can you loose your salvation?

[RNG]

Question: "Is it possible to lose your salvation once you have it"? Please
refer to scripture references or other materials used to answer the
question.

We believe that all the redeemed, once saved, are kept by God's power and
are thus secure in Christ forever (John 6:37-40; John 10:27-30; Romans
8:1,38-39; 1 Corinthians 1:4-8; 1 Peter 1:5).

John 6:37-40 shows that only the ones the Father gives to Jesus, will come
to Him, and that no one who comes to Him will be lost. This is the will of
God, that Jesus should loose none of those whom God gives Him. Further,
this passage says that everyone who believes in Jesus will have eternal
life. If it were possible for the life which God gives to come to an end,
it would not be eternal life.

John 10:27-30 says Jesus gives His sheep eternal life, that they shall never
perish, and that no one is able to pluck them out of His hand. In addition,
His sheep are inside the hand of God the Father, and no one is able to pluck
them from His hand. Believers are secure in the hand of Christ, which is in
the hand of God, and no one can remove them.

Romans 8:1, 38,39 state that there is now no condemnation for those who are
in Christ Jesus, and that no created thing or circumstance, present or
future is able to separate the believer from God's love.

Further, Romans 8:29-30 says that whom God foreknew, he also called to
salvation. Those He called to salvation, He justified (declared right, the
moment He gave you faith in Christ). Those He justified, He also glorified
(future condition in heaven). God has already predestined that everyone
whom he saves in the first place, will ultimately be glorified in heaven.
God's purposes are so sure, that they are already spoken of in the past
tense. Nothing can frustrate God's predetermined will, regarding the
believer. This is a strong security for our assurance (cf. 1 Corinthians
1:4-8, and 1 Peter 1:5).

Salvation from the penalty, power, and presence of sin in our life (Romans
1-8), is entirely by grace, through faith in Christ's death and
resurrection, apart from our merit (Ephesians 2:8-10). It would only be
possible for us to loose salvation, if all or part of it depended on us.
Since it is entirely God's work and grace, it is impossible for us to loose
our salvation.

We hope these great truths give you assurance of salvation, and encourage
you to rely wholly on the grace of God, in the finished work of Christ's
death and resurrection, for your eternal life.

Grace and peace,

Aurora Avenue Bible Church

Please send your Bible questions to:
aurorabible<at>yahoo.com
http://www.churches.net/churches/abc

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( See http://www.enteract.com/~bible for details about this group. )))

[Matthew Johnson]

On 13 Mar 2002 16:07:41 GMT, "RNG" <an...@att.net> wrote:

>
>
>Question: "Is it possible to lose your salvation once you have it"?

Answer: yes.

> Please
>refer to scripture references or other materials used to answer the
>question.
>
>We believe that all the redeemed, once saved, are kept by God's power and
>are thus secure in Christ forever (John 6:37-40; John 10:27-30; Romans
>8:1,38-39; 1 Corinthians 1:4-8; 1 Peter 1:5).

Who is this 'we'?

[snip]

>Further, Romans 8:29-30 says that whom God foreknew, he also called to
>salvation. Those He called to salvation, He justified (declared right, the
>moment He gave you faith in Christ). Those He justified, He also glorified
>(future condition in heaven). God has already predestined that everyone
>whom he saves in the first place, will ultimately be glorified in heaven.
>God's purposes are so sure, that they are already spoken of in the past
>tense. Nothing can frustrate God's predetermined will, regarding the
>believer. This is a strong security for our assurance

The problem is, of course, that you can never really be sure you are
one of these predestined saved, not during this life. Romans 8:29-30
says _nothing_ to contradict this fact. On the contrary: what the
vereses are really about is:

Begin quote------------
Ver. 29. "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be
conformed to the Image of His Son."

See what superb honor! for what the Only-begotten was by Nature, this
they also have become by grace. And still he was not satisfied with
this calling of them conformed thereto, but even adds another point,
"that He might be the first-born." And even here he does not come to a
pause, but again after this he proceeds to mention another point,
"Among many brethren." So wishing to use all means of setting the
relationship4 in a clear light. Now all these things you are to take
as said of the Incarnation.5 For according to the Godhead He is
Only-begotten. See, what great things He hath given unto us! Doubt not
then about the future. For he showeth even upon other grounds His
concern for us by saying, that things were fore-ordered6 in this way
from the beginning. For men have to derive from things their
conceptions about them, but to God these things have been long
determined upon,7 and from of old He bare good-will toward us (proj
hmaj diekeito), he says.

Ver. 30. "Moreover whom He did pre-destinate, them He also called; and
whom He called, them He also justified."

Now He justified them by the regeneration of the layer. "And whom He
justified, them He also glorified" by the gift, by the adoption.

Ver. 31. "What shall we then say to these things?"

As if he should say, Let me then hear no more about the dangers and
the malicious devices from every quarter. For even if some disbelieve
the things to come, still they have not a word to say against the good
things that have already taken place; as, for instance, the friendship
of God towards thee from the first, the justifying, the glory. And yet
these things He gave thee by means seemingly distressing. And those
things which you thought to be disgracing, the Cross, scourges, bonds,
these are what have set the whole world aright. As then by what
Himself suffered, though of aspect forbidding in man's eye, even by
these He effected the liberty and salvation of the whole race; so also
is He wont to do in regard to those things which thou endurest,
turning thy sufferings unto glory and renown for thee. "If God be for
us, who can be against us?"

Why, it may be said, who is there that is not against us? Why the
world is against us, both kings and peoples, both relations and
countrymen. Yet these that be against us, so far are they from
thwarting us at all, that even without their will they become to us
the causes of crowns, and procurers of countless blessings, in that
God's wisdom turneth their plots unto our salvation and glory. See how
really no one is against us! For it was this which gave new lustre to
Job, the fact that the devil was in arms against him. For the devil
moved at once friends against him, his wife against him, and wounds,
and servants, and a thousand other machinations. And it turned out
that none of them was against him on the whole. And yet this was no
great thing to him, though it was great in itself, but what is a far
greater thing is, that it turned out that they were all for him. For
since God was for him, even things seemingly against him all became
for him. And this happened with the Apostles also, inasmuch as both
the Jews, and they of the Gentiles, and false brethren, and rulers,
and peoples, and famines, and poverty, and ten thousand things were
against them; and yet nothing was against them. For the things which
made them the most bright and conspicuous, and great in the sight both
of God and of men, were these. Just reflect then what a word Paul hath
uttered about the faithful, and those who are truly (akribwj)
crucified, such as not even the Emperor with his diadem can achieve.
For against him there are abundance of barbarians that arm themselves,
and of enemies that invade, and of bodyguards that plot, and of
subjects many that oftentimes are ever and anon rebelling, and
thousands of other things. But against the faithful who taketh good
heed unto God's laws, neither man, nor devil, nor aught besides, can
stand! For if you take away his money, you have become the procurer of
a reward to him. If you speak ill of him, by the evil report he gains
fresh lustre in God's sight. If you cast him into starvation, the more
will his glory and his reward be. If (what seems the most severe
stroke of all) you give him over to death, you are twining a crown of
martyrdom about him.8 What then is equivalent to this way of life,
being that against which nothing can be done, but even they that seem
to devise mischief are no less of service to him than benefactors?
This is why he says, "If God be for us, who can be against us? Next,
not being satisfied with what he had already said, the greatest sign
of His love for us, and that which he always is dwelling over, that he
sets down here also; I mean, the slaying of His Son. For He did not
only justify us, he means, and glorify us, and make us conformed to
that Image, but not even His Son did He spare for thee. And therefore
he proceeds to say,

Ver. 32. "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us
all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?"

End quote-------------------

(cf. 1 Corinthians
>1:4-8, and 1 Peter 1:5).
>
>Salvation from the penalty, power, and presence of sin in our life (Romans
>1-8), is entirely by grace,

If you mean Rom 1:1-8, the word 'entirely' is not there. Nor is it
implied. Why, there is even nothing there about salvation by faith. So
what verses did you really have in mind?

> through faith in Christ's death and
>resurrection, apart from our merit (Ephesians 2:8-10).

But 'faith' in which sense of the word? The various different shades o
fmeaning of this word can be broken down into two classes: 1) simple
mental assent to the truth of a proposition, and 2) this assent PLUS
this assent being _firm_ and PLUS heartfelt action based on this
assent.

Paul is using that latter sense in Eph 2:8-10, and elsewhere where he
says we are 'saved by faith'.

> It would only be
>possible for us to loose salvation, if all or part of it depended on us.
>Since it is entirely God's work and grace, it is impossible for us to loose
>our salvation.

Then explain why we are warned that we could be rejected and the
original branch grafted in our place.

Paul warns us in Rom 11:20-22 that this could happen. That this is his
real meaning is made clear by Chrysostom's commentary:

Begin quote-------------------
Ver. 29. "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be
conformed to the Image of His Son."

See what superb honor! for what the Only-begotten was by Nature, this
they also have become by grace. And still he was not satisfied with
this calling of them conformed thereto, but even adds another point,
"that He might be the first-born." And even here he does not come to a
pause, but again after this he proceeds to mention another point,
"Among many brethren." So wishing to use all means of setting the
relationship4 in a clear light. Now all these things you are to take
as said of the Incarnation. For according to the Godhead He is
Only-begotten. See, what great things He hath given unto us! Doubt not
then about the future. For he showeth even upon other grounds His
concern for us by saying, that things were fore-ordered in this way
from the beginning. For men have to derive from things their
conceptions about them, but to God these things have been long
determined upon, and from of old He bare good-will toward us (proj
hmaj diekeito), he says.

Ver. 30. "Moreover whom He did pre-destinate, them He also called; and
whom He called, them He also justified."

Now He justified them by the regeneration of the laver. "And whom He
justified, them He also glorified" by the gift, by the adoption.

Ver. 31. "What shall we then say to these things?"

As if he should say, Let me then hear no more about the dangers and
the malicious devices from every quarter. For even if some disbelieve
the things to come, still they have not a word to say against the good
things that have already taken place; as, for instance, the friendship
of God towards thee from the first, the justifying, the glory. And yet
these things He gave thee by means seemingly distressing. And those
things which you thought to be disgracing, the Cross, scourges, bonds,
these are what have set the whole world aright. As then by what
Himself suffered, though of aspect forbidding in man's eye, even by
these He effected the liberty and salvation of the whole race; so also
is He wont to do in regard to those things which thou endurest,
turning thy sufferings unto glory and renown for thee. "If God be for
us, who can be against us?"

Why, it may be said, who is there that is not against us? Why the
world is against us, both kings and peoples, both relations and
countrymen. Yet these that be against us, so far are they from
thwarting us at all, that even without their will they become to us
the causes of crowns, and procurers of countless blessings, in that
God's wisdom turneth their plots unto our salvation and glory. See how
really no one is against us! For it was this which gave new lustre to
Job, the fact that the devil was in arms against him. For the devil
moved at once friends against him, his wife against him, and wounds,
and servants, and a thousand other machinations. And it turned out
that none of them was against him on the whole. And yet this was no
great thing to him, though it was great in itself, but what is a far
greater thing is, that it turned out that they were all for him. For
since God was for him, even things seemingly against him all became
for him. And this happened with the Apostles also, inasmuch as both
the Jews, and they of the Gentiles, and false brethren, and rulers,
and peoples, and famines, and poverty, and ten thousand things were
against them; and yet nothing was against them. For the things which
made them the most bright and conspicuous, and great in the sight both
of God and of men, were these. Just reflect then what a word Paul hath
uttered about the faithful, and those who are truly crucified, such as
not even the Emperor with his diadem can achieve. For against him
there are abundance of barbarians that arm themselves, and of enemies
that invade, and of bodyguards that plot, and of subjects many that
oftentimes are ever and anon rebelling, and thousands of other things.
But against the faithful who taketh good heed unto God's laws, neither
man, nor devil, nor aught besides, can stand! For if you take away his
money, you have become the procurer of a reward to him. If you speak
ill of him, by the evil report he gains fresh lustre in God's sight.
If you cast him into starvation, the more will his glory and his
reward be. If (what seems the most severe stroke of all) you give him
over to death, you are twining a crown of martyrdom about him. What
then is equivalent to this way of life, being that against which
nothing can be done, but even they that seem to devise mischief are no
less of service to him than benefactors? This is why he says, "If God
be for us, who can be against us? Next, not being satisfied with what
he had already said, the greatest sign of His love for us, and that
which he always is dwelling over, that he sets down here also; I mean,
the slaying of His Son. For He did not only justify us, he means, and
glorify us, and make us conformed to that Image, but not even His Son
did He spare for thee. And therefore he proceeds to say,

Ver. 32. "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us
all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?"

End quote-------------------
(from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-83.htm#TopOfPage)

[snip]

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

[RNG]

"Matthew Johnson" <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:a6t3u6$i5u$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

> The problem is, of course, that you can never really be sure you are
> one of these predestined saved, not during this life.

1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love
the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of
the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
believe on the name of the Son of God.

[RNG]

[if no one can loose their salvation,] "...why is the NT full of
warnings,instructions,guidance, etc to keep us in 'The
Way'"
"...If we are guaranteed salvation(no matter what we do) then are we free to
do whatever?"

Greetings:

"We believe that it is the privilege of believers to rejoice in the
assurance of their salvation through the testimony of God's Word; which,
however, clearly forbids the use of Christian liberty as an occasion to the
flesh ( Romans 13:13-14; Galatians 5:13; Titus 2:11-15)."

Jesus warns us to enter at the narrow gate and way, because the broad way
leads to eternal destruction (Matt. 7:13-14). In John 14:6, Jesus said He
is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man comes to the Father,
except through Him. I think this warning is to show us that there is only
one way to get to heaven, and that is through faith in Jesus Christ, apart
from works. Every other way, broad as it is, leads to hell.

There may be many other reasons God warns and guides us. For one, He is our
Shepherd, and we are His sheep (John 10). We are his children, and He is
our Father (Hebrews 12; Galatians 3). God warns us to save us from
experiencing the consequences of sin in our daily lives (2 Peter 2:11), and
to bring glory to Himself when we reflect His traits (1 Peter 1:15-16).

Sin, in the Bible, is always pictured as bondage and slavery. Israel, in
Egypt, is a picture of sin, and how it oppresses and binds you. When they
were delivered from slavery, this is a picture of our deliverance from sin.
Fleshly lusts wage war against your soul (2 Peter 2:11), and work death in
you (Romans 6:16). 2 Peter 2:19 says those who say that grace is a license
to sin, and that this is liberty, are false teachers, who actually enslave
people to the corruption of sin.

The attitude of a true believer is "What shall we say then? Shall we
continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are
dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Romans 6:1ff.). Romans 12 beseeches
us, in light of God's mercies in saving us from the penalty (1-4), power
(5-7), and presence of our sin (8), to yield our bodies to God's will. This
is only our "reasonable" act of worship, since God has bestowed such Grace
upon us. Peter says going back to a life of sin, after God has delivered
you from it, is like a dog returning to its vomit (2 Peter 2:22). While
obedience to God is not a "term" of salvation, it is always the "fruit" of
God's saving faith at work in our lives (cf. Ephesians 2:8-10; Romans 6;
James; Philippians 2:13; John 15). True freedom, is the ability to avoid
sin, and serve God (Romans 6; Galatians 5).

One principal of interpretation which helps to avoid error, is the principal
of clear reference. That is, when a doctrine is clearly established in a
large body of Scripture, we allow this to guide our understanding of other
passages which may not be so clear, or which seem to contradict.

There are passages, like Hebrews 6, which seem to imply a person can loose
their salvation. However, we need to consider these in their context. The
Hebrews verses, for example, could be a hypothetical argument. God is
saying, "if they fall away" they cannot be renewed to repentence. This
doesn't mean they will, or can, but only that if such a person could fall
away. Or, it could refer to a person who is a true believer, and who comes
under severe chastening of God (cf. Hebrews 12). Since the abundance of
clear teaching in the New Testament, is that the believer is eternally
secure, we need to interpret more difficult passages like Hebrews 6, in
light of this, instead of vise versa.

We hope this helps answer the question, and that God will give us wisdom and
understanding of His word.

Grace and peace,

Aurora Avenue Bible Church

aurorabible<at>yahoo.com
http://www.churches.net/churches/abc

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Loren]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<a6t3u6$i5u$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> The problem is, of course, that you can never really be sure you are
> one of these predestined saved, not during this life.

Hmmm.

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the
name of the Son of God, in order that you may* know* that you have
eternal life.

not in this instance through uncertain Chrstian exerience but on the
sure foundation of that which is written in Scripture itself.

"He that has the son has life."
"I know whom I have believed"
"Him that comes unto me I will in no way cast out."

This is why Isaiah can declare, "And the work of righteousness shall
be peace (Rom 5:1); and the effecto of righteousness quietness and
assurance forever,." (32:17)

so, we have, "the full assurance of hope (Heb 6:11) and the "full
assurance of faith" in 10:22.

But Christian experience DOES have a role to play.

Rom. 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are
children of God,

1 John 5:9, 10 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God
is greater; for the witness of God is this, that He has borne witness
concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the
witness in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a
liar, because he has not believed in the witness that God has borne
concerning His Son.

Heb 10::2 asserts that those "once purged" should have had no more
conscience of sins. As Rom 8:1 declares once and for all time to the
one who has confessed with his mouth that Jesus is YHVH, and believes
in his heart that God raised Him form the dead, that there is NOW NO
CONDEMNATION. No condemnation is a result of having no sin. Having
no sin is a result of having it imputed into Christ, the Just and the
Justifier.

How foolish it is of Paul to write:

2 Cor. 13:5 Test yourselves {to see} if you are in the faith; examine
yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus
Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test?

if as you say, "you can never really be sure." What absudity. The
child knows he is born because he exists. Just so, we know we are
born again because of the new birth within us. This is exhibited as
Paul points out in his struggle with sin in an entirely new way in Rom
7:7 ff. You cannot have the controversy of chapter 7 without KNOWING
that you are born again. It is simply inconceivable that a believer
"in Christ" would be unaware that Christ dwells in him. It is absurd
to maintain that "you can never really be sure" when Paul is exhorting
the church to test themselves. And beyond this, how are we to test
the spirits if we don't have full assurance at the testing of
ourselves? Remarkable statement you have made here.

"We KNOW that we have passed from life to death because we love the
brethren." is the positive. ""He that loveth not his brother
abideth in death" (1 Jn 3:14) is the negative. Classical Eastern
assertion that a thing is most assuredly true.

Christ in His high priestly prayer even give the world a sign for
KNOWING that someone is truly born again. The mark of a Christian:

John 17:21 that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, {art} in
Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may
believe that Thou didst send Me.

Here is the final apologetic. And if the world is given a sure sign,
how could it be that we would be left in the dark?

Simply amazing. Simply amazing. How can you who doesn't know "draw
near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith?"

"Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of Grace"

"we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him"

Why? Because

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in
righteousness, but accoding to His mercy, by the warshing of
regeneration and the renewing by the Holy Spirit whom He pour*ed* out
upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior. (Tit 3:5)

[Matthew Johnson]

On 15 Mar 2002 19:22:38 GMT, "RNG" <an...@att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:a6t3u6$i5u$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>> The problem is, of course, that you can never really be sure you are
>> one of these predestined saved, not during this life.
>
>1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love
>the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

And the point of this verse is _not_ 'eternal security', it is to
underline the importance of brotherly love.

>1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of
>the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
>believe on the name of the Son of God.

Yet in that very same letter, he also says:

He who says he knows Him and does not keep the commandments
is a liar; in him there is no truth (1 Jn 2:4)

And he also warns against being overconfident in claiming that we do
keep the commandments saying:

He who says he abides in Him must walk as He walked (1 Jn 2:6)

And also:

My children, let us not love each other in words, but in deeds
and truth; this is how we know what we are from the Truth
and our heart is comforted before His face (1 Jn 3:18-19)

So only those who reach such perfection as to make this claim have
grounds to say that they know they are among the predestined saved.

Yet only a little experience with the Christian life is enough to
convince anyone that people who advance this claim are numerous,
people who advance it validly are much rarer.

[snip]

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <a6thlu$7hu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "RNG" says...

>
>
>
>
>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:a6t3u6$i5u$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>> The problem is, of course, that you can never really be sure you are
>> one of these predestined saved, not during this life.
>
>1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love
>the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

What _do_ you think this verse really means? Do you really think he means that
anyone who became a Christian has already reached this perfection of brotherly
love?

>1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of
>the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
>believe on the name of the Son of God.

But he is writing to the _churches_ of God, to people who already came to
believe. So he cannot be talking about simple mental assent to a proposition
when he said 'believe'. He must be talking about something deeper. Only those
who acquire this deeper faith may 'know that ye have eternal life'. And what
will happen to that person, if he does not _guard_ that faith?

Remember Heb 4:1, which reads:

Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us]
of entering into his rest, any of you should seem
to come short of it. (Heb 4:1)

Surely anyone who loses such a deep faith would count as such a person?
Yet he says what will happen with such a person:

Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest,
lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief (Heb 4:11)

'Fall' here is in the same sense as those whose corpses fell in the desert: it
means to be _lost_.

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

[Loren]

Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<a73eq0$fid$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> In article <a6thlu$7hu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "RNG" says...
> >
> >"Matthew Johnson" <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >news:a6t3u6$i5u$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> >> The problem is, of course, that you can never really be sure you are
> >> one of these predestined saved, not during this life.
> >
> >1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love
> >the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
>
> What _do_ you think this verse really means? Do you really think he

> means thatanyone who became a Christian has already reached this
> perfection of brotherly love?

Once again, you confuse justification with sanctification. The
outworking of justification is sanctification. The basis for the
"hope that we have within us" is that God is at peace with us -past
tense (Rom 5:1) But from there we have to work out our salvation,
i..e. sanctification. There is a growth aspect to salvation in the
area of sanctification. But justfication is a one time, once and for
all act which is accomplished for us by His inparting our sin into
Christ and crucifiying it on the cross, by His calling us, by His
gracious act of even giving us the faith to believe, and by His
imparting into us the righteousness of Christ. It is "ALL from Him,
through Him and to Him."

