if only God could be truly free, both good and bad outcomes for humanity had to be based upon God's choice. Not so with Barth, for he started with God's grace and determined that humanity should be "free" to respond to his grace. Furthermore he taught that Jesus Christ was elected by God and all who are in him are subsequently elected. Barth's position is "close" to an Arminian position at this point but having a Reformed starting point.

If the great themes of the reformation were as follows: "Sola Christos", "Sola Scriptura", "Sola Gracae" and "Sola Fide"; any cursory reading of Barth will reflect that these same themes are emphasised. In fact, it is my belief that Barth put them on a "sounder" theological foundation.

[Hans Deventer]

Ben you aren't a mission field to George.

Dale, we ALL are a mission field to George. He has some deep desire to come here and straighten us out. Heaven knows why. It only works in the opposite direction.

[George Wallace]

That's an interesting perspective on someone who in all probability was the most significant theologian of the 20th century. He himself regarded himself as reformed, and the "Barmen Declaration" is regarded as a Reformed document on behalf of the independant Reformed churches in Germany.

Sure, he departed from Calvin with regard to Predestination especially upon the basis of doctrine. Calvin based his thought strictly upon the Sovereignty of God and therefore ended up with "double Predestination" because if only God could be truly free, both good and bad outcomes for humanity had to be based upon God's choice. Not so with Barth, for he started with God's grace and determined that humanity should be "free" to respond to his grace. Furthermore he taught that Jesus Christ was elected by God and all who are in him are subsequently elected. Barth's position is "close" to an Arminian position at this point but having a Reformed starting point.

If the great themes of the reformation were as follows: "Sola Christos", "Sola Scriptura", "Sola Gracae" and "Sola Fide"; any cursory reading of Barth will reflect that these same themes are emphasised. In fact, it is my belief that Barth put them on a "sounder" theological foundation.

Dave,
I know Barth is recognized as a "Reformed" theologian by many and he obviously started from a basic Reformed position. I am not saying that he never made any positive contribution, yet at the end of the day he is "the Father of Neo-Orthodoxy." I was not kidding when I said Pastors can and have been removed from service for espousing a Neo-Orthodox view from the pulpit. We are not Neo-Orthodox. We are Conservative as in the classic sense - to conserve. In your neck of the woods the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia PCEA, would be the closest to my denomination, although there is a small RP denomination in Australia also. It is really quite simple and I honestly don't understand why people are so shocked. The Churches in the Associations I have linked, for the most part, believe in the Reformed faith as it has always been - The Historic Reformed Faith. We do not practice the faith as it has become after the influence of modernism, liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy. Certainly we do not all agree on everything, hymns, psalms, confessional statements, the celebration of holy days- yes there is disagreement but at the core we all agree on the same basic faith which we contend for. This just does not include Barth or the embrace of Neo-Orthodox thought.

Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

Only because, in their reading, their understanding of Sola Fide was found in Scripture. However, when that no longer flows from the Formal Principle, the material principle must change. That is staying true to the Formal Principle and therefore to the heart of the Protestant tradition itself.

Obviously, I disagree. If not Scripture then what? I don’t have any stats but I doubt that currently you are going to find a huge number that are going remove Scripture as the foundation. Even most of those who are not inerrantists still Practice Prima Scriptura or a classic Sola Scriptura. I know that, you, Hans, Oord and others are pushing for a change. It may happen, specifically given Professor Oords influence. But their have been a 1000 threads dealing with the problems associated with this change and you know as well as I do the average active pew person in Kansas, Oklahoma, Ohio, or Indiana does not share your view of Scripture.


That is incredibly untrue. "do not need to be reformed" does not come from an "objective" reading of Scripture... but a reading of Scripture deeply imbedded and indebted to Reformed Confessional Tradition. It is not open to being "persuaded by Scripture."

This is obviously an impasse for us. We cannot and do not view the “objective” reading of Scripture the same way. To me the Reformed Confessional reading IS the objective reading.


Because, when the attempt is made (Barth, Torrence, Wright, etc), the battle cry is sounded and they come back to defend good, confessional, Reformed theology. Just read Piper's The Future of Justification.

