Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Nothing but the Blood of Jesus | Eph 2:13 | meta | 234883 | ||
Hi Doc, I agree with you that it is a strange accusation. The one moment in time that all of eternity past and future is measured from is the cross. The single act of The Creator dying to rescue His creation from death is beyond what we could conceive or ask for. The most brilliant remedy, the greatest act of courage and the most effective and powerfull victory ever won should leave us humbled and in awe of our glorious and beautifull savior. How can anyone state that someone else is too atonement centered?. I do have a question though. Are evangelicals the only believers that make such mistakes? How many evangelicals would completely agree with your statements? I find it odd that a group has to be named to make this point. I find it odd that so many Christians have to look to some other group that they do not agree with to make their point. I understand that you cannot change the fact that these people may have claimed to be evangelicals. Is that why they were in error? Or is it just that they were deceived. If these folks were all in california would it be californian evangelicals. If these were people that all graduated university would it be educated Californian evangelicals. I think you can see where I am going with this. Please note the following is a direct extraction from the definition of the word "evangelical" : "emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual" So if these so called evengelicals in your words "challenged the dominant understanding of Christ's death on the Cross as the substitute for our sins." then it is logical to state that they were not doing so as evangelicals but as unbelieving and deceived Christians. Perhaps we could be less divisive if we spoke about the arguements themselves and not malign some good people who may exalt Christ in their hearts, their conversations and their deeeds, in some cases as much as non evangelicals and in some cases maybe even more than some non evangelicals. Is that possible? You are a wonder full brother in Christ. Meta Luke 18:8b However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth? |
||||||
2 | Nothing but the Blood of Jesus | Eph 2:13 | DocTrinsograce | 234884 | ||
Dear Meta, There is an old Latin expression of the Reformation, "Ecclesia semper reformans, semper reformanda;" meaning "the church is always reformed and always reforming." As an evangelical I find no better place to continue the reformation process than within evangelicalism, since judgment begins in the house of the Lord (1 Peter 4:17a; Ezekiel 9:6; cf Amos 3:2). After all, "If we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged" (1 Corinthians 11:31). Since evangelicalism, it might well be argued, has the most overt claim to being Bible based -- and I would not be a part of it it if it were not -- then that claim must be constantly reexamined. Not because the Word changes, but their must be a constant effort to replace that which is the lie (which yet remains in our minds) with that which is the truth (cf 2 Timothy 3:16). Does such an effort cause division? Of course it does. Sound doctrine always has and always will do so: it divides the sheep and the goats; the wheat and the tares; the good tree and the bad tree; the fruitful abiding branches and the dry barren branches; etc. In Him, Doc "Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity. They give occasion to the enemies of all godliness to blaspheme. But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching which is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin. It is easy to make sneering remarks about 'itching ears,' and 'love of excitement ; but it is not so easy to convince a plain reader of the Bible that it is his duty to hear false doctrine every Sunday, when by a little exertion he can hear truth. The old saying must never be forgotten, 'He is the schismatic who causes the schism.' "Unity, quiet, and wider among professing Christians are mighty blessings. They give strength, beauty, and efficiency to the cause of Christ. But even gold may be bought too dear. Unity which is obtained by the sacrifice of truth is worth nothing. It is not the unity which pleases God. The Church of Rome boasts loudly of a unity which does not deserve the name. It is unity which is obtained by taking away the Bible from the people, by gagging private judgment, by encouraging ignorance, by forbidding men to think for themselves. Like the exterminating warriors of old, the Church of Borne 'makes a solitude and calls it peace.' There is quiet and stillness enough in the grave, but it is not the quiet of health, but of death. It was the false prophets who cried 'Peace,' when there was no peace." --Bishop J. C. Ryle, from "Knots Untied" (1885) |
||||||
3 | Nothing but the Blood of Jesus | Eph 2:13 | meta | 234891 | ||
Those are fine arguments Doc. I still feel that the fact that these people were evangelicals is irrelevant and therefore unecessary in making your point. I see no benefit. I do agree that Jesus himself said that he came not to bring peace but a sword Mat 10:34 There is no scriptural basis and no argument for unecessarily categorising the people that were in error here. It is a human practice that is not bliblical but comes from our sin nature. If there were some distiction as to what type of fallen creatures we are that make such mistakes I cannot see it. I definitly do not subscribe to peace or unity at any price. However I fail to see a price here. We are in fact to make an effort to preserve unity. Eph 4:3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Let me reiterate. If there were a benefit. If it helped to reveal truth or enlighten us then I do not suggest we hide truth to protect anyone. Again that is not the case. It is a useless fact that they were evangelicals. You have so much wisdom and I am on your side (another irrelevant fact) about the atonement issue. If we are to judge ourselves first then I suggest you do just that. Why not ask The Lord what He would say concerning this issue? Blessings in Christ Meta |
||||||
4 | Nothing but the Blood of Jesus | Eph 2:13 | DocTrinsograce | 234892 | ||
Hi, Meta... Our feelings about orthodoxy/orthopraxy are not of any persuasive value. We live by the Word, not our emotions. What is even less persuasive are scripture citations that are out of context. You may disagree with Ryle and Dever, but you will need to argue with a right handling of the Word in order to change an opinion. Indeed, mishandling the Word is worse than failing to use the Word at all. On the other hand, you will find a lot more folks to be unified with that way. :-) A good place to start relative to Ephesians 4 is to understand the doctrine in the first three chapters of Ephesians. Then look again at the imperatives of Ephesians 4 in the context of the purposes and means provided explicitly in that chapter. As the old aphorism goes, "Every text without a context is a pretext." In Him, Doc |
||||||