From our consciousness, we chose Him but the reality of the case is
that He chose us and enabled us to believe. That is justification.
But sanctification is entirely wrapped up in this, "faith without
works is dead." It is not that faith is accompanied by works to
accomplish being justified by God. Rather, it is a result, the
outward exhibition of the already accomplished fact that the new birth
has been achieved within us.

Justification is that precise moment which by our conscious volition
accept Christ as our Lord and Savior.
Sanctification is the working out of that salvation in our existential
daily lives of continually considering ourselves dead to sin, by not
letting sin reign in our moment by moment lives, by considering it all
true that we are dead to sin and alive "in Christ." It is THE war
within between the flesh and the Spirit which is our witness.
"Consider it all true..." In this, "The Spirit Himself bears
witness with our spirit that we ARE children of God."

Sarah's system of belief attacks justification if providing a false
object of belief.
Your system of belief attacks the peace of God which passes all
understanding. You system attacks sanctification. There is a war
within the life of the believe BECAUSE he IS a believer and has the
accomplished work of being justified and having regeneration by the
Spirit giving us the capacity to do works of righteousness.

>
> >1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name
> >of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye
> >may believe on the name of the Son of God.
>
> But he is writing to the _churches_ of God, to people who already came
> to believe.

Justification.

> So he cannot be talking about simple mental assent to a
> proposition when he said 'believe'. He must be talking about something
> deeper.

Why? You are a believer and yet this "simple mental assent" has not
been experienced by you. So this very is to believers who need to be
encouraged that works do not perpetuate our being "in Christ".
"Consider it all true!"

> Only those who acquire this deeper faith may 'know that ye have
> eternal life'.

Then you make justification a work. Your position is that works
accomplish that which God failed to provided. It is sola fide by sola
gracia as sola scriptura attests. So where is the boasting? For
surely if I add ANYTHING to my salvation, I have given so that it must
be given back. This is totally contrary to all the NT teaching.

>And what will happen to that person, if he does not _guard_ > that
faith?
>
> Remember Heb 4:1, which reads:
>
> Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us]
> of entering into his rest, any of you should seem
> to come short of it. (Heb 4:1)

CONTEXT Who was the audience? Is it not Jewish believers thinking
of returning to the OT form of animal sacrifices? Again, you confuse
justification and sanctification.

>
> Surely anyone who loses such a deep faith would count as such a person?
> Yet he says what will happen with such a person:
>
> Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest,
> lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief (Heb 4:11)

That's because it has already been ALL accomplished for them. To
struggle with works of the flesh to enter into a cessation of works is
self defeating. To enter in this rest of God is to cease our efforts
of sustaining our salvation. It was all accomplished by Him. That
justification is an already accomplished fact, our work is no longer
difficult in that we have to strive to gain peace with God. That's a
done deal. Our work now is a work of love. A man does not buy candy
for his wife because he is trying to gain favor (this is an
illustration) but rather because he loves her. It is a gift. And so
is sanctification. We want to do works of righteousness (Rom 7)
because of what He has done for us. We love Him. Why? Because He
first loved us. This wholly contrary to any deed of works. What wife
wants things or works. I mean really. What she wants is devotion and
communion. That is what we all want. And this is exactly where this
thing with God is. He wants communion, not sacrifice. "Obedience is
better than sacrifice. " We obey because we love Him. We love Him
because He had bought us with a price. We are free because He has set
us free.

>
> 'Fall' here is in the same sense as those whose corpses fell in the desert: it
> means to be _lost_.

And what has John been expressing from the very first in this epistle?

1 John 1:3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that
you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is
with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

"fellowship"

But the fact remains:

1 John 1:5 And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce
to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

that God is holy and that standard never ceases to exist. So...

1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and {yet} walk
in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;

If we sin, we lose not our salvation but our fellowship. Your child
deliberately does something you told him not to do. Want has been
lost? Certainly not the fact that he is your son. What has been lost
is fellowship because this "rebellion" now stands between you.

Just because we have been justified, we must not be fooled into
thinking that we no longer have the capacity to sin.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves,
and the truth is not in us.

For, indeed, we do. But we also have to confess that we now have
something that we did not have before. We have bold access into the
very throne room of God, not based on anything in or of ourselves, but
the accomplished work of Christ. Therefore,

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to
forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

and *fellowship* is re-established. I'm his son forever. Nothing
will change that because there is nothing that can separate me from
the love of Christ -not even life itself. That is, nothing I do in
life will or can possibly be able to separate me from Christ. Why can
no one bring a railing accusation against us?

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you that
you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

It is Christ's righteousness that the Father sees, not our sin. God
Himself is our Advocate therefore "If God is for us, who is against
us" that really matters? "Who will bring a charge against God's
elect- chosen before the foundation of the world?" God is the one who
justifies. Therefore, who is the one who condemns? We are doubly
protected from every losing our salvation because Christ Jesus is He
who died... who was (1) raised...(2) who intercedes for us.

Need further witness, Paul asks at the end of Rom 8. Well consider
Israel. "Has God rejected His people? May it never be!.... for the
gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

You seek to rob the believer of his joy of being "in Christ." We are
sons. It has all been "From Him, through Him and to Him" therefore
how can we give that it must be given back to us? THIS is the
goodnews. And what is news? It is a report of that which has already
been accomplished.

[Matthew Johnson]

On 19 Mar 2002 14:34:37 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

>
>
>Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<a73eq0$fid$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> In article <a6thlu$7hu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "RNG" says...
>> >
>> >"Matthew Johnson" <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> >news:a6t3u6$i5u$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> >
>> >> The problem is, of course, that you can never really be sure you are
>> >> one of these predestined saved, not during this life.
>> >
>> >1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love
>> >the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
>>
>> What _do_ you think this verse really means? Do you really think he
>> means thatanyone who became a Christian has already reached this
>> perfection of brotherly love?
>
>Once again, you confuse justification with sanctification.

No, it is not _I_ who am confused. You are confused by your insistence
on a false distinction between the two.

> The outworking of justification is sanctification.

This is nothing but Reform eisegesis. The native speakers of Koine
knew better than to believe this!

> The basis for the

[snip]

>Justification is that precise moment which by our conscious volition
>accept Christ as our Lord and Savior.

And this false definition of 'Justification' is your false principle
by which you twist the entire remainder of Scripture to fit your false
dogma.

>Sanctification is the working out of that salvation in our existential
>daily lives of continually considering ourselves dead to sin, by not
>letting sin reign in our moment by moment lives, by considering it all
>true that we are dead to sin and alive "in Christ."

No, it is our participation even during the current life in the life
of the Kingdom of Heaven. I made a comment to this effect before, but
never saw you respond to it. Perhaps you didn't realize I was
preparing to refute your false definitions.

[snip]

>> >1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name
>> >of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye
>> >may believe on the name of the Son of God.
>>
>> But he is writing to the _churches_ of God, to people who already came
>> to believe.
>
>Justification.
>
>> So he cannot be talking about simple mental assent to a
>> proposition when he said 'believe'. He must be talking about something
>> deeper.
>
>Why? You are a believer and yet this "simple mental assent" has not
>been experienced by you.

How presumptuous of you to make this claim! How could you know what
mental assent I have or have not made?

Now if you read my posts more carefully, I might believe you could
know a _few_ assents I have or have not made. But you do not do this,
as I already showed in the other thread 'Re: Trinity ??'

> So this very is to believers who need to be
>encouraged that works do not perpetuate our being "in Christ".
>"Consider it all true!"
>
>> Only those who acquire this deeper faith may 'know that ye have
>> eternal life'.
>
>Then you make justification a work.

Not I, but the Apostles who wrote these Epistles.

> Your position is that works accomplish that which God failed to provided.

Certainly not! You are twisting my words into the straw man you find
easily dealt with.

> It is sola fide by sola gracia as sola scriptura attests.

This is not what scripture attests. As already pointed out, the only
time 'sola fide' occurs, it is 'non sola fide' (really, 'non fide
tantum' James 2:24)!

> So where is the boasting? For
>surely if I add ANYTHING to my salvation, I have given so that it must
>be given back.

No nothing is 'surely' about this. Why, it is not even sure what that
would _mean_. But it sounds like an stock straw man of the Reform
rhetorical arsenal.

> This is totally contrary to all the NT teaching.

That's OK, since it is a straw man.

>>And what will happen to that person, if he does not _guard_ > that
>faith?
>>
>> Remember Heb 4:1, which reads:
>>
>> Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us]
>> of entering into his rest, any of you should seem
>> to come short of it. (Heb 4:1)
>
>CONTEXT Who was the audience?

We had this discussion before. Then, you admitted that the evidence
was not conclusive. Now you seem to have forgotten this.

> Is it not Jewish believers thinking
>of returning to the OT form of animal sacrifices?

It is not.

> Again, you confuse justification and sanctification.

No, it is you who base your confusion on questionable definitions of
context.

>> Surely anyone who loses such a deep faith would count as such a person?
>> Yet he says what will happen with such a person:
>>
>> Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest,
>> lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief (Heb 4:11)
>
>That's because it has already been ALL accomplished for them.

How could it be 'all accomplished for them' if they are _still_ being
called to labor? What was ''all accomplished for them' was what they
could not do at all, the salvation of their nature. What labor they
are called to is for them to be ruled not by sin, which still has
influence over them, but to freely share that new nature.

> To struggle with works of the flesh to enter into a cessation of works is
>self defeating. To enter in this rest of God is to cease our efforts
>of sustaining our salvation.

More Reform Eisegesis. To 'enter into this rest' refers to inheriting
Paradise, which is done by persevering to the end.

> It was all accomplished by Him.

So you love to repeat; but then why are they _still_ being called to
labor?

> That
>justification is an already accomplished fact, our work is no longer
>difficult in that we have to strive to gain peace with God.

I thought you said the peace was 'an already accomplished fact' also.
Have you forgotten your own argument already?

> That's a
>done deal.

The only 'done deal' mentioned in Rom 5:1 is NOT our eternal
salvation. That verb 'dikaiow' has a wide range of meanings, you know.
You have not picked the sense that best fits the rest of the chapter.

> Our work now is a work of love.

As it must be. But we need not suppose 'eternal security' to have
_this_. In fact, it is better not to.

> A man does not buy candy
>for his wife because he is trying to gain favor (this is an
>illustration) but rather because he loves her.

That depends on the man, of course!

> It is a gift. And so
>is sanctification. We want to do works of righteousness (Rom 7)
>because of what He has done for us. We love Him. Why? Because He
>first loved us. This wholly contrary to any deed of works.

No, it is 'wholly contrary to any deed of works of THE LAW'. There is
a distinction, you know.

> What wife
>wants things or works. I mean really. What she wants is devotion and
>communion. That is what we all want. And this is exactly where this
>thing with God is. He wants communion, not sacrifice.

So why did you translate this word not as 'communion' but as
'fellowship' in 1 John?

> "Obedience is
>better than sacrifice. " We obey because we love Him. We love Him
>because He had bought us with a price. We are free because He has set
>us free.
>>
>> 'Fall' here is in the same sense as those whose corpses fell in the desert: it
>> means to be _lost_.

Why did you snip the passage that "'fall' here" refers to? Are you
embarassed by every passage that weakens your position?

>And what has John been expressing from the very first in this epistle?

Certainly not 'eternal security'!

>1 John 1:3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that
>you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is
>with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
>
>"fellowship"

No, you are changing the topic. Hebrews makes it clear that if you
fail to persevere to the end, you will perish like those whose corpses
littered the desert in Moses's time. Besides: 'fellowship' is a highly
questionable translation here; it looks tendentious to me.

>But the fact remains:
>
>1 John 1:5 And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce
>to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
>
>that God is holy and that standard never ceases to exist.

But this means _much more_ than that! It means that we can expect the
greatest benevolence from Him, since 'in Him there is no darkness at
all'. It means we know that God is not the cause of any evil.
It means we can expect mercy and truth from Him, which includes
forgiveness of sins.

> So...
>
>1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and {yet} walk
>in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;

>If we sin, we lose not our salvation but our fellowship.

That is not what this verse says. We lose much more than 'fellowship'
for lying!

> Your child
>deliberately does something you told him not to do. Want has been
>lost? Certainly not the fact that he is your son. What has been lost
>is fellowship because this "rebellion" now stands between you.
>
>Just because we have been justified, we must not be fooled into
>thinking that we no longer have the capacity to sin.

And we must not be fooled into thinking that this sin sin is not
_very_ dangerous. Yet you are determined to do exactly this.

>1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves,
>and the truth is not in us.
>
>For, indeed, we do. But we also have to confess that we now have
>something that we did not have before. We have bold access into the
>very throne room of God, not based on anything in or of ourselves, but
>the accomplished work of Christ.

We agree on this. But we disagree on just what that 'accomplished
work' is, and even whether to view it as purely in time, or outside of
time, 'intruding' into historical time. Go back to that St. Maximos
site, and look for the word 'aiwn' and its different sense. While you
are at it, you can look at the word 'koinwnia' and see why you should
not have translated it sometimes as 'fellowship' and sometimes as
'communion'. We have no salvation outside of our koinwnia with God
through Christ in the Spirit.

> Therefore,
>
>1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to
>forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>
>and *fellowship* is re-established. I'm his son forever.

Right. So take care not to become a disinherited son, worse yet, a son
like the older son of Lk 15:25!

> Nothing
>will change that because there is nothing that can separate me from
>the love of Christ -not even life itself.

That is not what Paul means. Did you forget the difference between
active and middle? When Paul says 'who will separate' in Rm 8:35, his
use of the active voice implies he is considering only persons/things
_other_ than ourselves. That would have required the middle voice.

>That is, nothing I do in
>life will or can possibly be able to separate me from Christ.

No, that is no twhat he means, as I just showed above. But the example
Paul himself gives in the very next verse should have made that clear!

> Why can
>no one bring a railing accusation against us?
>
>1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you that
>you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the
>Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
>
>It is Christ's righteousness that the Father sees, not our sin. God
>Himself is our Advocate therefore "If God is for us, who is against
>us" that really matters? "Who will bring a charge against God's
>elect- chosen before the foundation of the world?" God is the one who
>justifies. Therefore, who is the one who condemns? We are doubly
>protected from every losing our salvation because Christ Jesus is He
>who died... who was (1) raised...(2) who intercedes for us.
>
>Need further witness, Paul asks at the end of Rom 8. Well consider
>Israel. "Has God rejected His people? May it never be!.... for the
>gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."
>
>You seek to rob the believer of his joy of being "in Christ."

No, I seek to rob the believer of a false joy that will blind him to
the reality of his calling. For if he persists in this blindness, he
will never know the true joy, which is so much greater. This is why
Paul says:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die;
but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the
body, you will live (Rom 8:13 NIV)

It is _this_ greatness that brought forth the words of Paul:

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing
with the glory that will be revealed in us (Rom 8:18 NIV)

Paul did not base his faith in this great glory on counting his
chickens before they hatch, as you would have us do.

[snip]

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Loren]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<a789lj$fi7$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> On 19 Mar 2002 14:34:37 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

> >
> >Once again, you confuse justification with sanctification.
>
> No, it is not _I_ who am confused. You are confused by your insistence
> on a false distinction between the two.

Then why the different tenses used by Paul in regards to their
distinction? Why the clear differences between 3:21-5:21 with that of
6:1-8:17? It was the *act* of "faith" which God "reckoned to him as
righteousness." Yet Paul makes the distinction between justification
and sanctification is that in sanctification we to "continually
present". We are to "consider", an act, actually a book keeping term
meaning, "to place in once's account", that we "have died to sin."
Why, because it is no longer being placed in our account but it was
placed in Christ's account and paid for on the cross. "Knowing that
Christ has been raised from the dead is never to die again...for the
death that He died He died to sin, once forall, but the life that He
lives, he lives to God, Even so (therefore) consider yourselves dead
to sin."

It's over. Sin is dead. It is not being imputed into my account any
longer. The question "Are we to continue in sin" (sin = Old Nature
contextually) is in the present subjunctive, meaning habitual action.
Right?

Sin is dead is again illustrated by the death of the husband in 7:2.
This is the declaration of God -sin is dead. This is why Paul tells
us that we now have peace with God (5:1) in the present because in the
past we *have been* justified by faith. It is a completed action
which has abiding results. Sanctification is that righteousness which
was imparted into our account at the moment of justification and lived
out as we "work out our salvation" in our existential daily walk here
on earth.

Sin is dead therefore we have no fear of condemnation, past, present
or future. (8:1) The basis is because we have been set free from "the
law of sin and death." That is a past event. But now we have the
"law of the Spirit of life". THIS is the good-news. There is no
longer any obligation or frustration. We are no longer outlaws, but
in-laws.

>
> > The outworking of justification is sanctification.
>
> This is nothing but Reform eisegesis. The native speakers of Koine
> knew better than to believe this!

No, it is the revealing. It is the unshakling of the Judiasers. You
would have the church placed back under the law. "For what the Law
could not do (condem sin) weak as it was throught the flesh, God DID."
You don't like the fact that nothing is required of the one who by
faith *has been* placed "in Christ." Rather, "They eagerly seek you,
not commendably, but they wish to shut you out, in order that you may
seek them." Gal 4:17

Christ had been outwardly expressed to the Galatian saints as a result
of Paul's preaching the good news to them. This good news was that
salvation was pure grace, sola gracia, of which they had been deprived
of by the teaching of the Judiasers. The Judiasers just couldn't let
go of the OT economy where works was required (which in truth it was
not) inorder to merit righteousness. The Law had no provision of the
permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit for His work performed in the
believer in the outworking of sanctification. Paul therefore is
calling to the Galations to be brought back under grace again in order
that Christ might be outwardly expressed in their lives. This is
exactly where your "orthodox" stands -with the Judiasers.

> >Justification is that precise moment which by our conscious volition
> >accept Christ as our Lord and Savior.
>
> And this false definition of 'Justification' is your false principle
> by which you twist the entire remainder of Scripture to fit your false
> dogma.

"Therefore, HAVING BEEN (in the past) justified by faith, we HAVE (in
the present) peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom
we have (in the present) obtained our introduction by faith into this
grace which we stand...." Rom 5:1, 2.

It is all grace, not of works (Rom 4:2) It is a declarative act of
God (Rom 4:3). And because we *have been* (in the past) been
justified.

He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised
because of our justification. (4:25

Just as Christ's death is once and for all, and because He has sat
down at the right hand of God, it is a completed, and accomplished
fact. This is God's declaration by His sitting down. You're idea of
"infusion" has Christ jumping up and down everytime a believer sins.
This is not what Paul teaches. He teaches that all our sins have been
placed in Christ and that by the fact of His accomplished works and
death of righteousness, we are free. AND SO, Paul recognition of the
immediate contention, "Well if that be so, if all my sins mean nothing
before God judicially any longer, then, hey, eat drink and be merry."
And Paul's answer to this is 6:2. "May it never be. How shall we who
*died* to sin still live in it."

>
> >Sanctification is the working out of that salvation in our existential
> >daily lives of continually considering ourselves dead to sin, by not
> >letting sin reign in our moment by moment lives, by considering it all
> >true that we are dead to sin and alive "in Christ."
>
> No, it is our participation even during the current life in the life
> of the Kingdom of Heaven. I made a comment to this effect before, but
> never saw you respond to it. Perhaps you didn't realize I was
> preparing to refute your false definitions.

"Kingdom of Heaven." Christ offered it to the Jews as a technical
term meaning, the Messianic Kingdom. There is much debate what is
meant by the "Kingdom of Heaven," the "Kingdom of God." But yes,
sanctification is existential. It is the believer learning to operate
under the power of the spirit as opposed to the power of the flesh.
Both capacities are within the life of the believer. This is Paul's
struggle in Rom 7. "Wretched man that I am! Who will free me from
the body of this death?" It is the call all believers have made to
God. We *now* that have the Spirit of God dwelling in the believer,
that we are especially sensitive to the "death" of the flesh when we
grieve Him by our acts of the flesh. We want to do the good, which
the Spirit reveals to us, but we seem not to have the power to do it.
This is the difference between the believer, the one in Christ and the
unbeliever, the outlaw. The believer has this struggle, the struggle
of Spirit and flesh, going on within him. "I myself with my mind am
serving the law of God but on the other (hand) with my flesh the law
of sin (flesh)."

This is sanctification. Working out one's discipline to live "in
Christ" by the power of the Spirit which we have in us giving witness
that we are indeed sons of God, the very same power which raised
Christ from the dead. Sanctification is becoming increasingly willing
to be led by the power of the Spirit. The fact that He is already
within us, sealing us "in Christ" is a past event.

> >> So he cannot be talking about simple mental assent to a
> >> proposition when he said 'believe'. He must be talking about something
> >> deeper.
> >
> >Why? You are a believer and yet this "simple mental assent" has not
> >been experienced by you.
>
> How presumptuous of you to make this claim! How could you know what
> mental assent I have or have not made?

"You shall know them by their works." You claim that we still have to
jump though hoops inorder to "maintain" our salvation otherwise we
lose it. So we are constantly jumping "in Christ" and out of Christ
with each sin and repentence. This is "presumptuous."

>
> Now if you read my posts more carefully, I might believe you could
> know a _few_ assents I have or have not made. But you do not do this,
> as I already showed in the other thread 'Re: Trinity ??'

You fail to make the distinction between reading "more carefully" and
accepting. But, no, I don't have all knowledge. I am still learning.
But I know what I believe and why I believe it and therefore make my
defense. Justification is sola fide. It is a once and for all act
whereby we are placed "in Christ." Paul is very clear on this point.

>
> > So this very is to believers who need to be
> >encouraged that works do not perpetuate our being "in Christ".
> >"Consider it all true!"
> >
> >> Only those who acquire this deeper faith may 'know that ye have
> >> eternal life'.
> >
> >Then you make justification a work.
>
> Not I, but the Apostles who wrote these Epistles.