I really don’t want to over simplify, but my Daddy used to say “If it ain’t broke; don’t fix it.” Why do you incessantly see the need for change? Really? No Protestant no matter their stripe ever viewed Justification in the Wright context until about the last 20 years. What is the catalyst for, and actual need for change? I just see change itself and an embrace of worldliness combined with a speckle of false humility. That’s what I see. I would be interested in your thoughts as to why this change is necessary.


One is not allowed to read Scripture differently than the Reformers did if it causes them to reform the Reformers' doctrines. It's all based in "magisterial" tradition. It is the antithesis of the Protestant Spirit.

I think most protests would disagree with you.



Because the imperfect, "guide" nature of Scripture and what we've learned about Scripture by STARTING with "Scripture alone" has led us to realize that "Scripture alone" is not good enough and it invites us to engage the other avenues of thought.



Says your tradition and the way your tradition has taught you to read certain verses of the Bible. Sounds like "Tradition" more than "Sola Scriptura"

Again, you’re speaking Italian and I’m listening in German. Scripture is more than a guide it is the very word of God. It is the only word we have since the Ascension of Christ. Scripture is sufficient. (And really as side note; you are not really being consistent. Here you say “Scripture alone is not enough.” A few months ago when I challenged, you claimed to believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. Now you flat out say you don’t. What gives? We are all moving target to a degree but come on…)


See above. It's funny, "Sola Scriptura" relies as heavily on Philosophy as Process Theology does. Yet... it claims not to.

That is just your interpretation. And even if I acquiesced as said it that it was based upon Philosophy we both then would have to say that they are almost totally unrelated Philosophies. So I don’t get your point. If a person ponders anything, contemplatively, he is practicing Philosophy in the truest since. So…I don’t get it.



Uh, except they didn't "reclaim the early Gospel." Instead, they came up with Penal Substitution which is absent in the Early Fathers. Odd. They recovered Augustine's theology and hardened it with their own Philosophical ideas which were generated by the sociological structures and thought of their day. Sounds kinda like Scholasticism.

You are entitled to you opinion.


Blessings
George

This whole "sola Scriptura" thing is a nice fantasy. But it's exactly that. Fantasy. Just because it is a nice one doesn't make it "correct." It's still fantasy.

Another nice NON-Protestant opinion.

[Hans Deventer]

Obviously, I disagree. If not Scripture then what? I don’t have any stats but I doubt that currently you are going to find a huge number that are going remove Scripture as the foundation. Even most of those who are not inerrantists still Practice Prima Scriptura or a classic Sola Scriptura. I know that, you, Hans, Oord and others are pushing for a change.

Wait a minute! I'm not pushing for any change at all! Do understand that we are the conservatives here, mister.

[Hans Deventer]

I think most protests would disagree with you.

Then they never understood what the Reformers wanted. The Reformation was never an end station in their view. The church should ever be Reforming. Those who hang on to the past, never understood that past.

[George Wallace]

Or we could just accept that we're all broken and that the only need for separate churches is all peripheral issues.

For instance, Justification by Faith Alone is only an issue in two books of the New Testament. One of them is rather short, too. Maybe it's more peripheral than we think? Maybe it's as peripheral as the Greek Theologians throughout the first 5 centuries thought it was?

I think if the differences were truly peripheral then there would be no reason for the separation. I do agree that we are all broken!


Maybe the only reason I'm NOT a Catholic is that Process Theology isn't quite as welcome there and that I'll find a more happy home in The Church of the Nazarene, the United Methodist Church, or the Episcopalian Church.

Well, if you truly were your Process on your sleeve then you are only welcome in some Naz Churches. Well, you’d probably be welcome in all, you’d just feel stifled and frustrated because the leadership would most likely tell you that you are welcome, but your ideas are not. I think the easiest fit is the Episcopal Church. Katherine Jefferts Schori is on record saying that she would embrace the merging of Christianity and Buddhism, so Process thought should not present any problem at all. It’s a Big, Big Circus tent; I am sure your act would be welcome but considering the fact that you are “almost” normal :) the transition might be harder than you think.


