Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | DocTrinsograce | 193526 | ||
Dear TYHM, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (I noted that someone quoted Mark Twain on the forum recently. One non-Christian quote deserves another.) Hopefully, when I contradict myself, it won't be a case in which both original statements are wrong! :-) For a contradiction to exist, there must be two coequal premises. Reading back through my post the only things that might be construed as coequal are my mention of Pharisaic and Pauline soteriology -- although, technically, those would not be considered proper premises as they are not factual statements, but are, instead, only subjects. Anyway, based on what you have revealed of yourself on the forum thus far, I'd guess that you deem Pharisaic soteriology to be equivalent to Pauline soteriology. I think it was that presupposition that resulted in your sensing a contradiction. The assessment of the synonymity of these soteriologies is something with which I'd disagree. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." (Matthew 23:15 ESV) "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV) As to the other things: When you rise to the stature of Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Owen, and Edwards, you will have the opportunity to be for your doctrines to be verified through the Scriptures by thousands of unnamed scholars of the church. Although, with further study, you will learn that these men uncovered truth, rather than introduced it -- by their own admission and the admission of the church. Revelation of truth is the strict domain of the closed canon of Scripture. One other item, you wrote "I only seek to do..." I'd humbly submit that doing (orthopraxy) only properly flows out of knowing (orthodoxy) -- see Colossians 1:9-10. God has given us four powerful aids in knowing sound doctrine and helping us to avoid error: (1) The Holy Spirit (John 16:13); (2) the Word of God (John 17:17, Acts 20:32); (3) teachers and Pastors -- from the past and in the present (Ephesians 4:11-12); and (4) one another (Colossians 3:16, Galatians 6:1). Yes, the primitive church is certainly interesting, but they were far from perfect. That's certainly clear from the epistles written to correct their mistaken thinking, confused theology, and improper behaviors. Although the divines and learned men of the last two millennia are not inspired in the same sense as the authors of Scripture, neglecting them will inhibit our maturity and increase our vulnerability to deception (Ephesians 4:14). In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | Talmid of Yeshua Ha Maschiach | 193534 | ||
Brother Doc, First of all, you still did not explain what the word soteriology means. I have tried looking it up, but cannot find what it means. Secondly, do not take this personally as I say this to the whole world, how many times do I have to say that I do not believe that the Torah is the means unto Salvation?! "Woe to you hypocritical Torah-teachers and P'rushim! You pay your tithes of mint, dill, and cumin; but you have neglectedthe weightier matters of the Torah - Justice, Mercy, Trust. These are the things you should have attended to - without neglecting the others!" (Matthew 23:23) Having said that, of course I agree with Ephesians 2. Actually, why stop at Ephesians, I believe the whole Bible to be the inerrrant Word of the Most High. I could quote some things that these men have said that would make anyone turn over in his grave. Take Augustine, he said that he had most of the doctrines of the gospel already from his studies under Plato. Chrysostom, well, he was a jew hater through and through. Seven sermons he wrote on the rightness of the hatred of Jews. Luther, the half-way catholic, another anti-semite. Having written many articles on the poison of the Jews. I could go on, but what is the point? True, they did expound many truths and fix many problems, but they are still men. Oh, and yes the closed canon of Scripture is the only guide and judge to doctrine. Check what these "learned" men have to say first and diligently compare it with the Scriptures. For, we must seek to do, not just know, what the Bereans did. As to the First church, they were far more accurate than we will ever be. Why? They were closer to the source, that is not to say they were perfect. No man can or will ever be perfect and while the body of believers is made up of mankind, then it is going to be fallen. Your brother in Y'shua HaMashiach, Talmid (Num 6:24-26) |
||||||
3 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | DocTrinsograce | 193540 | ||
Dear TYMH, I apologize for not defining my terms. I had supposed that one familiar with the names you brought up would also be familiar with some of their terminology. Of course, describing what I said as "contradictory" was also a bit misleading! :-) Anyway... Soteriology is the study of the doctrine of salvation. It derives its name from the Greek word soterious meaning salvation. Some of the sub-categories of soteriology are atonement, imputation, regeneration, sanctification, etc. Most Reformed theologians regard salvation as the primary theme in Scripture, with the glory of God as its ultimate goal. In personal and formal studies I've read much of the writings and sermons of the men you've mentioned. As a Jewish believer I haven't found them anti-semitic at all. But then, Paul's assessment of Jews was a "...stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, ... always resist[ing] the Holy Spirit as your fathers did, so do you..." (Acts 7:51 ESV) I would venture that all of them agreed with Paul. Since it was the Holy Spirit's assessment, too, I sure won't quibble over it! Does that make us all anti-semitic? :-) By the way, you wrote, "...the First church, they were far more accurate than we will ever be. Why? They were closer to the source..." (sic) This is a question in another discipline of theology called ecclesiology -- the study of the church. (The particular perspective you've expressed has a fancy label, too. It is called reverse chronological chauvinism.) The logical conclusion of your assertion is that the efforts spoken of in Ephesians 5:26-27 and Titus 2:14 haven't been effective. Come to think on it, it also differs with the progress of redemptive history. But that's another topic. In Him, Doc |
||||||