No, they do not. What they are saying *to believers* is always in
regards to fellowship, not to be one moment "in Christ" and the next
moment out of Christ. Nowhere do I read the apostles teaching this
leaping back and forth at every commission of omission of sin.
Rather, "There is now therefore, NO condemnation for those who are "in
Christ" Jesus" because we are to "consider" ourselves "dead to sin."

>
> > Your position is that works accomplish that which God failed to provided.
>
> Certainly not! You are twisting my words into the straw man you find
> easily dealt with.

It is either sola fide or it is not. It is either "in Christ" once
and for all, or it is not. It is either "having been (in the past)
justified by faith" or it is not.

>
> > It is sola fide by sola gracia as sola scriptura attests.
>
> This is not what scripture attests. As already pointed out, the only
> time 'sola fide' occurs, it is 'non sola fide' (really, 'non fide
> tantum' James 2:24)!

James is dealing with the fact that the *past* action of justification
is revealed by the *present* action of good works, i.e.
sanctification. "I forgive you of your sins. Now pick up your pallet
and walk." The first gives rise to the second. Justification is the
accomplished declaration from which sanctification flows. James
supports my position, not yours.

>
> > So where is the boasting? For
> >surely if I add ANYTHING to my salvation, I have given so that it must
> >be given back.
>
> No nothing is 'surely' about this. Why, it is not even sure what that
> would _mean_. But it sounds like an stock straw man of the Reform
> rhetorical arsenal.

There is no boasting because, and only because sola fide. If it is
not sola fide then what is it? It is a work. Either/or.

> >> Remember Heb 4:1, which reads:
> >>
> >> Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us]
> >> of entering into his rest, any of you should seem
> >> to come short of it. (Heb 4:1)
> >
> >CONTEXT Who was the audience?
>
> We had this discussion before. Then, you admitted that the evidence
> was not conclusive. Now you seem to have forgotten this.

No, I did not. Hebrews was written to 1st C Jewish believers who were
thinking of going back to the animal sacrifices still being preformed
as an OT sacrament.

>
> > Is it not Jewish believers thinking
> >of returning to the OT form of animal sacrifices?
>
> It is not.

Heb 7:23-8:1 9:11-16

>
> > Again, you confuse justification and sanctification.
>
> No, it is you who base your confusion on questionable definitions of
> context.

"I'm a Rolls Royce."

>
> >> Surely anyone who loses such a deep faith would count as such a person?
> >> Yet he says what will happen with such a person:
> >>
> >> Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest,
> >> lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief (Heb 4:11)
> >
> >That's because it has already been ALL accomplished for them.
>
> How could it be 'all accomplished for them' if they are _still_ being
> called to labor? What was ''all accomplished for them' was what they
> could not do at all, the salvation of their nature. What labor they
> are called to is for them to be ruled not by sin, which still has
> influence over them, but to freely share that new nature.

You cannot come to understanding until you understand that that the
context is 1st century Jews coming near to believing but then thinking
of going back to the "old way." Hebrews is hard to interpret because
some passages deal with justification, where the Jews "believers" have
"come close" but have not yet made a confess "entered into the rest".
Hebrews is not the epistle to be arguing from outside of the context
of the 1st C Jew having all the "signs" that the grace of God had
switch economies to include the mystery of the Church and the
Gentiles. Roman's is the book to which we should turn.

>
> > To struggle with works of the flesh to enter into a cessation of works is
> >self defeating. To enter in this rest of God is to cease our efforts
> >of sustaining our salvation.
>
> More Reform Eisegesis. To 'enter into this rest' refers to inheriting
> Paradise, which is done by persevering to the end.

As I swore in My wrath,
They shall not enter My rest (Heb 3:11)

"swore" to threaten with an oath
"they" Israel as a covenanted nation
"rest" to the Jews- the Millennium. To the Jew is was the cessation
of activity and a permamanent abiding in Canaan.

"Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of your an evil,
unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God."

"brethren" in the context is his Jewish brothers
"evil" poneros, is an *active* opposition
"unbelieving heart" is an active opposition to the Gospel (Rom 10:9)
"falling away" is a "standing off from" or apostasy.

The Jews tested God in the ast with their crass unbelief. Here the
author is asking these 1st C Jews not to repeat that attitudinal
mistake again. In the midst of believing Jews being severely
persecuted by their "brothers", these Jews are being encouraged not to
turn back and harden their hearts.

"Therefore, let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His
rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it. For indeed
we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word
they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in
those who heard. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He
has said,

As I swore in My wrath
They shall not enter My rest,

although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.
[Heb. 4:1-3 NASB]

In keeping with a context which presents a mixed multitude (some with
believing and some with unbelieving hearts) the warning is to examine
"our" hearts with relation to the promise, "lest we be found to have
missed it" (Williams' translation). Surely, the context clearly
implies that the difference in hearts existed from the beginning of
the exodus. The call is not to fear of future missing of the promise
but rather to past failure to lay hold upon it. The warning is
against false profession. The warnng is against going along as though
a believer, but some day to be discovered as having missed the
promise.

It here that I would say that I join my Arminian brethren in insisting
that perseverance in the faith is necessary to salvation. And yet, I
differ in that I affirm that failure to persevere proves that one has
never been saved and lost again.

"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present
you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to
the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and
power, both now and ever. Amen."

> > It was all accomplished by Him.
>
> So you love to repeat; but then why are they _still_ being called to
> labor?

Because some have "an unbelieving heart" while others are those who
"have become partakers of Christ." A clear distinction. "Have
become" is perfect tense, in other words, an action tht was completed
in the past with abiding/present results. metochoi, partakers (cf
1:9). And the genitve case, "of Christ." Thayer comments that this
segment of believers (3:6) are true believers.

"The point [of the Greek] is not one of 'retention' of salvation based
upon a 'persistence' of faith but of 'posession' of salvation as
evidenced by a 'continuation' of faith. The perfect tense reaches
back into the past and then speaks of the present. It is not the
future of these Jews that the writer is concerned about here, but he
is concerned as to whether in times past and as a result at the time
of the writing of the epistle they were partakers of salvation in
Messiah." [Wuest, "Word studies in the Greek New Testament."]

>
> > That
> >justification is an already accomplished fact, our work is no longer
> >difficult in that we have to strive to gain peace with God.
>
> I thought you said the peace was 'an already accomplished fact' also.
> Have you forgotten your own argument already?

"In that" ... "so as" We do not lose peace with God because He is
pleased with us. We lose our own peace with Him (as opposed to He
being at peace with us) when we sin, but the context is always
fellowship, not alienation as in no longer being "in Christ." As I
say...

>
> > That's a
> >done deal.
>
> The only 'done deal' mentioned in Rom 5:1 is NOT our eternal
> salvation. That verb 'dikaiow' has a wide range of meanings, you know.
> You have not picked the sense that best fits the rest of the chapter.

As it is through Christ that we are justified (3:24) so it is also
through Him that we are reconciled to God (5:10 cp 2 Cor 5:18ff).
5:11 and 21; 6:23; 7:25 and 8:39 all have the same formula. I rather
think it not accidental that Paul would place this formula at the
beginning, the middle and the end of his dissertation. Justification
is the result of reconciliation or vica versa. In 5:1 it is God's
justification of the believer that is concerned. Justification and
reconciliation, though distinguishable, are inseparable. He does not
confer the status of righteousness upon us without at the same time
giving Himself to us in friendship and establishing peace between
Himself and us -a work which, on account of the, what other word is
there, awful reality both of His wrath against sin and of the fierce
hostility of our own egotism against the God who claims our
allegiance, is only accomplished at unspeakable cost to Him. This is
the high order of the Cross.

Paul uses a perfect for the aorist, but can be taken as a "true
perfect" (BDF).

As to "dikaiothentes" I would point you to "echomen." Cranfield
writes:

Though the indicative is a good deal less strongly attested than the
subjunctive, it is almost certainly to be preferred on the ground of
intinsic probablity. It is clear from v. 10f that Paul regards the
believers' peace with God as a fact. It would therefore be
inconsistent for him to say here 'let us have peace' meaning thereby
'let us obtain peace' (Paul would anyway hardly think of peace with
God as something to be obtained by human endeavour). If the
subsjunctive is read, we understand it in some such sense as 'let us
enjoy the peace we have' or 'let us gurard the peace we have' 9cf.
e.g. Origen, Chrysostom). But this is not free from objection; for
it would surely be strange for Paul, in such a carefully argued
writing as this, to exhort his readers to enjoy or to guard a peace
which he has not yet explicitly shown to be possessed by them. While
it is of course true that consideration such as have just been
mentioned could easily have led to the substitution of the indicative
for the subjunctive, a deliberate alteration in the opposite direction
would also be understandable, since a copyist might well have felt
that, after so much doctrinal statement, an element of exhortation was
called for. But, since the difference in pronunciation beween o and w
was slight, a change in either direction could easily occur, whenever
in the transmission of the text dictation was employed."
[International Critical Commentary, Romans, Vol 1.]

>
> > Our work now is a work of love.
>
> As it must be. But we need not suppose 'eternal security' to have
> _this_. In fact, it is better not to.

Oh? Why so? Which is freer? Which has less obligation added to it?
It is obvious. For it to already be an accomplished fact, the
response is more free and with greater addoration.

>
> > It is a gift. And so
> >is sanctification. We want to do works of righteousness (Rom 7)
> >because of what He has done for us. We love Him. Why? Because
> >He first loved us. This wholly contrary to any deed of works.
>
> No, it is 'wholly contrary to any deed of works of THE LAW'. There is
> a distinction, you know.

And Christ accomplished all the works of the Law. Yes, I understand
the distinction.

>
> > What wife
> >wants things or works. I mean really. What she wants is devotion and
> >communion. That is what we all want. And this is exactly where this
> >thing with God is. He wants communion, not sacrifice.
>
> So why did you translate this word not as 'communion' but as
> 'fellowship' in 1 John?

They are interchangeable.

>
> > "Obedience is
> >better than sacrifice. " We obey because we love Him. We love Him
> >because He had bought us with a price. We are free because He has
> >set us free.
> >>
> >> 'Fall' here is in the same sense as those whose corpses fell in the
> >> desert: it means to be _lost_.
>
> Why did you snip the passage that "'fall' here" refers to? Are you
> embarassed by every passage that weakens your position?

I didn't quote it because I wasn't being thorough, nor because I
didn't have an anwswer. "the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses
(continually) us from all sin.

>
> >And what has John been expressing from the very first in this epistle?
>
> Certainly not 'eternal security'!

2:27-28 ... the anointing which you receiv*ed* (v. 20) from Him
abides in you and you have no need for any one to teach you; but as
His anointing teaches you abou all thins and is true and is not a lie,
and just as it has taught you you abide in Him. And now, little
children, abide (continually) in Him so that when (indicative) He
shall appear, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in
shame at His coming.

Justification/salavation is not the fear. The fear is His return
while we are in the midst of committing sin. It is fellowship, not
justification, which is the issue. John is assuring the believer.

>
> >1 John 1:3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that
> >you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is
> >with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
> >
> >"fellowship"
>
> No, you are changing the topic. Hebrews makes it clear that if you
> fail to persevere to the end, you will perish like those whose corpses
> littered the desert in Moses's time.

Context. There are believers and those who have not yet come to the
point of confirming belief in Heb. In 1 John this is not the case.

>Besides: 'fellowship' is a highly
> questionable translation here; it looks tendentious to me.

It is acceptable. John uses the word in two different senses in this
epistle. M&M give these instances: "belonging in common to, with whom
I have no partnership." AT Robinson, "The idea in the word is that of
one person haveing a joint participation with another in something
possessed in common by both." Wuest writes: "A very touching use of
the verbal form of this word wasy found in a 4th century inscription;
a doctor of medicine has put up an inscription to his wife who had
also studied mediceine, and who had died. It read, 'as with you alone
I shared my life.'" So my illustration of the husband and wife is
validated! ;-)

In the context, John is commending his 1st hand witness of Jesus,
through the supernatural energization of the Holy Spirit, his readers
would also be able to have a real, practical, actual and more intimate
companionship with Him as well. The companionship is by means of the
Holy Spirit. John uses "meta' "with us" as in a partnership. Thus
the joint participation on the part of the Christian with John's first
hand testimony bears the fruit of real companionship/fellowship with
Jesus Himself. Fellowship, therefore, speaks of some sort of
intercourse which requires the believer to have a common nature.
Through the Spirit's regeneration, we share in the divine nature (Heb
2:11)

John 3:19 is a separation not of the believer from this divine nature
but the spearation of the hypocracy vs deeds of v. 18. It is by
experience, having a quiet conscious before God (Rom 5:1) that we know
we are of God, justified and placed "in Christ.' Paul in Rom 1 states
that he was not ashamed of the Gospel intellectually, but in Rom5 he
states that he's not ashamed of it experientially as well. John in
this epistle is saying that "when", not "if" we sin, we need to
confess our sin (act) in order to restore the companionship which sin
eclipses.

> >1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and {yet} walk
> >in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
>
> >If we sin, we lose not our salvation but our fellowship.
>
> That is not what this verse says. We lose much more than 'fellowship'
> for lying!

DO I have to be exahustive in my replies? You expect more of me than
you offer yourself. John seems to be dealing with the heresy of
Antinomianism, does he not? "If we say" is a delierative subjunctive.
Its a hypothetical. It's an assumption not an assumed fact. John is
very gentle here as seen by his self inclusion. koinomian makes this
hypothetical claim common likes and dislikes. The verb is present
subjunctive which leads me to interpret this hypothetical as "living"
in sin, that is, sin is a habitual action. Remember what I wrote
about actions leading to habits which lead to characters which lead to
destinies? By this hypothetical habitually sinning, that is
continuously exhibiting that which is his nature internally, he is an
unsaved/justified person who does not share in the divine nature and
therefore has no fellowship with God. Walking in darkness is
lovative. He walks, or orders his steps, his behavior in the sphere
of his nature -sinful. Therefore if this hypothetical claims he is "in
Christ", he is a liar..

>Just because we have been justified, we must not be fooled into
> >thinking that we no longer have the capacity to sin.
>
> And we must not be fooled into thinking that this sin sin is not
> _very_ dangerous. Yet you are determined to do exactly this.

You overstate this. As I have repeatedly commented, Paul anticipated
this argument. "Shall we sin more?"

>
> >1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves,
> >and the truth is not in us.
> >
> >For, indeed, we do. But we also have to confess that we now have
> >something that we did not have before. We have bold access into the
> >very throne room of God, not based on anything in or of ourselves, but
> >the accomplished work of Christ.
>
> We agree on this. But we disagree on just what that 'accomplished
> work' is, and even whether to view it as purely in time, or outside of
> time, 'intruding' into historical time. Go back to that St. Maximos
> site, and look for the word 'aiwn' and its different sense. While you
> are at it, you can look at the word 'koinwnia' and see why you should
> not have translated it sometimes as 'fellowship' and sometimes as
> 'communion'. We have no salvation outside of our koinwnia with God
> through Christ in the Spirit.

As I've already alluded to above. It is in full agreement with my
position, and John's position that the believer can know that he/she
is "in Christ" because of the fellowship or coparticiapation with the
divine nature by means of the Holy Spirit.

> Right. So take care not to become a disinherited son, worse yet, a son
> like the older son of Lk 15:25!

Actually, it is stronger than that because we are "adopted" sons. In
the Hebraic culture an adopted son could not be disinherited. I bet
you either didn't know that or forgot it!

>
> > Nothing
> >will change that because there is nothing that can separate me from
> >the love of Christ -not even life itself.
>
> That is not what Paul means. Did you forget the difference between
> active and middle? When Paul says 'who will separate' in Rm 8:35, his
> use of the active voice implies he is considering only persons/things
> _other_ than ourselves. That would have required the middle voice.

Yes I agree. But if it is God who is at work in us to begin with,
then it follows that there is nothing in and of myself that can
separate me. I would never have been brought to the place of being
placed "in Christ" if there was to be some act in the future which
would nulify it. But because it has nothing to do with me, sola
gracia, in salvation, just so there is nothing I can do to be under
condemnation. If all my sins, past, present and future, where put to
death in Christ, then sin is dead. Sin no longer condemns, accuses
me. The only thing that accuses the unbeliever now is his unbelief.
And because of that unbelief he has no part in the accomplished
condemnation of sin in Christ, so his sins/deeds play into his
judgment.

>
> >You seek to rob the believer of his joy of being "in Christ."
>
> No, I seek to rob the believer of a false joy that will blind him to
> the reality of his calling. For if he persists in this blindness, he
> will never know the true joy, which is so much greater. This is why
> Paul says:
>
> For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die;
> but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the
> body, you will live (Rom 8:13 NIV)

In reference not to a believer "in Christ" in sin but to an unbeliever
outside of Christ to begin with.

>
> It is _this_ greatness that brought forth the words of Paul:

It is much greater to still have the capacity for sin (flesh) and yet
being eternally secure "in Christ." But, the believer must recognize,
"to whom much is given much is expected." The one who has eternal
security has much more given to him that the once who doesn't know
existentially whether he is "in Christ" or not. Where is the victory
in not knowing, as you have stated? There is also no peace. There is
no assurance that "now there is no condemnation." It is as if you
don't want the son to know that he is a son. You have Him giving us a
stone instead of a fish.

>
> I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing
> with the glory that will be revealed in us (Rom 8:18 NIV)
>
> Paul did not base his faith in this great glory on counting his
> chickens before they hatch, as you would have us do.

You're quite right. It was settled for him. "Not looking behind."

It still amazes me that a believer could operate never knowing whether
or not he is truly adopted. This is not what the NT teaches. Again,
how can we come boldly before the throne is we don't know if we, as
sons, have a right to come before the throne? How can we even say,
"Our Father who art in heaven" if we don't know for a fact that we are
indeed sons? How can we cry "Abba Father?" But, the teaching of Paul
is that because the Spirit bears witness with our spirit, we can know
that we are sons of God. This is the same fellowship which John
speaks of. Very sad thing for a son of glory not to know that he is
truly a child of God. What robbery of the soul.

[Matthew Johnson]

On 21 Mar 2002 14:36:31 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<a789lj$fi7$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> On 19 Mar 2002 14:34:37 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Once again, you confuse justification with sanctification.
>>
>> No, it is not _I_ who am confused. You are confused by your insistence
>> on a false distinction between the two.
>
>Then why the different tenses used by Paul in regards to their
>distinction?

What 'different tenses' do you have in mind? Please be more
specific. And in which of the passages? Do your homework before you
post, stop trying to shift the burden on to me.

>Why the clear differences between 3:21-5:21 with that of
>6:1-8:17?

You say 'clear diference' yet the difference I see so is clearly not
that _you_see. In fact, I see clear differences even in chapter 3
alone. So you are going to have to tell me more about what 'clear
differences' you see, especially which passages you are really
referring to: "3:21-5:21" and "6:1-8:17" are rather broad sweeps.

>It was the *act* of "faith" which God "reckoned to him as
>righteousness."

I looks like you have in mind Rom 4:5. But what _was_ this 'act of
faith'? That term doesn't occur in the passage. If it was Abraham's
believing, then what of his unbelief in going to Hagar? And why did
James look to the same example of Abraham as justification through
works (Ja 2:21)?

If you really are using Rom 4:5 here, you are fitting square pegs into
round holes again. But this is to be expected, since you are bound and
determined to twist all of Scripture to fit your sectarian
interpretation of Paul.

[snip]

> Yet Paul makes the distinction between justification and
>sanctification is that in sanctification we to "continually present".

You are missing a verb here. So I can't tell what you think the
difference is based on _this_ error. Again, you are shifting the
burden unfairly to the reader.

>We are to "consider", an act, actually a book keeping term
>meaning, "to place in once's account", that we "have died to sin."

Ah, but this verb means many other things too. How can you justify
narrowing it down only this this narrow sense? And if you _are_ to use
the 'bookkeeping term', then it can only refer to _past_ debt. No
bookkeeper wipes out future debt!

[snip]

>Sanctification is that righteousness which was imparted into our
>account at the moment of justification and lived out as we "work out
>our salvation" in our existential daily walk here on earth.

So you love to repeat. But where is your _evidence_? You are so busy
fuming at my refusal to accept your eisegesis, you forget that you
haven't posted that evidence yet. Perhaps it will emerge when you
_finally_ observe the terms of the FAQ and list what verses you are
really referring to above.

>Sin is dead therefore we have no fear of condemnation, past, present
>or future. (8:1)

This is way beyond what the verse says! It says 'now'. The future is
unmentioned (if you take the indicative 'echomen'). Or are you ready
to admit now that you have to allow the subjunctive here also?

> The basis is because we have been set free from "the law of sin and
>death."

And which law do you think he is referring to here? That of Moses?

>That is a past event. But now we have the "law of the Spirit of
>life". THIS is the good-news.

We agree here. Now if only we could agree on what this new law _is_!

>There is no longer any obligation or frustration.

But this is Reform Eisegesis.

>We are no longer outlaws, but in-laws.

You wouldn't pick that metaphor if you knew my in-laws! 'Family
members' is a more accurate rendition of the Greek in the passage you
probably have in mind.

>> > The outworking of justification is sanctification.
>>
>> This is nothing but Reform eisegesis. The native speakers of Koine
>> knew better than to believe this!
>
>No, it is the revealing. It is the unshakling of the Judiasers. You
>would have the church placed back under the law.

And this is where you rush to groundless accusations rather than
butress your groundless claims.

>"For what the Law could not do (condem sin) weak as it was throught
>the flesh, God DID."

And through whose flesh? You seem to be evading this issue.

>You don't like the fact that nothing is required of the one who by
>faith *has been* placed "in Christ."

You don't like the fact that Christ said 'deny yourself (Mt 16:24)'. I
see you refuse to address that verse in every reply in these threads.

>Rather, "They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to
>shut you out, in order that you may seek them." Gal 4:17

More Reform Eisegesis. I interpret as James does, not as the 'cutters'
did. But you prefer to ignore the difference. After all, it is more
convenient to make false accusations, isn't it?