But trust me, George. I've got my trunks on and I've been training for two years now. In a few years now I may be ready to jump into the Atlantic and start swimming back.

Or, what's more...

Maybe we believe that the Scriptures teach quite plainly that "faith" is active and action, and is itself "works" for lack of a better word. Maybe we think that when Paul spoke of "works of the law" he literally meant following the decalogue and dietary laws as well as circumcision. Maybe Paul meant that THAT was not the way to salvation, but a "way" initiated, evidenced, and made possible by Christ.

Thus, Justification by Faith Alone is a belief that ultimately the RCC and the Orthodox Church hold to, it's just that we as protestants understand it poorly (wrong?).

Maybe We are Protestant because we do believe in Scripture Alone as the primary and first grounds of doing theology and we find a lack of reason to hold to some of the ideas that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches do.... so we are separate... even though we find those issues peripheral.

There are many ways and reasons to be Protestant without believing there is something at stake in the Gospel.

Now, maybe it's all evidence of our brokenness. I'll accept that.

That’s a lot of ‘Maybes.”

Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

Dale, we ALL are a mission field to George. He has some deep desire to come here and straighten us out. Heaven knows why. It only works in the opposite direction.

I meant to place a smiley or some other emoticon after that statement. I had been speaking about how Ben and I think each others Theology is "Nuts." Meaning that he thinks I am "wrong" and I think he is "wrong" and given time, personal contact, maybe a few Care Asada burritos from Santana's we each would try on a personal and relational level to dissuade each other from parts of our theologies -that is we might try to persuade each other of error. That is the kinda of mission field I am talking about. You know full well I have never questioned, nor do I feel it my place to question or decide an individuals Christianity. (with one possible exception about two years ago dealing with the understanding of the Athaniasian Creed. And both you and I were in agreement there. Even then I just said to the fellow Naznetter that his interpretation was not Orthodox. I never questioned his Christianity) The Triune God saves; Not me. I always think back to David from Bathsheba's bath through Nathan's "you are the man" statement. Even then David was a man after God's own heart.

No matter how differing our opinions are or get, If I ever meet Ben in person I'll hug his neck! I was truly disappointed that I couldn't go to the recent Naznet Conference. I would like to have met you, Jeremy, Mike, Professor Oord and the others. I would have even kept my mouth shut and just listen during the sessions! ;) After hours we might have gotten spirited, but I am not nearly as abrasive as I.apparently seem.

Blessings
George

Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

Wait a minute! I'm not pushing for any change at all! Do understand that we are the conservatives here, mister.

Open view is a conservation effort?

Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

I'm more interested in you engaging in my posts and responses to you above. When you engage in responding to those, I'll engage in responding to this. Thanks.

Fair enough. I think i am now caught up with you. (I still owe Shea one response) I have a Missions Mid-term coming up and I have to go pick up my daughter mosh scosh (That's Marine for mos ricky tick or quickly, soon) Anyway I would love to hear your response to this. It just seems totally inconstant to me. In one thread you say the most important things in Corporate Worship are the Word and Sacrament. You claim that the most important for unity is the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Yet here you advocate for the universal brotherhood with the RC Church whose Sacrament does not even approach any Protestant understanding.

I find that markedly inconstant.

Not to mention the RC Canon...Especially the reference I quoted. It seems that the Word and Sacrement are not nearly as important as to you as say they are.

Blessings
George

[Benjamin Burch]

Obviously, I disagree. If not Scripture then what? I don’t have any stats but I doubt that currently you are going to find a huge number that are going remove Scripture as the foundation. Even most of those who are not inerrantists still Practice Prima Scriptura or a classic Sola Scriptura. I know that, you, Hans, Oord and others are pushing for a change. It may happen, specifically given Professor Oords influence. But their have been a 1000 threads dealing with the problems associated with this change and you know as well as I do the average active pew person in Kansas, Oklahoma, Ohio, or Indiana does not share your view of Scripture.

