Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | EdB | 149092 | ||
Doc Ranting? Have I been ranting or did I offer a question and am now doing nothing more than providing logical and accurate objections to the answers offered. I don’t see that as ranting and if others do please let them speak up and I will cease. However I do see your use of the word “ranting” as being inflammatory and uncalled for. I will not continue this discussion with you other than offer this explanation. Respond if you want but I will not continue with you sir. With the exception of Christian cult I know of no denomination that is divided over what constitutes the Gospel. If your referring to the division of Catholicism and Protestantism and the Apocrypha, I think you will find the Apocrypha is actually a very minor side issue that most people use because they don't really know what the differences are between Protestantism and Catholicism. In any case having read and studied the Apocrypha many times I see nothing in it that violates any other scripture nor do I see it making any new doctrine. The real question then becomes is it inspired or not. The answer to that has been yes then no then yes then no, presently it is yes by Catholics and no by most Protestants. However it was part of the Christian Bible for 1500 years and in some cases it still is so it has stood for 2000 years. Perhaps when we get to heaven we will no find anyone from that period having all been lead astray by the Apocrypha. We know the major early church fathers quoted from what we call the Apocrypha we can find their quotes in their writings. This suggests they used it and apparently had it included in their scriptures. One thing we have to remember the so called 'father' of the Reformation Martin Luther also called for the removal of James, Hebrews, Jude and also Revelation. His reason for James and Jude are obvious it seemed to conflict with his position of Grace alone. However his reason for Hebrews was two fold first the author was unknown and secondly it seemed to point back to the Apocrypha in chapter 11. His rational for Revelation is like nearly everyone until the last couple of hundred years it was thought to be mythical, or impossible to understand. No I don’t think the division of denominations was ever over what is gospel, but rather what is doctrine and that is based on every man’s interpretation of the Bible not hard fast evidence. EdB |
||||||
2 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | DocTrinsograce | 149230 | ||
Dear Brother Ed, You are, of course, free to end the discussion you began at any time. However, permit me to correct a few historical inaccuracies before we leave off. Luther preached using texts from all four of the books of the New Testament that you referenced. He must have changed his mind about them at some point in his life. Perhaps his life was not a single, monolithic set of beliefs. Maybe he adjusted his thinking over time, as most people do? (Perhaps, one day soon, we should look at the character and life of Charles F. Parham in order to adequately judge another very large movement of modern times? (Jude 8)) For the sake of argument we may say that the Reformation is the origin of denominations (at least, in the modern sense), as long as we ignore the East-West Church thing, and all those other divisions throughout history. However, I strongly disagree with your contention that it was *not* about the Gospel. Even Erasmus realized this and articulated it very clearly. If you read the decrees of the Council of Trent you will see that the Church of Rome was clear about this as well. Sola scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola gratia, Sola fide, Soli Deo gloria -- every single one of these pillars of the Reformation have to do with the Gospel. The Gospel is the central theme of Christianity, it should not surprise us that it was a central theme of the Reformation. Now, regarding denominations divided over the Gospel: Think of the differences between Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, and Pentecostalism with regards to the definitions of soteriological words like atonement, justification, sanctification, reconciliation, propitiation, imputation, and regeneration. There are even differences in such fundamental concepts as grace, faith, the will, etc. My disagreement with you has never been regarding the advantages or disadvantages of denominationalism. Rather, it is an implicit condemnation of our denominational brethren, the misrepresentation of history as a means to an end, and a questionable hermeneutic. Okay... now let's have done! I have homework that needs attending. :-) In Him, Doc Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. (Proverbs 22:28) I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the work of thy hands. (Psalms 143:5) "By despising all that has preceded us, we teach others to despise ourselves." --William Hazlitt (1821) "With this confidence in human ability comes the assumption that whatever is new is best. New is good and old is bad. But history shows that human 'progress' has been matched by even greater human sin." --Greg Pietsch (On Modernism, 2002) |
||||||
3 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | EdB | 149252 | ||
Doc Since the thread is restricted I feel a certain liberty to correct your inaccuracies. First the thread was not about the Apocrypha or any personality, it was about denomination and the charge to be in unity. Now I realize to someone that openly admits that he loves denominations that would probably go against their grain. Perhaps Luther did reference those books but he also referenced the Apocrypha so what. The fact is that he wanted them removed is fact. Did his opinion change later in life? Yes. My point was that there were decisions to exclude books that were later restored, these decision were made by men and they sometimes make decisions that they later must recant. That was the only point. I wasn't demeaning Luther at all. The question remains however, had Luther lived longer would he have perhaps decided to include the Apocrypha once again? I openly agreed that the church first split east and west so your offering nothing new here. The rest of your discourse on the 5 pillars stand only if you accept them as gospel which the church did not for over 1500 years and only a rather small proportion of the church does today. No where did God declare Sola Scriptura, or Sola Fide. These are terms made up in the minds of men of the reformation to combat Rome. The are both with out scriptural basis in and of themselves. What you call gospel is rejected by many in church today. Remember less than 30 percent of Protestant Christians agree completely with these 5 pillars as you call them. Lastly you said your disagreement with me is over my condemnation of denominations. I say I was asking a question, “How do we justify denominations in light of Jesus explicit commands of unity and Paul's teaching on such?” Nothing more nothing less. I condemn separation and division that is in direct disobedience to Jesus’ command for us His church to be in unity and one accord. As to your charge I misrepresent historical accounts. I say to you I have never intentionally misrepresented anything historically or other. For you to bring such a charge is nothing more than an attempt to cast doubt on what I have said. You have my forgiveness for these falsehoods you speak about me but nonetheless they are in fact false. Your charge of faulty hermeneutics again stands only in the light that for yours to be work we must apply new and different definitions to commonly understood words. While mine takes the Scripture unchanged by either redefinitions or new meanings to say what it says and mean what it means. I will stand on my method of hermeneutics over yours any day. I will let the reader decide for himself on which is faulty and which is not. You have taken this thread to places never intended and have tried to minimize everything said within it not with fact but innuendo and implications of misrepresentation. You failed to stick with the subject and never even attempted to answer the base question. Which was. How do we justify denominations in light of John 17:20-23 (NKJV) 20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. Which in effect is calling for unity and says the world will know Jesus is authentic by the unity it sees in the believers. Then we move to 1 Corinthians 1:13 (NKJV) 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Corinthians 12:25 (NKJV) 25 that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another Therefore I think you don’t have anything to offer this discussion or me. EdB |
||||||
4 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | DocTrinsograce | 149264 | ||
Dear Brother Ed, Oh my... how silly! Fortunately, the forum is a public one. Your words, my words, and even church history or fully accessible. Consequently, our veracity is fully verifiable. We are so blessed to have a Lord who will appropriately, fully, and thoroughly correct us at the proper time. Truth is not a liquid thing nor a matter of personal interpretation. In Him, Doc But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matthew 12:36-37) |
||||||