>Christ had been outwardly expressed to the Galatian saints as a result
>of Paul's preaching the good news to them. This good news was that
>salvation was pure grace, sola gracia, of which they had been deprived
>of by the teaching of the Judiasers. The Judiasers just couldn't let
>go of the OT economy where works was required (which in truth it was
>not) inorder to merit righteousness. The Law had no provision of the
>permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit for His work performed in the
>believer in the outworking of sanctification.

W-h-a-t? Have you never read Proverbs 11:3?

>Paul therefore is
>calling to the Galations to be brought back under grace again in order
>that Christ might be outwardly expressed in their lives. This is
>exactly where your "orthodox" stands -with the Judiasers.

This is monstrous slander. The Orthodox do not stand with the
Judaizers. Rather, the 'Reformers' stand with the Manichees.

Once more, you would know better than to make such slander if you
actually _read_ Chrysostom instead of whining about how 'archaic' the
translation is. Come to think of it, you would know better if you
actually took to heart the commandments of Christ.

But n-o-o-o-o. You don't do this. You would rather post as if Christ
commanded us to commit slander in order to support Reform eisegesis.

[snip]

>It is all grace, not of works (Rom 4:2)

That is not what the verse says; your misreading of it is exactly why
James used the same example of Abraham to prove what appears to be a
contradictory claim.

Nowhere does it say 'all grace'. All it says is 'not of works'. But
this is not the same at all!

[snip]

>> No, it is our participation even during the current life in the life
>> of the Kingdom of Heaven. I made a comment to this effect before, but
>> never saw you respond to it. Perhaps you didn't realize I was
>> preparing to refute your false definitions.
>
>"Kingdom of Heaven." Christ offered it to the Jews as a technical
>term meaning, the Messianic Kingdom. There is much debate what is
>meant by the "Kingdom of Heaven," the "Kingdom of God."

And because you misunderstand all theology on the basis of your false
distinction between 'justification' and 'sanctification', you evade
debate of this issue too. If only you understood what this Kingdom of
Heaven is, you would understand the falseness of your distinction.
Even more important, you would understand the freedom Christ really
gave us, instead of putting your faith in a phantasm.

[snip]

>> >Then you make justification a work.
>>
>> Not I, but the Apostles who wrote these Epistles.
>
>No, they do not. What they are saying *to believers* is always in
>regards to fellowship,

More Reform Eisegesis.

>not to be one moment "in Christ" and the next
>moment out of Christ. Nowhere do I read the apostles teaching this
>leaping back and forth at every commission of omission of sin.

And neither do I. What made you think I did? Did you rashly assume I
believe as the Latins do, just because of the striking similarity of
our words?

>Rather, "There is now therefore, NO condemnation for those who are "in
>Christ" Jesus" because we are to "consider" ourselves "dead to sin."
>>
>> > Your position is that works accomplish that which God failed to provided.
>>
>> Certainly not! You are twisting my words into the straw man you find
>> easily dealt with.
>
>It is either sola fide or it is not.

False dichotomy (Prv 11:3, 16:9).

> It is either "in Christ" once and for all, or it is not.

False dichotomy (Prv 11:3, 16:9).

>> This is not what scripture attests. As already pointed out, the only
>> time 'sola fide' occurs, it is 'non sola fide' (really, 'non fide
>> tantum' James 2:24)!
>
>James is dealing with the fact that the *past* action of justification
>is revealed by the *present* action of good works, i.e.
>sanctification.

More Reform Eisegesis.

[snip]

>> > Again, you confuse justification and sanctification.
>>
>> No, it is you who base your confusion on questionable definitions of
>> context.
>
>"I'm a Rolls Royce."

A flippant illustration of the truth of my claim, I see. And if that
is not what it is, just what _did_ you hope to achieve with that
flippant definition, Mr. Rolls Royce?

[snip]

>You cannot come to understanding until you understand that that the
>context is 1st century Jews coming near to believing but then thinking
>of going back to the "old way." Hebrews is hard to interpret because
>some passages deal with justification, where the Jews "believers" have
>"come close" but have not yet made a confess "entered into the rest".

Maybe what is 'hard' is to maintain your Reform eisegesis of Romans
while interpreting Hebrews.

>Hebrews is not the epistle to be arguing from outside of the context
>of the 1st C Jew having all the "signs" that the grace of God had
>switch economies to include the mystery of the Church and the
>Gentiles. Roman's is the book to which we should turn.

So many rash assumptions in one paragraph! You amaze me, but you no
longer surprise me.

No, you cannot separate the topics like that. Chrysostom never
artificially restricted his scope when intepreting Romans, so neither
will I. Who _ever_ did this other than your Reform eisegetes?

[snip]

>It here that I would say that I join my Arminian brethren in insisting
>that perseverance in the faith is necessary to salvation.

Wonder of wonders, a brilliant flash of light, carrying radiant hope!

> And yet, I
>differ in that I affirm that failure to persevere proves that one has
>never been saved and lost again.

But the hope is so quickly dashed.

[snip]

>> So you love to repeat; but then why are they _still_ being called to
>> labor?
>
>Because some have "an unbelieving heart" while others are those who
>"have become partakers of Christ." A clear distinction. "Have
>become" is perfect tense, in other words, an action tht was completed
>in the past with abiding/present results. metochoi, partakers (cf
>1:9). And the genitve case, "of Christ." Thayer comments that this
>segment of believers (3:6) are true believers.

Finally, some evidence! But since this post has already become too
long, I will have to treat this in a separate post, likely a new
thread.

[snip]

>> Why did you snip the passage that "'fall' here" refers to? Are you
>> embarassed by every passage that weakens your position?
>
>I didn't quote it because I wasn't being thorough, nor because I
>didn't have an anwswer. "the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses
>(continually) us from all sin.

Is that why you are so bold in sinning by twisting others's words by
snipping their words with no snip-mark?

>> >And what has John been expressing from the very first in this epistle?
>>
>> Certainly not 'eternal security'!

>2:27-28 ... the anointing which you receiv*ed* (v. 20) from Him
>abides in you and you have no need for any one to teach you; but as
>His anointing teaches you abou all thins and is true and is not a
>lie, and just as it has taught you you abide in Him. And now, little
>children, abide (continually) in Him so that when (indicative) He
>shall appear, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in
>shame at His coming.

And I _still_ don't see 'eternal security' here. How can you claim
this in your support? For he says 'we _may_ have confidence' and this
is _conditioned_ on the abiding!

If you take away the conditional force, you destroy the exhortation
completely!

Of course, this does not surprise me. You seem to _delight_ in robbing
the Scriptures of their meaning, all for the sake of propping up your
Reform eisegesis of Romans! You keep asking what the alternative is to
'eternal security', but you stop your ears and blurt protests whenever
anyone tries to answer. Yet the very verses you read as 'eternal
security' have long been understood to refer to something quite
different, to the presence of the Lord assisting us with His grace
during the terrible battles of the spiritual struggle, battles that
would curdle our blood and send us running away in panic if not for
that grace.

So stop shying away from that battle, take to heart, at long last, Mt
16:24!

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Matthew Johnson]

On 21 Mar 2002 14:36:31 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

>
>
>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<a789lj$fi7$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> On 19 Mar 2002 14:34:37 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

[snip]

>> So you love to repeat; but then why are they _still_ being called to
>> labor?
>
>Because some have "an unbelieving heart" while others are those who
>"have become partakers of Christ." A clear distinction.

That there is a distinction is clear. But the call to labor is issued
to _all_.

> "Have
>become" is perfect tense, in other words, an action tht was completed
>in the past with abiding/present results.

Which verb are you referring to? There is no verb in the perfect tense
in Heb 3:1

> metochoi, partakers (cf
>1:9). And the genitve case, "of Christ." Thayer comments that this
>segment of believers (3:6) are true believers.

Well, of course Thayer would say this. But again, he carries no weight
with me. After all, this is that same Reform Eisegesis.

>"The point [of the Greek] is not one of 'retention' of salvation based
>upon a 'persistence' of faith but of 'posession' of salvation as
>evidenced by a 'continuation' of faith.

A familiar assertion...

>The perfect tense reaches
>back into the past and then speaks of the present.

Was Wuest writing specifically on this verse here? The question is
important, because this does _not_ hold in general; not in this period
when the perfect was dying out.

> It is not the
>future of these Jews that the writer is concerned about here,

This is an amazing assertion! Of _course_ it is their future he is
concerned about! He is concerned that they might not enter into that
rest, if they allow their hearts to be taken over by unbelief (Heb
3:12).

> but he
>is concerned as to whether in times past and as a result at the time
>of the writing of the epistle they were partakers of salvation in
>Messiah."

No, it is accepted as a given that they were _all _ 'partakers in the
heavenly calling (Heb 3:1)'. There is nothing conditional in Heb 3:1,
nothing restricted to some small subset of the people to whom the
Epistle is addressed.

Finally, the special form of exhortation we see throughout Hebrews
would be completely lost if Wuest were right: you do not _exhort_ to
martyrdom someone who already has 'eternal security'. What would be
the point?

After all, recall the verse that mentions 'unbelieving heart': it
reads:

blepete adelphoi mępote estai en tini umôn
kardia ponęra apistias en tô apostęnai apo theou zôntos (Heb 3:12)

See to it, brothers, that there not be in you [pl] an evil heart
of unbelief [faithlessnes] that you fall away from
the living God (Heb 3:12)

It does not read (as Wuest seems to think) _was_ a heart of unbelief,
but _not be_, a future tense.

So much for his claim about 'times past'. This is a clear example of
desperate Reform eisegesis.

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Loren]

According to Luther, justification is a forensic act, by which God
declares the penitent sinner in full possession of the righteousness
which Christ has secured for all men by His vicarious atonement.
Against Rome's doctrine of justification as a medical process, by way
of sanctification or good works, Luther writes: "One is justified not
by doing what is right; but he who is justified, does what is
right."(11) Again: "Divine grace does so much that we are fully and
wholly declared righteous before God…it receives us altogether into
the favor [of God] for the sake of Christ, our Intercessor and
Mediator."(12) To say that God justifies the sinner means, according
to Luther, that "He forgives us our sins for the sake of Christ in
whom we believe." Luther often quotes the statement of St. Augustine
as a "beautiful saying": "In Baptism there is remitted all our sin,
not as if it no longer existed, but that it is not imputed." That "sin
is not imputed" is for Luther the essence of justification.

God's Word presents truths in equipoise.

I want that sentence to stand all on its own because if you think
about it, when any given truth is taken out of its proper balance or
relation to other truth, it often quickly becomes a heresy. (No need
to point fingers here) A good present day example is the cultural
unbalanced moto: "God is Love. God IS love, but God is ALSO light. A
theology emphasizing the love of God without a corresponding stress
upon His holiness may quickly descend into a maudlin sentimentality
which has led to some failing to see the need of Christ's atonement
because this unbalanced teaching fails to give close enough attention
to the present wrath of God.

We rejoice in the sovereign grace of God, but the precious truth of
electing compassion may be so emphasized that man's responsibility to
obey the gospel may be neglected. Man's free will does not contradict
God's sovereignty, but is presented in Scripture as a wholesome
balancing truth. If we believe that God has from the beginning chosen
us to salvation (2 Thess. 2:13), let us also believe that "whosoever
will" may come (Rev. 22:17).

God's Word speaks of an imputed righteousness which is perfect and
eternal, but the justified are also regenerated, and the new life will
manifest an imparted, practical righteousness. If this is missing,
then there is reason to doubt that God has accounted him righteous.
Whereas we are not saved by works, We are saved unto good works.

Likewise in consideration of final salvation, assurance is to be found
midway between positional and practical truth. There is the divine
undertaking in safekeeping and the human exhibition of perseverance.
The unconditional purpose of God manifests itself in conditions met
and kept. It is true that "he that hath begun a good work in you will
perform it" (Phil. 1:6), and equally true that "you…hath he
reconciled…if ye continue in the faith" (Col. 1:21, 23).

Recognition, on the one hand, that salvation and safekeeping are all
of God and all of grace guards against legalism. And, on the other
hand, cognizance of the necessity of perseverance saves the doctrine
from carnal security and antinomianism.

In presenting the three subjects--safekeeping, assurance, and
perseverance--I would direct attention to the middle position of
assurance. The practical assurance that I am saved and will be kept
saved must sink its roots both into the promises of Scripture and into
the proofs of sonship as seen in a transformed life.

A doctrine of assurance that considers only the divine undertaking and
promises for security to the neglect of the equally plain teaching
concerning the changed life of the saved may lull the professing
Christian to sleep the sleep of death in a false security. Hence the
solemn warning: "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove
your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is
in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor. 13:5).

No better illustration of the balance of truth between God's
affirmation of intention to keep His own and the human, practical
proof that we are His own can be found than in John 10:27-28. The
unequivocable statement of God's purpose to keep His own is found in
the words of Christ, "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall
never perish." But assurance that I am saved and shall be kept saved
rests not only in faith in this statement of intention concerning His
sheep but also in the realization that I am indeed one of His sheep.
But this isn't some pie in the sky platitude for here practical tests
or characteristics of the sheep are given to us: "My sheep," the Good
Shepherd says, "hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."
It's cause and effect.

We must have balance. God's undertaking in the promises of
safekeeping and His undertaking in the proof of perseverance must
combine in the human consciousness to give Biblical assurance of
salvation. Assurance that rests upon promises alone may result in a
head faith, cold orthodoxy, and carnal security. This is what I argue
against in the Evangelical position. But just as equally, assurance
that leans upon perseverance alone may produce a grace-denying
legalism, and a false, faith-plus-works doctrine of salvation found in
Roman and Orthodox catholicism. The blance required is that true
assurance must know the promises and know that they have been
appropriated and have become effective in the life.

Now, Biblical assurance rejoices in electing compassion. "The Lord
knoweth them that are his." Biblical assurance has made its calling
and election sure by the evidence of a transformed life. "And, Let
every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (2 Tim.
2:19).

Just as God is three, and God is one: three as to person and one as to
essence just so we see a threefold salvation
justification-sanctification-glorification, we need equally believe in
a unitary salvation. From the point of view of experience,
sanctification itself is a threefold, progressive aspect of salvation.
(1) I have been saved from the penalty of sin. (2) I am being saved
from the power of sin, and (3) I shall be saved from the presence of
sin. But if this progressive salvation is to have the unity of one,
then to possess it at all necessarily necessitates possessing it all
-all at once. That is, inview of God's decree, "it is finished."

It follows to say that if I have been saved from sin's penalty, I
shall be saved from its power. And, conversely, if I am not being
saved from its power, there is reason to believe that I have not been
saved from its penalty and will not be saved ultimately from its
presence. This of course is by way of general statement, and we
should be well aware of the fact that our state of actual deliverance,
or present sanctification, is never perfect as is our deliverance from
the penalty of sin -this side of either the grave or the parousia.

Three doxologies, or benedictions, give a well-rounded portrayal of
this undertaking of God Himself in saving *and* keeping:

Romans 16:25 ascribes glory "to him that is of power to stablish you
according to my gospel."
Jude 25 ascribes praise to "him that is able to keep you from falling
and to present you faultless before the throne of his glory."

And Hebrews 13:20 commends us to the God of peace to "make you perfect
in every good work to do his will.

We must all admit that the God who is able to keep and present us
faultless before the throne of His glory has the power to establish us
and to make us perfect in every good work. For they envision present
deliverance as well as ultimate salvation.

I think it also needs to be noted that the will of God as eternal in
nature, as immutable in purpose and decree must be ethically
distinguished from the will of God as being merely a wish or desire or
standard. Certainly it is not His decree that none "should perish,
but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9) and that all men
be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). This expresses His desire in harmony with His
whole plan of salvation to provide a Savior for the whole world and to
save those who will trust Him. It is obvious that the will of God in
these two passages (employing both qelo in 1 Tim. 2:4 and boulomai in
2 Pet. 3:9) expresses His desire or wish rather than His decree,
because all men are not saved. This is where the confusion often
lies. Because here the will of God is used in a sense in which it is
made impotent and set aside by the will of man.

When it is asserted that God wills to keep His own, what is the
relation of His will to the human will? Is His will limited and
obstructed by the human will? Or does will have the meaning of
eternal purpose or decree? Does it mean that if God wills our
safekeeping we shall be kept safe as a part of His own immutable
decree, or does it mean that He wants us to be kept but that He cannot
control our wills and hence His willing is reduced to mere wishing?

God's will with respect to the safekeeping of the saint is not mere
desire but purpose. It doesn't involve emotion but rather the
infinite immutable decree. God has decreed to keep His own. It is
His own free and eternal purpose to save and to keep those that come
to Him by faith in Christ. It is His plan. It is His electing
purpose. Proof is twofold:

(1) there are passages which indicate what God is doing or will do in
regard to safekeeping, and what He will do, He obviously wills to do
and
(2) there are direct statements of His will to keep.

The scriptural statements of fact with reference to what God is doing
or will do in keeping His own can be seen setting forth His will or
purpose to do so.

Peter writes of our "being kept by the power of God through faith unto
salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pet. 1:5).

Jesus asserted that His sheep "shall never perish" (John 10:28).

Paul tells us that "he that hath begun a good work in you will perform
it unto the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6), and He "shall also
confirm you unto the end" (1 Cor. 1:8), and that God will do what Paul
prayed concerning sanctifying and preserving blameless unto the coming
of Christ (1 Thess. 5:23-24).

Obviously we are kept by the power of God, because He wills to keep
us. It is sola gratia. His sheep shall never perish, because He
wills they shall never perish. It is a work of God's will to perform
the good work in us, because He wills to do it, and He will confirm,
sanctify and preserve blameless unto the day of Jesus Christ, because
it is His immutable will to do so. Or to put it in the words of
Romans 8:29-30, the "called according to His purpose" He glorified,
because He willed or predestinated it.

To these declarations of fact which indicate His will to keep, add the
following undeniable statements of His will to keep His own:

In John 6:39-40 there is a twofold repetition of the Father's will
concerning the saved. They are referred to first as gifts from the
Father to the Son and then as those who see the Son and believe on
Him. Of them it is said that of all that the Father gave His Son He
should lose nothing, but He should raise them up at the last day, and
that everyone believing on the Son should have everlasting life and
that Christ should raise him up at the last day. In line with this
expression of the Father's will, we find the solitary expression of
the will of the Son in relation to the Father. The Son of God who
emptied Himself of divine prerogative and effulgent glory to become
the Servant of Jehovah, and who said, "Not my will, but thine be
done," asserted His own will on but one occasion.

The fact that this forms the only assertion of His will in relation to
the Father recorded in the Bible must surely immeasurably increase its
importance. Further, that it is found in the prayed in the upper
room, which prayer gives testimony to His great redemptive purpose,
"keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me" (John
17:11), links this expression of His will to the very success of His
work as Savior. So, in effect, if His will as herein expressed does
not come to pass then He is defeated in His redemptive plan. It's
that plain and simple. How do you argue against it. Why would you
want to?

With these things in mind, read this declaration of the will of the
Savior, asserted on the ground of being One who had finished the work
given Him to do and being restored to the glory which He had before
the world was (John 17:4-5)

"Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me
where I am; that they may behold my glory" (John 17:24). Jolm 17:20
makes it clear that the saved of all succeeding centuries were
included in this assertion of the Savior's will.

Clearly, it is the will of the Father that none that He has given to
the Son be lost (John 6:39), and it is the will of the Son that all
whom the Father has given Him should behold His glory. Therefore, it
is God's will that the saved be kept safe!

[Matthew Johnson]

On 26 Mar 2002 15:17:32 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

>
>
>According to Luther, justification is a forensic act,

The key phrase is, 'according to Luther'. It is so ironic that the
same people who bleat 'sola scriptura' quote Luther so much. Luther is
not Scripture.

> by which God
>declares the penitent sinner in full possession of the righteousness
>which Christ has secured for all men by His vicarious atonement.

But this is not Scripture, it is Luther's eisegesis.

>Against Rome's doctrine of justification as a medical process, by way
>of sanctification or good works, Luther writes: "One is justified not
>by doing what is right; but he who is justified, does what is
>right."(11) Again: "Divine grace does so much that we are fully and
>wholly declared righteous before God…it receives us altogether into
>the favor [of God] for the sake of Christ, our Intercessor and
>Mediator."(12) To say that God justifies the sinner means, according
>to Luther, that "He forgives us our sins for the sake of Christ in
>whom we believe." Luther often quotes the statement of St. Augustine
>as a "beautiful saying": "In Baptism there is remitted all our sin,
>not as if it no longer existed, but that it is not imputed." That "sin
>is not imputed" is for Luther the essence of justification.
>
>God's Word presents truths in equipoise.
>
>I want that sentence to stand all on its own because if you think
>about it, when any given truth is taken out of its proper balance or
>relation to other truth, it often quickly becomes a heresy.

Isn't this exactly what happened with 'eternal security'? The
proponents of 'eternal security' took Paul's statements about the sure
love of God out of 'equipoise', ignoring the context of exhortation to
endure harships, temptations, and persecution.

> (No need
>to point fingers here) A good present day example is the cultural
>unbalanced moto:

And the cure for this mistaken understanding is to realize that the
love Christ calls us to is an _ascetic_ love, a love that denies self
just as He denied Himself when He took up His cross for _our_
salvation.

> "God is Love. God IS love, but God is ALSO light. A
>theology emphasizing the love of God without a corresponding stress
>upon His holiness may quickly descend into a maudlin sentimentality
>which has led to some failing to see the need of Christ's atonement
>because this unbalanced teaching fails to give close enough attention
>to the present wrath of God.

But if that 'wrath' is understood as being too much like the wrath of
men, then the 'equipoise' has again been neglected. For example, note
that in Romans, the very source for the passages misunderstood as
predestinarian, Paul is very careful to point out that God prepares
good things for those who persevere in goodness, but the punishments
for the wicked are _not_ caused by God; we have ourselves as the cause
of our punishment, both in this life and after.

[snip]

>Recognition, on the one hand, that salvation and safekeeping are all
>of God and all of grace guards against legalism.

This is far too weak a guard against legalism. The best guard against
legalism is to remember Mt 9:13 & Mt 12:7! The context clarifies what
He is trying to tell us there: the whole purpose of the Law (which
gives us knowlege of sin) is to teach us to show mercy and truth.
Failure to understand this is the cause of much grief.