You misread me. I'm sorry. What I was saying is that "Justification by Faith Alone" as understood in Lutheran/Calvinist terms is not in the Bible. (for argument's sake).

Therefore, in fidelity to the Formal Principle (Sola Scriptura), the material principle (Justification by Faith Alone as understood) must change.

Luther and you have both said "Here I stand, i'll recant if shown by Scripture."

That is exactly what "we" are saying. Scripture does in fact say something else and it's about time you started listening.




This is obviously an impasse for us. We cannot and do not view the “objective” reading of Scripture the same way. To me the Reformed Confessional reading IS the objective reading.

Because sadly you're being taught to read Scripture that way. It starts with the confessional way of reading Scripture and proves itself in circular fashion. It's not objective at all.



I really don’t want to over simplify, but my Daddy used to say “If it ain’t broke; don’t fix it.” Why do you incessantly see the need for change? Really? No Protestant no matter their stripe ever viewed Justification in the Wright context until about the last 20 years. What is the catalyst for, and actual need for change? I just see change itself and an embrace of worldliness combined with a speckle of false humility. That’s what I see. I would be interested in your thoughts as to why this change is necessary.

You missed my point that I've tried to make in two different posts.

(1) Scripture Alone tells us that Justification by Faith as understood in the Protestant Confessions is not true.

(2) Scripture Alone tells us that Scripture Alone is not enough for formulating theology.

If you can't see that the very impetus for change - for me - is my reading of Scripture Alone, I can't really help you see it any other way. I'm trying here.




I think most protests would disagree with you.


Of course they would. That's my point. It's all circular reasoning. Piper's Future of Justification proves my point.

He points to Tradition, the Confessions of Tradition, and to the way of reading Scripture laid out by that Tradition... and then says... based on THAT reading that Wright is wrong.

But that's circular logic.

The fact is that Piper warns against using any new information and basically says "Luther and Calvin read it a certain way... why would we change that if it changed our theologies?"

It's the saddest book I ever read. It's a "Reformed" Christian appealing to the great Magisterial Tradition of Reformed thought and using it as his fortress and then claiming "Scripture alone."

I don't know Piper. I think the man seems like a GREAT pastor and a great man of God. However, the book and the argument there in is pathetic and hardly passes as scholarship. It is certainly more tradition than "Scripture alone."

Of course he wouldn't agree. He's using circular logic.



Again, you’re speaking Italian and I’m listening in German. Scripture is more than a guide it is the very word of God. It is the only word we have since the Ascension of Christ. Scripture is sufficient. (And really as side note; you are not really being consistent. Here you say “Scripture alone is not enough.” A few months ago when I challenged, you claimed to believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. Now you flat out say you don’t. What gives? We are all moving target to a degree but come on…)

I've actually been quite consistent on this score. I've been consistent on this score for over two years now. I might not have been clear.

I challenged you last time on the grounds that you pulled a good ol' Reformed trickery of smoke and mirrors. Let me explain:

Reformed people like to say "The Sovereignty of God" and then say that Arminians reject this. However, that's not true. What they've done is redefine a term in a non-proper way and then use it as the proper definition.

Sovereignty implies the authority to carry out one's will and the authority of that will itself. It does not describe the efficacy of that will. In fact, the one who is "Sovereign" may in fact choose NOT to enact his/her will. That is their sovereign choice. So, in reality, Reformed folks have used a false definition for "sovereignty" and then said that ARminians don't believe in sovereignty. It's smoke and mirrors.

The same applies for the term "Sufficiency of Scriptures." What does that mean? It's an abstract term with no meaning tied to it as to "sufficient for what?"

This is exactly what I called you on last time, but I don't remember you ever replying. You might have been busy, who knows. I believe the Scriptures are sufficient for Faith and Practice. Faith is defined by the Ecumenical Creeds and Practice is defined by the life of Christ found in the Gospels and fleshed out of the Gospel Ethic.

Now, "sufficient" doesn't mean that we'll necessarily understand based upon our reading. I never said we were sufficient!

So, I still hold that Scripture is Sufficient for said things. However, I do not believe that Scripture is sufficient for doing all aspects of Theological Inquiry.

Hope that clears it up and, again, I've been 100% consistent in this regard for a little over 2 years now.







That is just your interpretation. And even if I acquiesced as said it that it was based upon Philosophy we both then would have to say that they are almost totally unrelated Philosophies. So I don’t get your point. If a person ponders anything, contemplatively, he is practicing Philosophy in the truest since. So…I don’t get it.

My point is not that this somehow makes our philosophies equal, mine right, etc, etc. What I'm saying is that to appeal to the adage of "Scripture alone" and act as though that equals "not Philosophy" is just a fantasy that we made up for ourselves because it really sounded good and Luther couldn't possibly comprehend that he was conditioned and that his reading was likewise conditioned.

It's not his fault, that was the silly Enlightenment man. They actually thought that somehow they were free to think freely.

The real problem comes when - now that we've known better for a long time - we try to appeal to ancient modes of thinking as though they're accurate. Such as the idea that we're actually free to think and read and interpret apart from Philosophy.




You are entitled to you opinion.


It's not a matter of opinion. You/your tradition/Scriptural inerrancy (and the resultant form of Sola Scriptura) begin with a philosophical presumption that

(1) Scripture is given by God in a strict sense
(2) Since God is infallible and inerrant so too must Scripture be

You then read Scripture in such a way. That's indebted to Philosophy and it's not really in Scripture. That doesn't make it wrong. That's not my point. I just want to level the playing field and make us be honest.




Another nice NON-Protestant opinion.

Again, it doesn't have anything to do with Protestant/not Protestant.

It has to do with reality. If being protestnat means I have to give up reality then I'll gladly go join a different Church.

[Benjamin Burch]

Fair enough. I think i am now caught up with you. (I still owe Shea one response) I have a Missions Mid-term coming up and I have to go pick up my daughter mosh scosh (That's Marine for mos ricky tick or quickly, soon) Anyway I would love to hear your response to this. It just seems totally inconstant to me. In one thread you say the most important things in Corporate Worship are the Word and Sacrament. You claim that the most important for unity is the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Yet here you advocate for the universal brotherhood with the RC Church whose Sacrament does not even approach any Protestant understanding.

I find that markedly inconstant.

Not to mention the RC Canon...Especially the reference I quoted. It seems that the Word and Sacrement are not nearly as important as to you as say they are.

Blessings
George

So... my next question would be - what is a "Protestant" view of the Sacrament?

Secondly, i find the quoted statement from 2 Maccabees perfectly consistent with what Scripture is and what it claims to be.

Lastly, I consider "Word" first and foremost Jesus and, in textual form, the Gospels. I believe that reading the Gospels is of particular central importance to the sunday worship.

Secondly, I believe that God speaks, in Christ, through the Scriptures of each tradition. Therefore, as each tradition engages in reading the Scriptures, they participate in reading the Word.

Now, if you want to push me into a corner and say that I have to nail down a canon, I'll say that the widest, biggest canon is best and that any reading of Scripture is still reading the Word - even if it is not a reading which reads ALL of the Word.

I don't find these contradictory or illogical at all.

[Hans Deventer]

Open view is a conservation effort?

We are talking about maintaining Article IV, that's the one regarding the Scriptures. Nobody from the people you mentioned wants to change that. It's other people who want to change Article IV. I know of no effort to change anything in the Articles of Faith regarding the open view, but you may know more about me than I know myself.

[Hans Deventer]

No matter how differing our opinions are or get, If I ever meet Ben in person I'll hug his neck! I was truly disappointed that I couldn't go to the recent Naznet Conference. I would like to have met you, Jeremy, Mike, Professor Oord and the others. I would have even kept my mouth shut and just listen during the sessions! ;) After hours we might have gotten spirited, but I am not nearly as abrasive as I.apparently seem.

George, I had written an honest answer to this post but Rich was right, it should either have been PM or not been there at all so I deleted it. So I don't know how to answer. I'm sorry.