> And, on the other
>hand, cognizance of the necessity of perseverance saves the doctrine
>from carnal security and antinomianism.

The difference between 'eternal security' and antinomianism is small.
So small, I would even claim the difference is itself without
substantive significance.

This means, of course, it is a handy excuse for an antinomian to deny
that he _is_ an antinomian!

>In presenting the three subjects--safekeeping, assurance, and
>perseverance--I would direct attention to the middle position of
>assurance. The practical assurance that I am saved and will be kept
>saved must sink its roots both into the promises of Scripture and into
>the proofs of sonship as seen in a transformed life.

But you can only do this by misunderstanding what those promises
really _are_. They are for those who persevere, not for those who "say
to Me, 'Lord, Lord', and not do what I say (Mt 7:21)"

>A doctrine of assurance that considers only the divine undertaking and
>promises for security to the neglect of the equally plain teaching
>concerning the changed life of the saved may lull the professing
>Christian to sleep the sleep of death in a false security.

Unfortunately, this is only _one_ form of false security. There are
many other forms of false security that threaten the believer today.
Some of these rely on 'eternal security'.

> Hence the
>solemn warning: "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove
>your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is
>in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor. 13:5).
>
>No better illustration of the balance of truth between God's
>affirmation of intention to keep His own and the human, practical
>proof that we are His own can be found than in John 10:27-28.

Nice try, but that is not how His sheep read those verses (Jn
10:27-29) at all: instead, they follow Theophylact, who explains them
as:

Having said (v26)to them [the Jews] that they are not His sheep,
now He inclines them to become His sheep. For this reason He
adds "My sheep listen to My voice, and they follow Me".
Then, spurring them on, He says what they who follow receive.
"I", he says, "give them eternal life, and they will not perish
forever...". Why does He say they will not perish? "Because
no one can snatch them from My hand, for My Father, who
is greater than all of them, and out of His hand no one can
seize them. For My hand and the Father's hand are one."
" I and the Father are one", that is, in power and authority.
"Hand" here meant "power and authority". Thus, I and the
Father are one, in essence and substance and in authority.
So the Jews understood Him, for which reason they immediately
picked up stones to stone Him. But someone might ask: why
does He say no one can seize them out of His hand, when we
see so many perishing? To this we can answer that no one can
_seize_ them out of His hand, BUT THEY CAN BE DECEIVED.
For no one can of his own authority and with force take them
away from the Father, but we often falter. Why does He say,
"My sheep follow Me, and they do not perish"? Yet we see
that Judas perished. But he perished because he did not
follow Jesus and remain with Him to the end. But the Lord
says about His true followers and sheep, that they do not
perish. IF SOMEONE LEAVES HIS FLOCK AND STOPS
FOLLOWING THE PASTOR HE WILL IMMEDIATELY
PERISH. What happened with Judas can be used against
the Manichees: Judas _was_ a saint and a sheep of God,
BUT HE FELL AWAY. He fell away of his own choice
and under his own authority. This means that evil and
good do not depend on our nature, but on our free will.

Interesting that so much of what Theophylact says gets so close to
'eternal security', but then takes a sudden turn each time!

> The
>unequivocable statement of God's purpose to keep His own is found in
>the words of Christ, "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall
>never perish."

But this refers to 'His sheep', who are those who persevered.

> But assurance that I am saved and shall be kept saved
>rests not only in faith in this statement of intention concerning His
>sheep but also in the realization that I am indeed one of His sheep.

Only if you understand 'His sheep' to be those who follow, rather than
those who persevered.

>But this isn't some pie in the sky platitude for here practical tests
>or characteristics of the sheep are given to us: "My sheep," the Good
>Shepherd says, "hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."
>It's cause and effect.

No, it is not 'cause and effect'. The idea of 'cause and effect' is
actually quite late. In those days, people didn't believe in anything
quite like our modern 'cause and effect'. So how can 'cause and
effect' be an essential part of the Christian faith? For that matter,
how can it be any part (when misapplied to the activity of God)?

>We must have balance. God's undertaking in the promises of
>safekeeping and His undertaking in the proof of perseverance must
>combine in the human consciousness to give Biblical assurance of
>salvation. Assurance that rests upon promises alone may result in a
>head faith, cold orthodoxy, and carnal security. This is what I argue
>against in the Evangelical position. But just as equally, assurance
>that leans upon perseverance alone may produce a grace-denying
>legalism, and a false, faith-plus-works doctrine of salvation found in
>Roman and Orthodox catholicism.

You are showing off your ignorance again. The doctrine of salvation in
Orthodox theology is quite different from that in Roman Catholicism.
It is certainly different enough that the same cheap label
'faith-plus-works doctrine' cannot be true of both.

In other words, your biased label 'faith-plus-works doctrine' is
already bad enough without being misused to imply that both doctrines
are the same. They are not. And neither is really 'faith-plus-works
doctrine'.

> The blance required is that true assurance must know the promises

Yet you regularly misunderstand those promises. They are promises to
those who persevere in the ascetic struggle, not for those who put
their hand to the plow and look back (Lk 9:62)! Nor are they for those
who say 'Lord, Lord', but do not _follow_ the Lord!

> and know that they have been
>appropriated and have become effective in the life.

"in the life'. Which 'life' are you referring to?

[snip]

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Ethan Metsger]

[I have quoted Matthew with dashes; Loren is quoted with - >]

On 27 Mar 2002, Matthew Johnson wrote:

- On 26 Mar 2002 15:17:32 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:
-
- >According to Luther, justification is a forensic act,
-
- The key phrase is, 'according to Luther'. It is so ironic that the
- same people who bleat 'sola scriptura' quote Luther so much. Luther is
- not Scripture.

While this is true, I imagine that Luther had his reasons for saying
so. One of them may have been Proverbs 17:15 (could be 15:17 - it states
that the one who justifies the wicked and condemns the righteous is an
abomination). There is also a passage in Deuteronomy - I want to say
23:5, but I don't have a Bible with me to confirm it - which says that
judges were the justify the righteous and condemn the unrighteous.

While this doesn't necessarily establish that justification is
"forensic," I suppose, it does suggest that God limits justification to
righteous people. (In other words, "to justify" does not mean "to make
righteous.")

There are a couple passages which might suggest otherwise, though I'd have
to review them.

- Isn't this exactly what happened with 'eternal security'? The
- proponents of 'eternal security' took Paul's statements about the sure
- love of God out of 'equipoise', ignoring the context of exhortation to
- endure harships, temptations, and persecution.

Is there anything in particular that you're thinking of here? In some
respects I agree with you, in the sense that most people I know don't
actively seek hardship and temptation or persecution. I must candidly
admit to not really talking to people about this, but most of the ones I
know who do advocate eternal security (in some form or another) endure
hardships with great fortitude.

- >Recognition, on the one hand, that salvation and safekeeping are all
- >of God and all of grace guards against legalism.
-
- This is far too weak a guard against legalism. The best guard against
- legalism is to remember Mt 9:13 & Mt 12:7! The context clarifies what
- He is trying to tell us there: the whole purpose of the Law (which
- gives us knowlege of sin) is to teach us to show mercy and truth.
- Failure to understand this is the cause of much grief.

Could I ask you to expound on this a little bit, perhaps in another
thread? This is an interesting concept, and one that bears some
discussion.

- > And, on the other
- >hand, cognizance of the necessity of perseverance saves the doctrine
- >from carnal security and antinomianism.
-
- The difference between 'eternal security' and antinomianism is small.
- So small, I would even claim the difference is itself without
- substantive significance.
-
- This means, of course, it is a handy excuse for an antinomian to deny
- that he _is_ an antinomian!

Most of the folks I know who believe in eternal security have a great
respect for the law - and if they don't, that's obviously
non-Scriptural. They note, however, some fundamental problems with law:

1) It cannot, on its own, judge the character of the heart. All it says
is whether or not some sin has been committed. Jesus turned this thinking
on its head, by declaring that the attitude that leads to the action is
the same as the action itself (lust == adultery; anger == murder). In
other words, while the law could not judge that I look at a woman with
lust (I stand *uncondemned* by the law), I was still guilty of adultery.

2) The law (the Decalogue) commands love. Love, insofar as I can tell,
is a condition of the "heart" (I apologize for using the term heart; I
mean the inward self, so to speak, not necessarily an emotional
center). What we know is that someone who loves his neighbor as his own
self and loves God will keep the law; but we do not know if someone who
keeps the law outwardly actually loves his neighbor as much as himself or
loves God.

I think I've been accused of being an antinomian before; but the only
claim I make is that the bond of love is much stronger than that of
law. And I think we can judge from Scripture that love and fear - which
is basically all that law inspires, at least to the law-breaker - are
mutually exclusive.

- But you can only do this by misunderstanding what those promises
- really _are_. They are for those who persevere, not for those who "say
- to Me, 'Lord, Lord', and not do what I say (Mt 7:21)"

While this is perhaps true - that is, that we might misunderstand what the
promises are - I don't think the grouping Loren suggested is wrong. In
Matthew 7, they are separated by sheep and goats. Throughout various
parables and suggestions of this nature (e.g., wheat and tare, the sheep
mentioned in John 10:26ff), it's hard to see that wheat become tare, and
tare become wheat, or that sheep become goats and vice versa.

If you plant wheat, you expect to get wheat. If you plant weeds, that's
what you expect to get. Reading human will into Matthew 13 really doesn't
work very well. God planted wheat, and that's what he got.

(Now let's not do what Loren did and pull out that quote from
Augustine! After all, "[Augustine] is not Scripture." ;)

- Unfortunately, this is only _one_ form of false security. There are
- many other forms of false security that threaten the believer today.
- Some of these rely on 'eternal security'.

Could you elaborate on this? While it's not the driving force of the
discussion, I'm sure it motivates some of your thinking.

- >No better illustration of the balance of truth between God's
- >affirmation of intention to keep His own and the human, practical
- >proof that we are His own can be found than in John 10:27-28.
-
- Nice try, but that is not how His sheep read those verses (Jn
- 10:27-29) at all: instead, they follow Theophylact, who explains them
- as:
-
- Having said (v26)to them [the Jews] that they are not His sheep,

He said this to those who didn't accept his word; while the immediate
audience was composed of the religious leaders of the day, I don't think
that it limits the context of the statement to Jews specifically.

- now He inclines them to become His sheep. For this reason He
- adds "My sheep listen to My voice, and they follow Me".

He says they do not believe because they are not his sheep; how is he
inclining them to become his sheep with this verse? He says, "My sheep
hear and follow" in contrast to the actions of those to whom he speaks.

- So the Jews understood Him, for which reason they immediately
- picked up stones to stone Him. But someone might ask: why
- does He say no one can seize them out of His hand, when we
- see so many perishing? To this we can answer that no one can
- _seize_ them out of His hand, BUT THEY CAN BE DECEIVED.
- For no one can of his own authority and with force take them
- away from the Father, but we often falter. Why does He say,
- "My sheep follow Me, and they do not perish"? Yet we see
- that Judas perished. But he perished because he did not
- follow Jesus and remain with Him to the end. But the Lord

You realize, of course, that the immediate objection to this is that Judas
was never a sheep to begin with?

In Col. 1:21ff, we see that Paul uses a first-class condition in the
phrase, "If you continue...." (v. 23). He assumes that what he says is
true for the sake of argument, placing the truth of the proposition of
v. 21 - that we have been reconciled with God through the work of Christ.

- the Manichees: Judas _was_ a saint and a sheep of God,
- BUT HE FELL AWAY. He fell away of his own choice

And what Scriptural evidence do we have to support this? We have prophecy
from the Psalms that suggests that he wasn't!

- Interesting that so much of what Theophylact says gets so close to
- 'eternal security', but then takes a sudden turn each time!

Perhaps, then, my understanding of eternal security is wrong, because what
he's written doesn't seem in any way to suggest "eternal security" to
me.

- > But assurance that I am saved and shall be kept saved
- >rests not only in faith in this statement of intention concerning His
- >sheep but also in the realization that I am indeed one of His sheep.
-
- Only if you understand 'His sheep' to be those who follow, rather than
- those who persevered.

For the record, I understand "sheep" and "wheat" to refer to those whom
God purchased with the death of Jesus Christ.

This obviously opens up another can of worms (i.e., the Calvinist "limited
atonement"); I'll offer Romans 5 and Jude 14 as immediate considerations,
without going into any detail.

- >But this isn't some pie in the sky platitude for here practical tests
- >or characteristics of the sheep are given to us: "My sheep," the Good
- >Shepherd says, "hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."
- >It's cause and effect.
-
- No, it is not 'cause and effect'. The idea of 'cause and effect' is

"Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep." How did the Pharisees
understand this phrase?

- actually quite late. In those days, people didn't believe in anything
- quite like our modern 'cause and effect'. So how can 'cause and
- effect' be an essential part of the Christian faith? For that matter,
- how can it be any part (when misapplied to the activity of God)?

Simple: it's true. The *timing* of the argument doesn't say anything
about its validity, Matthew, you know that. God communicates a lot of
things we don't understand in the Scriptures, and it wouldn't surprise me
to find that Jesus communicated his message in a way that was difficult to
understand as well (to which he admits).

- >We must have balance. God's undertaking in the promises of
- >safekeeping and His undertaking in the proof of perseverance must
- >combine in the human consciousness to give Biblical assurance of
- >salvation. Assurance that rests upon promises alone may result in a
- >head faith, cold orthodoxy, and carnal security. This is what I argue
- >against in the Evangelical position. But just as equally, assurance
- >that leans upon perseverance alone may produce a grace-denying
- >legalism, and a false, faith-plus-works doctrine of salvation found in
- >Roman and Orthodox catholicism.
-
- You are showing off your ignorance again. The doctrine of salvation in
- Orthodox theology is quite different from that in Roman Catholicism.
- It is certainly different enough that the same cheap label
- 'faith-plus-works doctrine' cannot be true of both.

Could you offer us a definition of the Orthodox position, then? I'm quite
ignorant of it, despite some of Steve's best efforts (which smack a lot of
legalism sometimes). It seems to me that what Loren has offered here
aligns relatively well with what I think - that those of us with imperfect
love for God can use the doctrine of eternal security to sin a lot.

But, as I said at least once before - I'd be quite thrilled if I could sin
as much as I wanted to. Because I don't want to at all. It seems to me
the legalist position is inordinately pessimistic.

- > and know that they have been
- >appropriated and have become effective in the life.
-
- "in the life'. Which 'life' are you referring to?

20 I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ
liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the
faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

--
Stay well,

Ethan:tokidoki atashi no kotomoidashite

[Loren]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<a7snvl$c6i$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> On 26 Mar 2002 15:17:32 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

> > "God is Love. God IS love, but God is ALSO light. A
> >theology emphasizing the love of God without a corresponding stress
> >upon His holiness may quickly descend into a maudlin sentimentality
> >which has led to some failing to see the need of Christ's atonement
> >because this unbalanced teaching fails to give close enough attention
> >to the present wrath of God.
>
> But if that 'wrath' is understood as being too much like the wrath of
> men, then the 'equipoise' has again been neglected. For example, note
> that in Romans, the very source for the passages misunderstood as
> predestinarian, Paul is very careful to point out that God prepares
> good things for those who persevere in goodness, but the punishments
> for the wicked are _not_ caused by God; we have ourselves as the
> cause of our punishment, both in this life and after.

God is the ultimate cause of all things, either directly or passively.
Rom 1 where we ready that "God gave them over" is a direct cause
through passivity. Punishments are indeed at the hand of God,
sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. To hold, as you do, that
God does not punish the wicked flies in the face of just what took
place on the cross. Certainly the wrath of God fell on His Son
because of the wickedness of sinful men (not yet redeemed) were
imputed onto Him. "Why has Thou forsaken Me," is the outward
expression of the inward reality. Also, the GWTJ is clearly a direct
involvement in punishing the wicked.

>
> [snip]
>
> >Recognition, on the one hand, that salvation and safekeeping are all
> >of God and all of grace guards against legalism.
>
> This is far too weak a guard against legalism. The best guard against
> legalism is to remember Mt 9:13 & Mt 12:7! The context clarifies what
> He is trying to tell us there: the whole purpose of the Law (which
> gives us knowlege of sin) is to teach us to show mercy and truth.
> Failure to understand this is the cause of much grief.

This didn't work for Israel, why do you think it will work today? You
can acknowledge that obedience is better than sacrifice but where does
the empowerment come from. Paul makes it clear it doesn't come from
us and never has (Rom 3:10ff) There is no power in knowledge. In
fact, knowledge brings sin! (Rom 7:7ff) The only power anyone has to
conquer sin is through the power of the Spirit. There is no power
within us to perform and works of righteousness except to humble
ourselves moment to moment in the sanctifying work of the Spirit even
as we humbled ourselves and confessed our total depravity at the time
of justification. Sanctification is the living out of our humility
before God. We cast our crowns before His feet because it was He who
was working through us.

>
> > And, on the other
> >hand, cognizance of the necessity of perseverance saves the doctrine
> >from carnal security and antinomianism.
>
> The difference between 'eternal security' and antinomianism is small.
> So small, I would even claim the difference is itself without
> substantive significance.

And who are you? You denounce Luther as a semi-heretic yet set
yourself up as judge. Eternal security does not lead to antinomianism
because of Heb 12. On the one hand you want all this freedom and yet
on the other hand you are not willing to allow for responsibility for
that freedom. Freedom only comes where there is adequate form. The
form which grants the Christian "all things" is Christ Himself.
Certainly all Christians remain sinners and we all willfully sin.
"Any one who says he is without sin is a liar." But a true believer
is not permitted to live a life of lawlessness. The Spirit convicts
and God disciplines. Yet there is freedom. Eternal security is the
higher calling whereby we freely obey, not because we have to inorder
to remain "saved" but because we want to because we are in love with
our Savior. Major difference.

>
> This means, of course, it is a handy excuse for an antinomian to deny
> that he _is_ an antinomian!

"They are a law unto themselves," but the believer of Christ has the
"law of love" sealed within him by the Pledge given.

>
> >In presenting the three subjects--safekeeping, assurance, and
> >perseverance--I would direct attention to the middle position of
> >assurance. The practical assurance that I am saved and will be kept
> >saved must sink its roots both into the promises of Scripture and into
> >the proofs of sonship as seen in a transformed life.
>
> But you can only do this by misunderstanding what those promises
> really _are_. They are for those who persevere, not for those who "say
> to Me, 'Lord, Lord', and not do what I say (Mt 7:21)"

Now who is being eisegetical? These passages only have secondary and
tertiary applicability to the Church believer. The context above is
Mosaic covenant. Christ had not fulfilled the law or suffered His
propitiatory death. Perseverance to the Jews is in a totally
different economy than that of the Church. The Jews did not have the
sealing of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit came and went as He pleased as
the OT clearly teaches and as David clearly declared "Take not thy
Spirit from me." In the Church economy the Spirit is our sealing. We
are baptidzo which illustrates a drowning. Once you have become
drowned you can become undrowned. The assurance is because the Holy
Spirit seals us unto redemption. We have been regenerated, "born
again." We do not constantly go back into the womb to be reborn again
and again every time we sin. Now, we are now sons who confess our
sins and regain fellowship, not sonship. We are adopted sons which
legally cannot be divorced in Hebraic cultural.

>
> >A doctrine of assurance that considers only the divine undertaking and
> >promises for security to the neglect of the equally plain teaching
> >concerning the changed life of the saved may lull the professing
> >Christian to sleep the sleep of death in a false security.
>
> Unfortunately, this is only _one_ form of false security. There are
> many other forms of false security that threaten the believer today.
> Some of these rely on 'eternal security'.

But that does not destroy eternal security. Just as the Abrahamic
covenant was totally a work of God, eternal and unconditional, still
blessings are to be gained by obedience. Just so in the Church.
Eternal security assures us that our future is certain "in Christ."
However, blessings/rewards are given to the faithful and obedient. To
confuse rewards with justification is where you error. We *are* "in
Christ" because the Father has called us and the Spirit has given us
the faith. It is ALL from Him, through Him and to Him. There is NO
boasting. And there is no loss of salvation because we have in the
past been justified by our faith and therefore now in the present have
abiding peace with God because He is at peace with us because NOW
there is therefore no condemnation for those who are "in Christ
Jesus." It is not a work. It is a truth to be claimed and operating
under. This is why there is more to Rom's 8 than just verse 1.

>
> > Hence the
> >solemn warning: "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove
> >your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is
> >in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor. 13:5).
> >
> >No better illustration of the balance of truth between God's
> >affirmation of intention to keep His own and the human, practical
> >proof that we are His own can be found than in John 10:27-28.
>
> Nice try, but that is not how His sheep read those verses (Jn
> 10:27-29) at all: instead, they follow Theophylact, who explains them
> as:

snip

> Interesting that so much of what Theophylact says gets so close to
> 'eternal security', but then takes a sudden turn each time!

He follows the Eastern "commentary tradition" where either he is
silent on an issue or vague. Nothing was accomplished by this quote.

>
> > The
> >unequivocable statement of God's purpose to keep His own is found in
> >the words of Christ, "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall
> >never perish."
>
> But this refers to 'His sheep', who are those who persevered.

There is a tension in this context created by the Jews wanting a
direct answer to their question, "Are you the Messiah?" The previous
teaching was plain in illustrating that those who were spiritually
alert understood the answer to this already. However, the half veiled
references to OT prophecy and the parabolic message did not satisfy
the people who wanted an open declaration. This is the context to the
answer that Christ gives characterized by:

Sensitivity.....They "hear my voice" v27
Fellowship... "I know them" v27
Obedience...."They follow me" v27
Life................. "I give to them eternal life" v28
Assurance..... "They shall never perish" v28
Security..........."No one shall snatch them out of my hand" v28

These are the "qualities" which Jesus used to distinguish the
believers from the unbelievers. They are ascribed as being both the
basis and the result of "belief."

"You don't believe" occurs three times, clearly distinguishing the two
camps. The same truths had been presented, the same works had been
performed, yet some believed/received Him while others did not. While
some where sensitive others became obdurate, instead of fellowship
there resulted alienation and instead of obedience, rebellion. The
result was death instead of life, danger instead of assurance and
perdition instead of security. The implied antithesis illustrated the
consequences of unbelief. "I and the Father are one" illustrates that
Jesus was not self representative in this formula. The context
asserts unity of purpose.

>
> > But assurance that I am saved and shall be kept saved
> >rests not only in faith in this statement of intention concerning His
> >sheep but also in the realization that I am indeed one of His sheep.
>
> Only if you understand 'His sheep' to be those who follow, rather than
> those who persevered.

No, His sheep are those who have heard His voice and believed with a
faith which granted them sonship. There is progression upto the point
of conscious belief, but once that point has been crossed, it is like
being born again, it is never an issue again. You're assertion that
we can never know whether we are truly His sheep, never truly know
whether we are His sons, simply doesn't follow the formula of that
Christ illustrates in this passage.

>
> >But this isn't some pie in the sky platitude for here practical tests
> >or characteristics of the sheep are given to us: "My sheep," the Good
> >Shepherd says, "hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."
> >It's cause and effect.
>
> No, it is not 'cause and effect'. The idea of 'cause and effect' is
> actually quite late.

Actually, no. Cause and effect began when "God said...." Cause and
effect are at the root of universe and we were created to fit into
that universe. You are being quite deceitful here if you reduce it to
a philosophical doctrine. Rather, its roots are in God Himself.

> In those days, people didn't believe in anything
> quite like our modern 'cause and effect'.

What does that have to do with anything? Besides, this is an argument
from silence. Who is to say that they did not understand cause and
effect. Clearly the how basis of the Mosaic covenant was to teach
cause and effect. No, you are simply wrong by your reduction to some
philosophical formulation.

> So how can 'cause and
> effect' be an essential part of the Christian faith? For that matter,
> how can it be any part (when misapplied to the activity of God)?

Cause and effect has everything to do with living before God. It is
inseparable with the life lived by faith. Both the unconditional and
the conditional covenants are based on cause and effect. The rewards
of the believers are cause and effect. The metered wrath of God
according to deeds, is cause and effect. The very death of Christ is
cause and effect. The believer placing his/her faith in that
substitutionary, vicarious atonement, is cause and effect. The
acceptance of Christ by the Father is cause and effect. "By which
will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of
Jesus Christ once for all" is cause and effect.

>
> >legalism, and a false, faith-plus-works doctrine of salvation found in
> >Roman and Orthodox catholicism.
>
> You are showing off your ignorance again. The doctrine of salvation in
> Orthodox theology is quite different from that in Roman Catholicism.
> It is certainly different enough that the same cheap label
> 'faith-plus-works doctrine' cannot be true of both.

They are equal in that they reject sola fide. Cause and effect! ;-)

>
> In other words, your biased label 'faith-plus-works doctrine' is
> already bad enough without being misused to imply that both doctrines
> are the same. They are not. And neither is really 'faith-plus-works
> doctrine'.

Hyperbole. Anything that is not sole fide is "faith + works." It is
either/or not both/and.

>
> > The blance required is that true assurance must know the promises
>
> Yet you regularly misunderstand those promises. They are promises to
> those who persevere in the ascetic struggle, not for those who put
> their hand to the plow and look back (Lk 9:62)! Nor are they for those
> who say 'Lord, Lord', but do not _follow_ the Lord!

No, it is you who misunderstand. It is all a work of Him. *HE* makes
the way of escape. He is the One who "is at work in us both to will
and to work for His good pleasure." "We are HIS workmanship"
"according to the kind intention of HIS will" "having been
predestined according to HIS purpose who works all things after the
counsel of HIS will." So I ask you, "where is the boasting?"

[Matthew Johnson]

On 27 Mar 2002 20:04:09 GMT, Ethan Metsger
<m...@rger-102-195.resnet.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

[sninp]

>- So the Jews understood Him, for which reason they immediately
>- picked up stones to stone Him. But someone might ask: why
>- does He say no one can seize them out of His hand, when we
>- see so many perishing? To this we can answer that no one can
>- _seize_ them out of His hand, BUT THEY CAN BE DECEIVED.
>- For no one can of his own authority and with force take them
>- away from the Father, but we often falter. Why does He say,
>- "My sheep follow Me, and they do not perish"? Yet we see
>- that Judas perished. But he perished because he did not
>- follow Jesus and remain with Him to the end. But the Lord
>
>You realize, of course, that the immediate objection to this is that Judas
>was never a sheep to begin with?

Why, yes, I do realize it. But this 'immediate objection' is simply
WRONG. It is a Reformation assumption, never taught by anyone but
perhaps the Manichees before then.

>
>In Col. 1:21ff, we see that Paul uses a first-class condition in the
>phrase, "If you continue...." (v. 23). He assumes that what he says is
>true for the sake of argument, placing the truth of the proposition of
>v. 21 - that we have been reconciled with God through the work of Christ.
>
>- the Manichees: Judas _was_ a saint and a sheep of God,
>- BUT HE FELL AWAY. He fell away of his own choice
>
>And what Scriptural evidence do we have to support this?

The fact that when the twelve were sent to work miracles and preach,
Judas was included. The fact that even at the Last Super, Judas was
not excluded.

> We have prophecy
>from the Psalms that suggests that he wasn't!

The key word is 'suggest'. Now which Psalm did you have in mind?

[snip]

>- No, it is not 'cause and effect'. The idea of 'cause and effect' is
>
>"Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep." How did the Pharisees
>understand this phrase?

Certainly not as describing the final cause of their disbelief. If
they didn't just shut their ears to it, reacting only in anger (a
distinct possibility), they would have understood it as implying only
an intermediate cause.

>- actually quite late. In those days, people didn't believe in anything
>- quite like our modern 'cause and effect'. So how can 'cause and
>- effect' be an essential part of the Christian faith? For that matter,
>- how can it be any part (when misapplied to the activity of God)?
>
>Simple: it's true.

No, it is not that simple. Cause and effect came late because it is
really only one way of organizing antecedent and consequent events,
only one way of understanding them.

That there are others is shown in Aritstotle's Metaphysics, where he
grapples with much the same problem, but without anything we would
recognize as 'cause and effect' even though he discusses several
different kinds of causes.

> The *timing* of the argument doesn't say anything
>about its validity, Matthew, you know that.

Yes, it does. You should be very suspicious of an argument that comes
so _late_ in the history of the discussion, as Luther's arguments
concerning sanctification/justification/predestination/eternal
security.

> God communicates a lot of
>things we don't understand in the Scriptures, and it wouldn't surprise me
>to find that Jesus communicated his message in a way that was difficult to
>understand as well (to which he admits).

But it is outrageous to suppose that nobody before Luther understood
Him. Yet that is what is clearly implied by most discussions we see
concerning sanctification/justification/predestination/eternal
security.

>
>- >We must have balance. God's undertaking in the promises of
>- >safekeeping and His undertaking in the proof of perseverance must
>- >combine in the human consciousness to give Biblical assurance of
>- >salvation. Assurance that rests upon promises alone may result in a
>- >head faith, cold orthodoxy, and carnal security. This is what I argue
>- >against in the Evangelical position. But just as equally, assurance
>- >that leans upon perseverance alone may produce a grace-denying
>- >legalism, and a false, faith-plus-works doctrine of salvation found in
>- >Roman and Orthodox catholicism.
>-
>- You are showing off your ignorance again. The doctrine of salvation in
>- Orthodox theology is quite different from that in Roman Catholicism.
>- It is certainly different enough that the same cheap label
>- 'faith-plus-works doctrine' cannot be true of both.
>
>Could you offer us a definition of the Orthodox position, then?

This is harder to do than you might think. The main reason is that so
many of the key terms we would use in such a 'definition' have subtly
different meanings in Western theology (as described in Vol II of
Jaroslav Pelikan's "The History of Christian Doctrine").

> I'm quite
>ignorant of it, despite some of Steve's best efforts (which smack a lot of
>legalism sometimes).

Judging from my distant memories of Steve's posts, I think he did not
'smack of legalism'. But it might have _sounded_ like it because of
those subtle differences.

> It seems to me that what Loren has offered here
>aligns relatively well with what I think - that those of us with imperfect
>love for God can use the doctrine of eternal security to sin a lot.

And how does this differ from a 'license to sin'? And how can you
reconcile it with Romans 2:5-6?

[snip]

>Ethan:tokidoki atashi no kotomoidashite

If this is meant to be Japanese, I think you need to fix the spelling.

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Matthew Johnson]

On 28 Mar 2002 14:50:15 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

>
>
>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<a7snvl$c6i$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> On 26 Mar 2002 15:17:32 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:
>
>> > "God is Love. God IS love, but God is ALSO light. A
>> >theology emphasizing the love of God without a corresponding stress
>> >upon His holiness may quickly descend into a maudlin sentimentality
>> >which has led to some failing to see the need of Christ's atonement
>> >because this unbalanced teaching fails to give close enough attention
>> >to the present wrath of God.
>>
>> But if that 'wrath' is understood as being too much like the wrath of
>> men, then the 'equipoise' has again been neglected. For example, note
>> that in Romans, the very source for the passages misunderstood as
>> predestinarian, Paul is very careful to point out that God prepares
>> good things for those who persevere in goodness, but the punishments
>> for the wicked are _not_ caused by God; we have ourselves as the
>> cause of our punishment, both in this life and after.
>
>God is the ultimate cause of all things, either directly or passively.

That is not what Scripture teaches. God is not the 'ultimate cause' of
any evil. This is shown, for example, by Gen 1:31:

And God looked at all He had created and saw that it was very good.

> Rom 1 where we ready that "God gave them over" is a direct cause
>through passivity.

This is a contradiction in terms!

> Punishments are indeed at the hand of God,
>sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. To hold, as you do, that
>God does not punish the wicked flies in the face of just what took
>place on the cross.

But that is not what I said. What I said was that when 'God punishes
the wicked', the wicked have themselves as the final cause of their
punishment.

> Certainly the wrath of God fell on His Son
>because of the wickedness of sinful men (not yet redeemed) were
>imputed onto Him. "Why has Thou forsaken Me," is the outward
>expression of the inward reality. Also, the GWTJ is clearly a direct
>involvement in punishing the wicked.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Recognition, on the one hand, that salvation and safekeeping are all
>> >of God and all of grace guards against legalism.
>>
>> This is far too weak a guard against legalism. The best guard against
>> legalism is to remember Mt 9:13 & Mt 12:7! The context clarifies what
>> He is trying to tell us there: the whole purpose of the Law (which
>> gives us knowlege of sin) is to teach us to show mercy and truth.
>> Failure to understand this is the cause of much grief.
>
>This didn't work for Israel, why do you think it will work today?

Because I see it happening today. If you never see it happening, then
maybe you are in the wrong Church.

> You
>can acknowledge that obedience is better than sacrifice but where does
>the empowerment come from. Paul makes it clear it doesn't come from
>us and never has (Rom 3:10ff)

You are changing the topic.

> There is no power in knowledge.

I never said anything to contradict this. You are jousting at
windmills.

> In
>fact, knowledge brings sin! (Rom 7:7ff)

No, it is not the knowlegde itself that brought the sin. You are
misreading Romans again. What he says there is that sin, in its
determination to ruin us, takes advantage of the good gift of the Law
to destroy us. So that the Law is good and holy, and God did right to
give it to us. But we misuse it, allowing sin to acquire even more
strength against us, through the Law.

>The only power anyone has to
>conquer sin is through the power of the Spirit. There is no power
>within us to perform and works of righteousness except to humble
>ourselves moment to moment in the sanctifying work of the Spirit even
>as we humbled ourselves and confessed our total depravity at the time
>of justification.

And you are not doing this humbling of yourself when you feel so free
to respond with scoffing in this NG, such as when you erroneously
tried to correct my Greek, retorting like 5th grader "look at the
tenses, Mr. Greek scholar".

Nor are you showing this humility when you boldly proclaim that God is
the ultimate cause of all things, including evil. Or will you finally
agree with Augustine & Basil that evil is not a 'thing'?

Who will believe you know _anything_ about humility after this?

[snip]

>And who are you? You denounce Luther as a semi-heretic yet set
>yourself up as judge.

No, I do no such thing. But those who _do_ have this authority have
already judged Luther as a heretic. By repeating their judgement in
softened words, I do not 'set myself up as judge'.

>Eternal security does not lead to antinomianism
>because of Heb 12.

No, that does not follow. Why, you show with your own words in this NG
that you feel very free, just like an antinomianist, to violate the
commandments of both OT and NT concerning the use of the tongue.

So don't _tell_ me that it does not lead to anitnomianism, _show_ me
by yourself obeying the commandments implicit in Prv 10:19 15:14, 18,
23.

This first is particularly important:

In wordiness, sin is never absent;
But he who controls his lips is most wise (Prv 10:19)

Enough of the oversized posts!

[snip]

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Matthew Johnson]

On 27 Mar 2002 20:04:09 GMT, Ethan Metsger
<m...@rger-102-195.resnet.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
>[I have quoted Matthew with dashes; Loren is quoted with - >]
>
>On 27 Mar 2002, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
>- On 26 Mar 2002 15:17:32 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:
>-
>- >According to Luther, justification is a forensic act,
>-
>- The key phrase is, 'according to Luther'. It is so ironic that the
>- same people who bleat 'sola scriptura' quote Luther so much. Luther is
>- not Scripture.
>

[snip]

>Could you offer us a definition of the Orthodox position, then?

Since you have asked for so many things, I took the liberty of
responding in multiple posts, instead of trying to group them all
together into one.

You asked for a 'definition of the Orthodox position' on faith
and/or/with works'. The best succinct statement of this I have ever
seen is from St. John of Damascus. Unfortunately, I have not found
this particular work in English, either on or off the Net. But it is
so good, I am including it here. Please keep in mind, though, the
caveat I gave in my other response, that 'definitions' easily lead to
misunderstandings, precisely because this _is_ a mystery, which cannot
be well grasped by the weak, fallen mind of man in this life.

So without further ado, here is St. John's description of the
'synergy' of the will of Man and that of God:

By nature being servants of the Creator, and having
free-will (to autexousion), which is the prerequisite for
virtue (for it is not virtue to be compelled), we accept
the law, so that we might know that we have a Lord; so
that we might not walk in darkness and fall into pits
(for Thy Law is a lamp unto my feet, and a light
for my ways [Ps 118:105], says David), so that our
desire for our Lord, and our good-will towards Him,
might be known;so that we might share the good
with God, so that the good will be no less his,
who chose, than His who sowed the seeds
("On the Two Wills" PG v 94 col 149)

[snip]

See also "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" at
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/TOC.htm, especially Book II
chapters 26-30, on free-will, predestination, providence & prescience.
But for some reason, he never put all this in one statement (as he did
in "On the Two Wills") in the Exposition. I think it is because it was
too hard for him to imagine 'eternal security' ever being so widely
believed among Christians!

Please also note that this partly answers your other request for
elaboration, concerning the purpose of the Law; it is not to meet some
legalistic requirement, it is to enlighten us in following our natural
desire to please our Lord.

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Loren]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<a80npo$9a3$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> See also "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" at
> http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/TOC.htm, especially Book II
> chapters 26-30, on free-will, predestination, providence & prescience.
> But for some reason, he never put all this in one statement (as he did
> in "On the Two Wills") in the Exposition. I think it is because it was
> too hard for him to imagine 'eternal security' ever being so widely
> believed among Christians!

Hilary, along with Ambrose, abounds in that highly decorative language
which defies clarity of understanding and meaning. For instance, at
times his elusive, indefinite verbiage seems to indicate some kind of
transubstantiation while at other times it would seem to indicate the
abiding connection of Christ with His body, the church. Vacillation
seems evident in some doctrines while others are expressed in such
antiquated verbiage that it is all but impossible for the lay person
today to make head nor tails out of. Not that modernism has the
answers, as it certainly does not, but locking one's self into the
past is just plain foolish and illogical. Where does one get the
authority to say anything after the 4th C is basically of little merit
and to be always viewed with skepticism? At least the West has tried
to keep the Gospel contemporary as did both Christ and the Apostles.

[Ethan Metsger]

I'm responding to this post first, since I won't need a Bible to answer
it. (Though Gospelcom is pretty useful, it's not the same.)

On 29 Mar 2002, Matthew Johnson wrote:

- >Could you offer us a definition of the Orthodox position, then?
-
- You asked for a 'definition of the Orthodox position' on faith
- and/or/with works'. The best succinct statement of this I have ever
- seen is from St. John of Damascus. Unfortunately, I have not found
- this particular work in English, either on or off the Net. But it is
- so good, I am including it here. Please keep in mind, though, the
- caveat I gave in my other response, that 'definitions' easily lead to
- misunderstandings, precisely because this _is_ a mystery, which cannot
- be well grasped by the weak, fallen mind of man in this life.

I certainly agree that the subtilties of the words and definitions can
cause problems. What you've provided here will help to clarify a few
points, I'm sure.

- So without further ado, here is St. John's description of the
- 'synergy' of the will of Man and that of God:
-
- By nature being servants of the Creator, and having
- free-will (to autexousion), which is the prerequisite for
- virtue (for it is not virtue to be compelled), we accept

I have a point for thought, and I have to admit playing something of a
Devil's Advocate. While I generally believe that free-will doesn't really
work, especially as regards redemption, I realize that there are a lot of
proponents on both sides.

The question I'd like to ask is whether virtue is supposed to go to man,
or to God. While it certainly isn't to *our* virtue to be compelled,
could be it to God's?

- the law, so that we might know that we have a Lord; so
- that we might not walk in darkness and fall into pits
- (for Thy Law is a lamp unto my feet, and a light

I don't have the Septuigant handy (about 450 miles away at the moment) -
is "Law" the word used in that verse there, or is this a misquote or
special interpretation? (The rendering which memorization and songs have
made familiar is "Thy Word, ...") Or is it more literal?

- for my ways [Ps 118:105], says David), so that our
- desire for our Lord, and our good-will towards Him,
- might be known;so that we might share the good
- with God, so that the good will be no less his,
- who chose, than His who sowed the seeds
- ("On the Two Wills" PG v 94 col 149)

- Please also note that this partly answers your other request for
- elaboration, concerning the purpose of the Law; it is not to meet some
- legalistic requirement, it is to enlighten us in following our natural
- desire to please our Lord.

Interesting. I may have some extra things to write about this in the
future, should time avail. Thanks for the link.

--
Stay well,

Ethan:tokidoki atashi no kotomoidashite

PS I'll check on the spelling. I don't particularly know japanese, at
least not well.

[Matthew Johnson]

On 29 Mar 2002 19:05:57 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

>
>
>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<a80npo$9a3$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
>> See also "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" at
>> http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/TOC.htm, especially Book II
>> chapters 26-30, on free-will, predestination, providence & prescience.
>> But for some reason, he never put all this in one statement (as he did
>> in "On the Two Wills") in the Exposition. I think it is because it was
>> too hard for him to imagine 'eternal security' ever being so widely
>> believed among Christians!
>
>Hilary, along with Ambrose, abounds in that highly decorative language
>which defies clarity of understanding and meaning.

You call _that_ 'highly decorative language'? If you had spent some
time reading authors who _really_ wrote 'highly decorative language',
you would know better.

> For instance, at
>times his elusive, indefinite verbiage seems to indicate some kind of
>transubstantiation while at other times it would seem to indicate the
>abiding connection of Christ with His body, the church.

There is nothing 'indefinite' about the words of either St. Hilary or
St. John of Damascus.

> Vacillation
>seems evident in some doctrines while others are expressed in such
>antiquated verbiage that it is all but impossible for the lay person
>today to make head nor tails out of.

This is unwarranted criticism. The lay person can and _does_ make much
more than just 'head or tails' otu of it. It is you who are failing to
make 'head or tails' out of it. Don't claim that every other reader
must share your failure.

> Not that modernism has the
>answers, as it certainly does not, but locking one's self into the
>past is just plain foolish and illogical. Where does one get the
>authority to say anything after the 4th C is basically of little merit
>and to be always viewed with skepticism?

Another of your favorite straw men. I never said this. Neither did
Hilary or John.

> At least the West has tried
>to keep the Gospel contemporary as did both Christ and the Apostles.

I don't think that is a fair statement of what the West really did.
How was forging references to the Filioque in manuscripts of St. Basil
'keeping the Gospel contemporary'? And how about Luther and his 95
theses'? How was pretending no one before Luther understood Romans
'keeping the Gospel contemporary'?

That the Orthodox _do_ keep the Gospel truly contemporary, without
distorting it as others do, is proved by the web sites in my sig file,
as well as many others.

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Matthew Johnson]

On 29 Mar 2002 19:06:21 GMT, Ethan Metsger
<m...@rger-102-195.resnet.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

>I'm responding to this post first, since I won't need a Bible to answer
>it. (Though Gospelcom is pretty useful, it's not the same.)
>
>On 29 Mar 2002, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
>- >Could you offer us a definition of the Orthodox position, then?

[snip]

>- Please keep in mind, though, the

>- caveat I gave in my other response, that 'definitions' easily lead to
>- misunderstandings, precisely because this _is_ a mystery, which cannot
>- be well grasped by the weak, fallen mind of man in this life.

>I certainly agree that the subtilties of the words and definitions can
>cause problems. What you've provided here will help to clarify a few
>points, I'm sure.
>
>- So without further ado, here is St. John's description of the
>- 'synergy' of the will of Man and that of God:
>-
>- By nature being servants of the Creator, and having
>- free-will (to autexousion), which is the prerequisite for
>- virtue (for it is not virtue to be compelled), we accept
>
>I have a point for thought, and I have to admit playing something of a
>Devil's Advocate. While I generally believe that free-will doesn't really
>work, especially as regards redemption, I realize that there are a lot of
>proponents on both sides.

I am beginning to doubt that you really understood St. John's point,
if you could respond with " free-will doesn't really work". His point
is _not_ that ' free-will really works', it is that saving us
_without_ leaving our free-will free is unworthy of God.

>The question I'd like to ask is whether virtue is supposed to go to man,
>or to God. While it certainly isn't to *our* virtue to be compelled,
>could be it to God's?

No. For God wants loving sons, not robots, nor slaves who do what is
pleasing to Him under under threat of chains. Good sons freely please
their Father.

>- the law, so that we might know that we have a Lord; so
>- that we might not walk in darkness and fall into pits
>- (for Thy Law is a lamp unto my feet, and a light
>
>I don't have the Septuigant handy (about 450 miles away at the moment) -
>is "Law" the word used in that verse there, or is this a misquote or
>special interpretation? (The rendering which memorization and songs have
>made familiar is "Thy Word, ...") Or is it more literal?

Rahlf's LXX text has 'word' there, not 'law'. But the later LXX
manuscripts _do_ have 'Law' here.

[snip]

>PS I'll check on the spelling. I don't particularly know japanese, at
>least not well.

Check on the form of speech, too. You should be aware that this kind
of Japanese has special forms for use by women only or men only. The
first meaning for 'atashi' I found at http://linear.mv.com/cgi-bin/j-e
was not what you meant!

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Loren]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<a833af$bci$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> On 29 Mar 2002 19:05:57 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

you can be soooo selective in your replies!

> >
> >Hilary, along with Ambrose, abounds in that highly decorative language
> >which defies clarity of understanding and meaning.
>
> You call _that_ 'highly decorative language'? If you had spent some
> time reading authors who _really_ wrote 'highly decorative language',
> you would know better.

"You call _that_ 'highly decorative language'? Yes. A resounding,
YES!

>
> > For instance, at
> >times his elusive, indefinite verbiage seems to indicate some kind of
> >transubstantiation while at other times it would seem to indicate the
> >abiding connection of Christ with His body, the church.
>
> There is nothing 'indefinite' about the words of either St. Hilary or
> St. John of Damascus.

Really? Again, either or both never give absolute definition to
transubstantiation that would anywhere equate to say a doctrinal
statement on the Trinity at Nicea or even for that matter, a
confession of faith such as the Westminster.

>
> > Vacillation
> >seems evident in some doctrines while others are expressed in such
> >antiquated verbiage that it is all but impossible for the lay person
> >today to make head nor tails out of.
>
> This is unwarranted criticism. The lay person can and _does_ make much
> more than just 'head or tails' otu of it. It is you who are failing to
> make 'head or tails' out of it. Don't claim that every other reader
> must share your failure.

"General statements are generally wrong including this one!" You
press this to the extreme in hopes of destroying my simple statement.
If I pushed everything you said to the extreme I could achieve the
same results as you have sought to achieve. But to placate your ad
infinitum sensitivities.... "for the most part, they are 'all but
impossible for the lay person today to make head nor tails out of.'"
;-)

>
> > Not that modernism has the
> >answers, as it certainly does not, but locking one's self into the
> >past is just plain foolish and illogical. Where does one get the
> >authority to say anything after the 4th C is basically of little merit
> >and to be always viewed with skepticism?
>
> Another of your favorite straw men. I never said this. Neither did
> Hilary or John.

Oh Matthew. You really need to stop. You have said this over and
over again in so many words. You do so everytime someone quotes from
Luther or Calvin or some dignitary outside of your elitist flock of
theologians and doctrinal statements. There is no room for growth or
deeper understanding for you except what can be mined out of your
traditions. You handcuff Christ and His revealation to the Church.
How many prophecies were demanded to be locked until the end times?
How does this play into your scheme of interpretation?

>
> > At least the West has tried
> >to keep the Gospel contemporary as did both Christ and the Apostles.
>
> I don't think that is a fair statement of what the West really did.

Again, you are thinking absolutely in specific's when I was speaking
in broad generalities.

> How was forging references to the Filioque in manuscripts of St. Basil
> 'keeping the Gospel contemporary'? And how about Luther and his 95
> theses'? How was pretending no one before Luther understood Romans
> 'keeping the Gospel contemporary'?

Luther understood or was given understanding (more properly to be
understood) as to sola fide which was not hidden from the church, but
from the RCC and its equivalents. This is why I see so many
similarities between Christ's rejection of the pious religious leaders
of His day with those of these highly organized "churches." They are
the tree that grew abnormally large and had those black coat ravens
perched within them. It became a monstrosity which Christ never meant
it to become.

>
> That the Orthodox _do_ keep the Gospel truly contemporary, without
> distorting it as others do, is proved by the web sites in my sig file,
> as well as many others.

We are each entitled to our opinions.

[Dr. Moprhias]

"Matthew Johnson" <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:a7vakr$1p6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

>
>
> On 27 Mar 2002 20:04:09 GMT, Ethan Metsger
> <m...@rger-102-195.resnet.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> [sninp]
> >

> >You realize, of course, that the immediate objection to this is that
Judas
> >was never a sheep to begin with?
>
> Why, yes, I do realize it. But this 'immediate objection' is simply
> WRONG. It is a Reformation assumption, never taught by anyone but
> perhaps the Manichees before then.
>

No one except perhaps the Apostle John? who wrote:

John 12:4 "4 Then one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who
would betray Him, said, 5 "Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three
hundred denarii and given to the poor?" 6 This he said, not that he cared
for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used
to take what was put in it."

Thus, we know by God's Spirit that while Judas was a "disciple" of Jesus, he
was a THIEF very early on. This proves that he was certainly not a "sheep of
Christ." How can one maintain that the person who was placed among the
twelve as their TREASURER, and was a thief, not from strangers, but from God
the Son Himself was a true believer in Him? Thus, your assertion that Judas
was a sheep, was a real believer, and was actually repentant seems to fly in
the face of your entire theology.

I am not saying that none of us steal from God, for we all do, but a sheep
does not continue in this fashion of the worst form of theft, theft from his
supposed Lord, master, and God for three or more years, and never confess,
nor repent!

david

[Matthew Johnson]

On 31 Mar 2002 02:53:07 GMT, "Dr. Moprhias" <drmor...@cs.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:a7vakr$1p6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>>
>>
>> On 27 Mar 2002 20:04:09 GMT, Ethan Metsger
>> <m...@rger-102-195.resnet.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>
>> [sninp]
>> >
>> >You realize, of course, that the immediate objection to this is that
>Judas
>> >was never a sheep to begin with?
>>
>> Why, yes, I do realize it. But this 'immediate objection' is simply
>> WRONG. It is a Reformation assumption, never taught by anyone but
>> perhaps the Manichees before then.
>>
>
>No one except perhaps the Apostle John?

No. The Apostle John did not agree with you. Unless you are willing to
claim that the Apostle John said Judas was never one of His sheep, yet
Luke said he was.

> who wrote:
>
>John 12:4 "4 Then one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who
>would betray Him, said, 5 "Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three
>hundred denarii and given to the poor?" 6 This he said, not that he cared
>for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used
>to take what was put in it."
>
>Thus, we know by God's Spirit that while Judas was a "disciple" of Jesus, he
>was a THIEF very early on.

No, we do not know that he was a thief 'very early on'. John does not
tell us _when_ he started helping himself to the money, and he
mentions this only shortly before the Lord's entry into Jerusalem. As
the Apostle John _also_ says, sinners cannot work miracles (Jn 9:31).
Yet we know that Judas was one of the seventy two who went throughout
Israel healing the sick and casting out demons (Lk 10:17).

So this shows that yes, Judas _was_ good and holy and a disciple of
the Lord. This makes his fall all the more a warning for us all.

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

[Matthew Johnson]

On 30 Mar 2002 16:34:29 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

>
>
>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<a833af$bci$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> On 29 Mar 2002 19:05:57 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:
>
>you can be soooo selective in your replies!

Whereas you are indiscriminate and profuse.

>> >
>> >Hilary, along with Ambrose, abounds in that highly decorative language
>> >which defies clarity of understanding and meaning.
>>
>> You call _that_ 'highly decorative language'? If you had spent some
>> time reading authors who _really_ wrote 'highly decorative language',
>> you would know better.
>
>"You call _that_ 'highly decorative language'? Yes. A resounding,
>YES!

Don't be so proud of showing off your ignorance. It simply is not
'higly decorative language'.

>>
>> > For instance, at
>> >times his elusive, indefinite verbiage seems to indicate some kind of
>> >transubstantiation while at other times it would seem to indicate the
>> >abiding connection of Christ with His body, the church.
>>
>> There is nothing 'indefinite' about the words of either St. Hilary or
>> St. John of Damascus.
>
>Really? Again, either or both never give absolute definition to
>transubstantiation that would anywhere equate to say a doctrinal
>statement on the Trinity at Nicea or even for that matter, a
>confession of faith such as the Westminster.

But this is _completely irrelevant_. We weren't talking about
trasnubstantiation, remember? We were talking abut their words on the
Trinity and on Providence.

There is a _reason_ why they refused to rashly give an 'absolute
definition' to transubstantiation, but that is well outside the scope
of this thread.

>> > Vacillation
>> >seems evident in some doctrines while others are expressed in such
>> >antiquated verbiage that it is all but impossible for the lay person
>> >today to make head nor tails out of.
>>
>> This is unwarranted criticism. The lay person can and _does_ make much
>> more than just 'head or tails' otu of it. It is you who are failing to
>> make 'head or tails' out of it. Don't claim that every other reader
>> must share your failure.
>
>"General statements are generally wrong including this one!"

No,not including this one. But if you have such a slighting opinion of
'general statements', why are you so quick to make so many general
statements in this post? And _your_ 'general statements' are not even
generally true.

> You
>press this to the extreme in hopes of destroying my simple statement.
>If I pushed everything you said to the extreme I could achieve the
>same results as you have sought to achieve.

Don't overstate your abilities.

> But to placate your ad
>infinitum sensitivities.... "for the most part, they are 'all but
>impossible for the lay person today to make head nor tails out of.'"

But this isn't true either. This is just your Luddite attitude
surfacing again.

>;-)
>>
>> > Not that modernism has the
>> >answers, as it certainly does not, but locking one's self into the
>> >past is just plain foolish and illogical. Where does one get the
>> >authority to say anything after the 4th C is basically of little merit
>> >and to be always viewed with skepticism?
>>
>> Another of your favorite straw men. I never said this. Neither did
>> Hilary or John.
>
>Oh Matthew. You really need to stop.

Dream on.

> You have said this over and
>over again in so many words.

Because you keep advancing straw men over and over again. This is but
one example of how much you have in common with your JW opponents in
this NG.

> You do so everytime someone quotes from
>Luther or Calvin or some dignitary outside of your elitist flock of
>theologians and doctrinal statements.

You haven't been her ein this NG long enough to know what I do
'everytime'. So this is another of your reckless and unwarranted
generalizations.

> There is no room for growth or
>deeper understanding for you except what can be mined out of your
>traditions.

How ironic you should make this claim! The only difference between
this and what you yourself do is that _you_ mine only from the
_Reform_ tradition. Do you really think I haven't noticed that your
long and often inappropriate citations are from Reform authors?

> You handcuff Christ and His revealation to the Church.

No, it is you who handcuff Christ to the 'Reform' Tradition.

[snip]

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Loren]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<a87kdv$ibr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> On 30 Mar 2002 16:34:29 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

> Don't be so proud of showing off your ignorance. It simply is not
> 'higly decorative language'.

> Don't overstate your abilities.

> But this isn't true either. This is just your Luddite attitude
> surfacing again.

> you have in common with your JW opponents in
> this NG.

1) You have no sense of humor
2) You take yourself too seriously
3) "But by the grace of God, there goes God!"

It is one thing to disagree and even to become righteously indignant,
but it is quite another to belittle and prideful and arrogant. Paul
writes about those who become "puffed up" in their vain imaginings. I
am constantly aware of this. Does that Spirit within you never
convict you or your sin of haughtiness?

> > You do so everytime someone quotes from
> >Luther or Calvin or some dignitary outside of your elitist flock of
> >theologians and doctrinal statements.
>
> You haven't been her ein this NG long enough to know what I do
> 'everytime'. So this is another of your reckless and unwarranted
> generalizations.

I voted for its origin. I've been on SRC since before the WWW ever
came along. Back to the 80's. Now who is reckless? Now who has made
unwarranted generalizations? Charles back then wanted to separate
issues involving Bible studies from theology. But in your puffed-up
attitude, you draw some kind of self worth from length of membership.
Bibliotheca Sacra has an on going article in their quarterly entitled,
"Who is a Hypocrite?" Maybe you should seek it out and gain a little
humility from it.

>
> > There is no room for growth or
> >deeper understanding for you except what can be mined out of your
> >traditions.
>
> How ironic you should make this claim! The only difference between
> this and what you yourself do is that _you_ mine only from the
> _Reform_ tradition. Do you really think I haven't noticed that your
> long and often inappropriate citations are from Reform authors?

???? I occasional quote Calvin, certainly not to the degree or the
scholar ship that Charles does. Occasionally Luther. I think the
Reform point of view has great merit though I am not Reform but
Evangelical Dispensational. I have great respect for the Westminster
Confess.

And so what if I quote from them? Why not? They obviously have been
close to the Throne. I reverence (not worship) those such as these.
My teachers I stood humbly before. I thanked God for being in their
presence. Just to hear them pray was a god-send. But teachers fail
when their students don't go on to learn for themselves and to teach
others. Yet in your arrogance you would have us chanting mindlessly
the Orthodox subscription.

Again, your arrogance surfaces and you sally forth in your shining
armor and shout obscenities when there is no call for it. I have
never said anything demeaning or spiteful about your traditions. I
have only spoken of their use. Sola fide is a heresy to you. But
that does not cause great anger in me. Heaven will reveal your fault.
I live a wonderful Christian life not one of fear of falling short.
It is sola gratia. You accuse me of my citations of Reform authors
and yet you assume I am suppose to sit passively by and accept all
your authors without comment. No one is to question the great
Matthew's usage of the "Orthodox traditions." It is sola scriptura
for this very reason.

>
> > You handcuff Christ and His revealation to the Church.
>
> No, it is you who handcuff Christ to the 'Reform' Tradition.
>

Sola fide is what turned the dark ages of tradition into the light of
the Reformation and all the freedoms that followed. Faith is
exhibited by their fruit. The fruit of the Reformation declares the
truth of its interpretation. Christ did not come to create another
class of Jew or Pharisee. He came to set us free. The Reformation
was the great awaking and incorporation of the truth that it is all,
"from Him, through Him, and to Him." It is all grace.

Set your acrid tongue on the altar. Seek the humility of Christ. We
all fall short. We all have moments of vanity. But we also have His
example and how much more is it evident than during this season of
reflection of what was done _for us?

selah!

[Loren]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<a87kdv$ibr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> On 30 Mar 2002 16:34:29 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

> Don't be so proud of showing off your ignorance. It simply is not
> 'higly decorative language'.

> Don't overstate your abilities.

> But this isn't true either. This is just your Luddite attitude
> surfacing again.

> you have in common with your JW opponents in
> this NG.

1) You have no sense of humor

2) You take yourself too seriously
3) "But by the grace of God, there goes God!"

It is one thing to disagree and even to become righteously indignant,
but it is quite another to belittle and prideful and arrogant. Paul
writes about those who become "puffed up" in their vain imaginings. I
am constantly aware of this. Does that Spirit within you never
convict you or your sin of haughtiness?

> > You do so everytime someone quotes from

> >Luther or Calvin or some dignitary outside of your elitist flock of
> >theologians and doctrinal statements.
>
> You haven't been her ein this NG long enough to know what I do
> 'everytime'. So this is another of your reckless and unwarranted
> generalizations.

I voted for its origin. I've been on SRC since before the WWW ever

came along. Back to the 80's. Now who is reckless? Now who has made
unwarranted generalizations? Charles back then wanted to separate
issues involving Bible studies from theology. But in your puffed-up
attitude, you draw some kind of self worth from length of membership.
Bibliotheca Sacra has an on going article in their quarterly entitled,

"Who is a Hypocrite?" Maybe you should seek it out and gain a little
humility from it.

>
> > There is no room for growth or
> >deeper understanding for you except what can be mined out of your
> >traditions.
>
> How ironic you should make this claim! The only difference between
> this and what you yourself do is that _you_ mine only from the
> _Reform_ tradition. Do you really think I haven't noticed that your
> long and often inappropriate citations are from Reform authors?

???? I occasional quote Calvin, certainly not to the degree or the

scholar ship that Charles does. Occasionally Luther. I think the
Reform point of view has great merit though I am not Reform but
Evangelical Dispensational. I have great respect for the Westminster
Confess.

And so what if I quote from them? Why not? They obviously have been
close to the Throne. I reverence (not worship) those such as these.
My teachers I stood humbly before. I thanked God for being in their
presence. Just to hear them pray was a god-send. But teachers fail
when their students don't go on to learn for themselves and to teach
others. Yet in your arrogance you would have us chanting mindlessly
the Orthodox subscription.

Again, your arrogance surfaces and you sally forth in your shining
armor and shout obscenities when there is no call for it. I have
never said anything demeaning or spiteful about your traditions. I
have only spoken of their use. Sola fide is a heresy to you. But
that does not cause great anger in me. Heaven will reveal your fault.
I live a wonderful Christian life not one of fear of falling short.
It is sola gratia. You accuse me of my citations of Reform authors
and yet you assume I am suppose to sit passively by and accept all
your authors without comment. No one is to question the great
Matthew's usage of the "Orthodox traditions." It is sola scriptura
for this very reason.

>

> > You handcuff Christ and His revealation to the Church.
>
> No, it is you who handcuff Christ to the 'Reform' Tradition.
>

Sola fide is what turned the dark ages of tradition into the light of
the Reformation and all the freedoms that followed. Faith is
exhibited by their fruit. The fruit of the Reformation declares the
truth of its interpretation. Christ did not come to create another
class of Jew or Pharisee. He came to set us free. The Reformation
was the great awaking and incorporation of the truth that it is all,
"from Him, through Him, and to Him." It is all grace.

Set your acrid tongue on the altar. Seek the humility of Christ. We
all fall short. We all have moments of vanity. But we also have His
example and how much more is it evident than during this season of
reflection of what was done _for us?

selah!

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Stephen Adams]

lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) writes:
>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:

>> No, it is you who handcuff Christ to the 'Reform' Tradition.
>>
>Sola fide is what turned the dark ages of tradition into the light of
>the Reformation and all the freedoms that followed. Faith is
>exhibited by their fruit. The fruit of the Reformation declares the
>truth of its interpretation.

20,000+ denominations and growing? Endless schism? This is the fruit
of the Reformation.

Which Protestant group has the truth? Which doctrine do *all* Protestants
agree on?

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---Bin Laden - we're coming. Say your prayers---
sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <a8a4bl$6mc$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, lsen...@hotmail.com says...

>
>
>
>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message
>news:<a87kdv$ibr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> On 30 Mar 2002 16:34:29 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:
>
>> Don't be so proud of showing off your ignorance. It simply is not
>> 'higly decorative language'.
>
>> Don't overstate your abilities.
>
>> But this isn't true either. This is just your Luddite attitude
>> surfacing again.
>
>> you have in common with your JW opponents in
>> this NG.
>
>1) You have no sense of humor

Not true. I just find your attempts at humor woefully inappropriate.

>2) You take yourself too seriously

And how would you know?

>3) "But by the grace of God, there goes God!"

This didn't make much sense the first time you said it either.

>It is one thing to disagree and even to become righteously indignant,
>but it is quite another to belittle and prideful and arrogant.

So says the pot calling the kettle black.

> Paul
>writes about those who become "puffed up" in their vain imaginings. I
>am constantly aware of this.

The awareness does not show in your posts. What shows in your posts is your
haste to accuse others of your own offenses.

>Does that Spirit within you never
>convict you or your sin of haughtiness?

I have wanted to ask you this many times. Yet I refrained. You saw what I posted
instead. Now why do you find it so difficult to refrain?

>
>> > You do so everytime someone quotes from
>> >Luther or Calvin or some dignitary outside of your elitist flock of
>> >theologians and doctrinal statements.
>>
>> You haven't been her ein this NG long enough to know what I do
>> 'everytime'. So this is another of your reckless and unwarranted
>> generalizations.
>
>I voted for its origin. I've been on SRC since before the WWW ever
>came along. Back to the 80's. Now who is reckless? Now who has made
>unwarranted generalizations? Charles back then wanted to separate
>issues involving Bible studies from theology.

Which sounds like the motivation for the separate group,
soc.religion.christian.bible-study. BTW, this is the group I thought I was
posting in when I made the above comment. So that is the real explanation for my
mistatement, not the 'puffed-up attitude' you are so eager to see.

> But in your puffed-up
>attitude, you draw some kind of self worth from length of membership.

Can't you see that accusation sticks much better to someone who says 'I voted
for its origin'?

>Bibliotheca Sacra has an on going article in their quarterly entitled,
>"Who is a Hypocrite?" Maybe you should seek it out and gain a little
>humility from it.
>>
>> > There is no room for growth or
>> >deeper understanding for you except what can be mined out of your
>> >traditions.
>>
>> How ironic you should make this claim! The only difference between
>> this and what you yourself do is that _you_ mine only from the
>> _Reform_ tradition. Do you really think I haven't noticed that your
>> long and often inappropriate citations are from Reform authors?
>
>????

Why are you so confused by this?

> I occasional quote Calvin, certainly not to the degree or the
>scholar ship that Charles does.

And if you would follow Charles's example of how to quote Calvin, I would not
have levelled that accusation of 'long and often inappropriate citations'.

> Occasionally Luther.

And a great many others from the Reform camp.

> I think the
>Reform point of view has great merit though I am not Reform but
>Evangelical Dispensational.

Judging from your posts, I would say 'Evangelical Dispensational' is heavily
indebted to Calvinism.

> I have great respect for the Westminster
>Confess.

Which is a thoroughly Reform document.

>And so what if I quote from them? Why not?

You miss the point: you objected when I quoted exclusively from the Orthodox
Tradition, yet see nothing wrong when you quote exclusively (well, nearly
exclusively) from the Reform Tradition.

> They obviously have been
>close to the Throne. I reverence (not worship) those such as these.
>My teachers I stood humbly before. I thanked God for being in their
>presence. Just to hear them pray was a god-send. But teachers fail
>when their students don't go on to learn for themselves and to teach
>others. Yet in your arrogance you would have us chanting mindlessly
>the Orthodox subscription.
>
>Again, your arrogance surfaces and you sally forth in your shining
>armor and shout obscenities when there is no call for it.

Again your arrogance surfaces and you sally forth with your groundless
accusation of 'shouting obscenities'. Show me where there was an 'obscenity' in
any of my posts.

> I have
>never said anything demeaning or spiteful about your traditions.

Oh, but you have. You accused us of being strangers to the true tradition
because we deny 'eternal security'.

> I
>have only spoken of their use. Sola fide is a heresy to you. But
>that does not cause great anger in me. Heaven will reveal your fault.

But will heaven reveal yours first?

> I live a wonderful Christian life not one of fear of falling short.
>It is sola gratia. You accuse me of my citations of Reform authors
>and yet you assume I am suppose to sit passively by and accept all
>your authors without comment.

I knew better than to expect _that_ from you.

> No one is to question the great
>Matthew's usage of the "Orthodox traditions."

Another false accusation. I _do_ expect it to be _questioned_. But I was hoping
for questions that deserve to be taken _seriously_, such as Ethan Metsger's.
Compare my response to his posts and my response to yours and you will see how
false your accusation really is.

> It is sola scriptura for this very reason.
>
>>
>> > You handcuff Christ and His revealation to the Church.
>>
>> No, it is you who handcuff Christ to the 'Reform' Tradition.
>>
>Sola fide is what turned the dark ages of tradition into the light of
>the Reformation and all the freedoms that followed.

That sounds really nice, but unfortunately, 'sola fide' is NOT what is taught in
Scripture. So the 'freedom' you acquired through it has more in common with the
'freedom' of licentiousness than with the freedom of the life in Christ.

>Faith is exhibited by their fruit.

And what fruit did you exhibit with these groundless accusations?

>The fruit of the Reformation declares the
>truth of its interpretation.

Which is certainly good enough grounds for me to reject the Reformation.

[snip]

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

[George Patton]

sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in message

> Which Protestant group has the truth? Which doctrine do *all* Protestants
> agree on?
>
> -Stephen

I think that if we needed to have the truth in order to make God happy
(or in order for God to save us, and let us enjoy him forever) we
would all be lost! But, God loves sinners. He loves big sinners,
little sinners and those who just sin like the average.

Humans vary in their beliefs (in their understanding of God,
understanding of humans, understanding of creation and of the
relationships between them all. Some humans have other things to add
to the list: angels, devils, and maybe other things too).

God Almighty, our creator, is the god of us all. Not all of his sheep
enjoy being in the same flock. For example, one flock might be
perfectly happy grazing in the nude but others would feel comfortable
only if they had not been sheered and had all their wool. Some sheep
might like to be in a flock of only white sheep. Some might think
that, in God's eyes, the rams are better than the ewes. Some might
think that the only flock they want to be in is the flock that has the
truth.

I do not believe that any denomination (or any independent human) has
the truth. All of us fall short of the goal that God has set for us.
But, he loves us and enjoys us just as we are. He knows our weakness
and our strength; he made us.

Don't worry about the huge number of denominations, I think that they
are all (or almost all) a part of the body of Christ. I think God
likes it that way. There are even parts of the body, that other parts
don't like to talk about. But with out these "unmentionables", the
body would have no way to get rid of some things it does not need to
keep (let the reader understand).

As far as I know, the above is just the opinion of one man. But, I
hope not.

[Jacob Rizor]

>Subject: Re: can you loose your salvation?
>From: sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams)
>Date: 4/1/2002 3:20 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a8aiu7$2jp$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>

>
>
>
>lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) writes:
>>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
>
>>> No, it is you who handcuff Christ to the 'Reform' Tradition.
>>>
>>Sola fide is what turned the dark ages of tradition into the light of
>>the Reformation and all the freedoms that followed. Faith is
>>exhibited by their fruit. The fruit of the Reformation declares the
>>truth of its interpretation.
>
>20,000+ denominations and growing? Endless schism? This is the fruit
>of the Reformation.
>
>Which Protestant group has the truth? Which doctrine do *all* Protestants
>agree on?
>
> -Stephen
>--

All Protestants agree;
God exists, He created the universe and is its master. The details of how
He did it are disputed.
Jesus the Christ was the only Begotten Son of God, his death on the cross
can wash away our sins, and he is master of the Earth. Details are disputed,
such as the meaning of "begotten"....
Murder, theft, adultry, perjury, and covetousness are condemned.

[Bart Goddard]

sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in

news:a8aiu7$2jp$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:

> 20,000+ denominations and growing? Endless schism? This is the fruit
> of the Reformation.
>
> Which Protestant group has the truth? Which doctrine do *all*
> Protestants agree on?

1. That the Roman bishop is not the Vicar of Christ on earth,
the supreme religious, economic, nor political authority in
the world.

2. That salvation doesn not come out of the mere act of performing
the rite of the sacrament, or hearing the Gospel preached
in a language one does not understand.

3. That one not might buy one's salvation with money,
via a system of indulgences whereby monks sell their
overabundance of good works to the common man.

4. That Jesus, rather than the Blessed Virgin, is the
One Mediator between God and man.

5. That the true Apostolic Church is preserved, not in
"succession", nor in "tradition", but in Scripture.

"Schism" in and of itself is not bad. Certainly, we
don't want to sacrifice the truth of the Gospel on
the altar of unity. It doesn't matter how many denominations
there are, it only matters what the truth is. Perhaps
God prefers "endless schism" to "bloated Roman political
stock exchange". It's certainly easy (and not very fair)
for an EO to sit on the sidelines and pretend like the
issues were not there. In the West, the questions came
up, and so, had to be answered.

In the West, the Sacrament was no longer being offered,
the Gospel was no longer being preached. Monks were
selling their good works for profit. The RC was nothing
but another European country. The _real_ fruit of the
Reformation is that the Sacrament is restored in the West,
the Gospel is preached, (and translated) and now the Pope
has to turn his attention away from his stock portfolio
once in a while and do an Easter service, instead of
whipping up an army and trying to wipe out the Lutherans
in Saxony this season.

All and all, an improvement in the state of Christianity
in the West, in my humble opinion.

By the way, the theology of the Reformation (which
is based on Sola Gratia (first) and is Sacrament-centered) should
not be confused with "reformed theology" which is Calvinist,
based on Sola Fida (first) and non-sacramental.

Bart Goddard

[Stephen Adams]

Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:

>>20,000+ denominations and growing? Endless schism? This is the fruit
>>of the Reformation.
>>
>>Which Protestant group has the truth? Which doctrine do *all*
>>Protestants agree on?
>
>1. That the Roman bishop is not the Vicar of Christ on earth,
>the supreme religious, economic, nor political authority in
>the world.

This isn't what I was getting at, but even the above is relative.
The position of bishops is highly variable, if they even exist
at all, within the Protestant community. As such, Protestants
*disagree* with the Roman position on bishops, and *disagree*
with each other on the topic as well.

>2. That salvation doesn not come out of the mere act of performing
>the rite of the sacrament, or hearing the Gospel preached
>in a language one does not understand.

And yet, Protestants themselves disagree on how salvation
operates and how one avails oneself of this (if one even
can). There is no unity in this disagreement with Rome,
since the parties cannot agree amongst themselves.

>3. That one not might buy one's salvation with money,
>via a system of indulgences whereby monks sell their
>overabundance of good works to the common man.

Once again, you disagree with Rome and yet, in the end
disagree with each other on whether good works of any
kind yield merit. As such, there is no true agreement,
since you cannot agree on this topic amongst yourselves.

>4. That Jesus, rather than the Blessed Virgin, is the
>One Mediator between God and man.

You'll have to ask Cindy, but I do not believe that the
Roman Church teaches that Mary "mediates" between God
and Man the way that Christ does.

Once again, though, this is unity in disagreement. I
wonder if you can find a *positve* statement of doctrine
in which all Protestatnts agree.

>5. That the true Apostolic Church is preserved, not in
>"succession", nor in "tradition", but in Scripture.

The Church existed long-before the New Testament, just
as Israel existed long before the Old. The Scriptures
are a product of the Church, not the other way around.

>"Schism" in and of itself is not bad. Certainly, we
>don't want to sacrifice the truth of the Gospel on
>the altar of unity. It doesn't matter how many denominations
>there are, it only matters what the truth is.

Not so! The Scriptures reject this notion...and yet, you
claim them as a basis for your belief??

Paul condemens heresy (lit: variance, strife) as a work
of the flesh in Gal 5. He condems divisions in 1 Cor 1
and 1 Cor 3, as well as Romans 16:17. Christ himself
prays that the church may be one in John 17.

>Perhaps
>God prefers "endless schism" to "bloated Roman political
>stock exchange". It's certainly easy (and not very fair)
>for an EO to sit on the sidelines and pretend like the
>issues were not there. In the West, the questions came
>up, and so, had to be answered.

Yes, they did. But the point remains, that there is no
"answer" - there are 20,000+ answers.

As a simple question: How many Protestants accept the
Nicene Creed? Not all of them (unless, of course, you
try to limit the definition of Protestant).

>In the West, the Sacrament was no longer being offered,
>the Gospel was no longer being preached. Monks were
>selling their good works for profit. The RC was nothing
>but another European country. The _real_ fruit of the
>Reformation is that the Sacrament is restored in the West,
>the Gospel is preached, (and translated) and now the Pope
>has to turn his attention away from his stock portfolio
>once in a while and do an Easter service, instead of
>whipping up an army and trying to wipe out the Lutherans
>in Saxony this season.

Yes, all true, but the issue I make is the doctrinal division
in the West. There is no doubt in my mind that something
had to be done. The problem was that it was a Reformation
instead of a Restoration.

>All and all, an improvement in the state of Christianity
>in the West, in my humble opinion.

While the Lutheran reforms were in many ways better than
what the Roman Church was teaching at the time, they did
not return to the truth, but set out on a new course. I
would agree that services in the vernacular, restoration
of the sacrament and other changes were good, proper and
necessary. Unfortunately, in the end, it became "every
man for himself" and the schisms continue to this day.

>By the way, the theology of the Reformation (which
>is based on Sola Gratia (first) and is Sacrament-centered)
>should not be confused with "reformed theology" which
>is Calvinist, based on Sola Fida (first) and non-sacramental.

:-) I know. The issue is, that the term "Protestant" is
not limited to Luterans or their theological heirs. It
includes the Calvinists, the Zwinglians, etc, etc.

Bart, how about a postive statement of a theological
doctrine on which all Protestants groups agree. I
don't think there is one.

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---Bin Laden - we're coming. Say your prayers---
sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Stephen Adams]

beatle...@aol.committee (Jacob Rizor) writes:
>>From: sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams)
>>lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) writes:

>>>Sola fide is what turned the dark ages of tradition into the light of
>>>the Reformation and all the freedoms that followed. Faith is
>>>exhibited by their fruit. The fruit of the Reformation declares the
>>>truth of its interpretation.
>>
>>20,000+ denominations and growing? Endless schism? This is the fruit
>>of the Reformation.
>>
>>Which Protestant group has the truth? Which doctrine do *all* Protestants
>>agree on?
>>

> All Protestants agree;
> God exists, He created the universe and is its master. The details of how
>He did it are disputed.

Hmm. I'm not so sure about that. There are many Protestants who
hold to the Big Bang and theories of evolution, and would in fact,
deny direct divine intervention in the creation of the world.

> Jesus the Christ was the only Begotten Son of God, his death on the cross
>can wash away our sins, and he is master of the Earth. Details are disputed,
>such as the meaning of "begotten"....

That's hardly an insignificant detail! Doctrinal agreement hinges on
the meaning of "Begotten" and "Son of God". Those who preach and teach
of a "cosmic" or "spiritual" Christ would disagree, at least in part,
with the notion of "master" and with certain aspects of his death and
resurection, as well as what it means to "wash away sin."

> Murder, theft, adultry, perjury, and covetousness are condemned.

While the blanket statement is true, this is hardly a "Christian"
doctrine. Secondly, the definitions of those terms will be
dispted ad nauseum...I've seen it myself.

Can you provide a single, core, distinctively Christian doctrine
that all Protestant groups agree on?

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---Bin Laden - we're coming. Say your prayers---
sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Loren]

sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in message news:<a8aiu7$2jp$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) writes:
> >matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
>
> >> No, it is you who handcuff Christ to the 'Reform' Tradition.
> >>
> >Sola fide is what turned the dark ages of tradition into the light of
> >the Reformation and all the freedoms that followed. Faith is
> >exhibited by their fruit. The fruit of the Reformation declares the
> >truth of its interpretation.
>
> 20,000+ denominations and growing? Endless schism? This is the
> fruit of the Reformation.

The fruit of sola fide is all about you. Modern science came from it
which means all this internet technology owes a dept of gratitude to
the reformation. Even today, in the countries that are primarily RCC
or EO, they are backwards and still in the dark. As I've mentioned
many times before and given the statistics, the nations of the
Reformation vs the nations of the "Tradition", have a far higher
literacy rate and a far higher standard of living. Is this not
evident fruit of the Reformation? Was it just per chance that the
press came along when and were it did? Have you no sense of God's
providence?

Man is fallen. Even the Christian still carries about within him all
the trappings of alienation as he did before he was placed "in
Christ." So you fail in pushing this to extreme to prove your point.
We could certainly talk about the RCC or the EO and their present
reality of pedophilia and homosexuality. As for 20,0000
denominations, so what? Where is the justification for one large
master church? Is it not in the tree in which the crows perch as
Christ Himself illustrated? It is a monstrosity and its history
proves it. Better 20,0000 denomination and their petty squabbles than
one large all inclusive pluralistic church which from its orgin
included the ancient mystery religions and all their icons and forms
of worship. Those 20,000 denominations are no different in their
stance before God. All have to give an accounting for their deeds.

>
> Which Protestant group has the truth? Which doctrine do *all* Protestants
> agree on?

And the catholics are in agreement?

Gospel came to free us of our sin and our alienation. Both have
failed in substantially gaining and teaching the good news of our
freedom. There is no reason to point fingers. But the Reformation,
for a time, provided a real enlightenment as to the beauty and the
worth of God's creation. It would be a dark cruel world if Luther and
others within the RCC had not sacrificed themselves for the glory
which is within the Gospel. Satan's way is imprisonment and slavery
to form without freedom. It is dark and it is elitist. Sound
familar?

[Stephen Adams]

lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) writes:
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:

>>lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) writes:
>>>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
>>
>>>> No, it is you who handcuff Christ to the 'Reform' Tradition.
>>>>
>>>Sola fide is what turned the dark ages of tradition into the light of
>>>the Reformation and all the freedoms that followed. Faith is
>>>exhibited by their fruit. The fruit of the Reformation declares the
>>>truth of its interpretation.
>>
>>20,000+ denominations and growing? Endless schism? This is the
>>fruit of the Reformation.
>
>The fruit of sola fide is all about you.

This very succinctly states a major problem with Sola Fide. It denies
the corporate nature of the Church, and in fact, of humanity. And in
the end, this denies the incarnation.

Not to mention the fact that the only place in the entire Scriptures
where the words "by faith alone" appear, they are preceded by the word
"not"!! To wit:

James 2:24

NKJV: You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

NIV: You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith
alone.

NASB: You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.

So it's not a translational problem. All the major translations agree.

>Modern science came from it
>which means all this internet technology owes a dept of gratitude to
>the reformation.

I would disagree. Modern Science had its beginnings, if any such
thing is truly identifiable, in the Renaissance, and was truly
unleashed by the Enlightenment. Let me ask you - is Deism a form
of Protestantism?

>Even today, in the countries that are primarily RCC
>or EO, they are backwards and still in the dark.

In the Middle East, they are ruled, generally, by the iron fist
of Islam. In Russia, by the Mogols, Tatars and worst of all,
the Communists. Your claim is a stretch at best, and I think a
gross exageration of the impact of the Reformation.

>As I've mentioned
>many times before and given the statistics, the nations of the
>Reformation vs the nations of the "Tradition", have a far higher
>literacy rate and a far higher standard of living.

The West has been relatively free of outside occupation for the
past 200 years. I would contend this is much more responsible for
the advantages. It's quite a stretch to say that the Reformation
brought this about. And in America, ther are many who would say
that the progress comes in spite of religion, not because of it.

I would venture that the typical Roman Catholic is FAR more open
to the scientific method than the typical Evangelical Bible Church
member.

>Is this not
>evident fruit of the Reformation? Was it just per chance that the
>press came along when and were it did? Have you no sense of God's
>providence?

China invented movable type long before Guttenburg. See the
following: http://www.cgan.com.hk/english/cpg/engcp20.htm.

This is just one example.

You were saying?

>Man is fallen. Even the Christian still carries about within him all
>the trappings of alienation as he did before he was placed "in
>Christ." So you fail in pushing this to extreme to prove your point.
>We could certainly talk about the RCC or the EO and their present
>reality of pedophilia and homosexuality.

Whoa there. While the Roman Church has a major problem with this,
the extent of such sin by Orthodox clergy in the US is no greater
than that of Protestant Clergy. I'll let Cindy or one of the others
speak to the Roman position on this. In case you weren't aware, the
Orthodox Church ordains married men - there is no requirement for
priestly celebacy.

>As for 20,0000 denominations, so what? Where is the justification for
>one large master church? Is it not in the tree in which the crows perch as
>Christ Himself illustrated? It is a monstrosity and its history
>proves it. Better 20,0000 denomination and their petty squabbles than
>one large all inclusive pluralistic church which from its orgin
>included the ancient mystery religions and all their icons and forms
>of worship. Those 20,000 denominations are no different in their
>stance before God. All have to give an accounting for their deeds.

There are a whole slew of things in this paragraph, but I'll address
just one: the "large master church." Orthodoxy teaches no such thing.
Each and every parish, together with its bishop, constitutes "the
church" and each bishop is the equal of every other bishop, with the
hierarchy of bishops facillitating only resolution of questions that
need to be put the to the bishops as a group. No other bishop can
tell the Metropolitan Archbishop of our Archdiocese what to do. They
can ask, they can advise, but in the end, he, in union with the laity
of the Archdiocese, has the decision making authority.

Please don't confuse our system with that of Rome.

>> Which Protestant group has the truth? Which doctrine do *all* Protestants
>> agree on?
>
>And the catholics are in agreement?

Orthodox (I won't speak for Rome) Churches hold to the same doctrines
and teach the same doctrines in unity. The administrative divisions
do not signify a difference in doctrine. The teachings of the Bishops
are in unity.

>Gospel came to free us of our sin and our alienation. Both have
>failed in substantially gaining and teaching the good news of our
>freedom. There is no reason to point fingers. But the Reformation,
>for a time, provided a real enlightenment as to the beauty and the
>worth of God's creation.

As I said in another post, a Restoration would have been much more
appropriate - abandoning those things which Rome had added or changed,
and returning to the truth of the 7 Eccumenical Councils and the Church
that taught (and still teaches) that truth.

>It would be a dark cruel world if Luther and
>others within the RCC had not sacrificed themselves for the glory
>which is within the Gospel. Satan's way is imprisonment and slavery
>to form without freedom. It is dark and it is elitist. Sound
>familar?

The Pope, by ancient standards, was the first Protestant. He
rejected the teachings of the whole Church and went on his own
way....

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---Bin Laden - we're coming. Say your prayers---
sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Matthew Johnson]

On 2 Apr 2002 16:35:55 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

>
>
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in message news:<a8aiu7$2jp$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) writes:
>> >matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
>>
>> >> No, it is you who handcuff Christ to the 'Reform' Tradition.
>> >>
>> >Sola fide is what turned the dark ages of tradition into the light of
>> >the Reformation and all the freedoms that followed. Faith is
>> >exhibited by their fruit. The fruit of the Reformation declares the
>> >truth of its interpretation.
>>
>> 20,000+ denominations and growing? Endless schism? This is the
>> fruit of the Reformation.
>
>The fruit of sola fide is all about you. Modern science came from it

But this isn't even true! Modern science had already made great
strides under the Franciscans before the Reformation. If there had
been no Reformation, these same Franciscans and their intellecual
heirs could easily have given us the same Copernican Revolution.

In fact, if the then Pope had not been so sensitized about the rising
tide or Reformation, Galileo might not have been condemned. Yet we all
know that this condemnation was what held the RC part of the world
back in the sciences.

>which means all this internet technology owes a dept of gratitude to
>the reformation.

No, for the reasons stated above.

> Even today, in the countries that are primarily RCC
>or EO, they are backwards and still in the dark.

Not so. You call 'in the dark' anyone who doesn't follow your own
broken moral compass.

> As I've mentioned
>many times before and given the statistics, the nations of the
>Reformation vs the nations of the "Tradition", have a far higher
>literacy rate and a far higher standard of living. Is this not
>evident fruit of the Reformation?

So if the Gospel taught us that the purpose of life was to say to our
soul, "you have many good things: rest, eat drink and enjoy yourself
(Lk 12:19), THEN the 'superiority' of the West would be evident.

But you know this is not the case! For what does Christ say about the
man who speaks to himself as in Lk 12:19? He says:

You fool! This very night your soul will be demanded of you. To
whom will all your riches go? (Lk 12:20)

The Orthodox East has been poor in the riches of this world, but rich
in the blessings of God. This is so today, also.

[snip]
Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[CINDY SMITH]

In article <a8coq1$9b5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) writes:

> The Pope, by ancient standards, was the first Protestant. He
> rejected the teachings of the whole Church and went on his own
> way....

The Orthodox, by ancient standards, were the first Protestants because
they rejected the teachings of the whole Church and went on their own
way....the Orthodox are not orthodox.

> -Stephen

> The opinions expressed above are those of the author
> ---Bin Laden - we're coming. Say your prayers---
> sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

--

Cindy Smith I have further observed under the sun that
c...@dragon.com The race is not won by the swift,
c...@5sc.net Nor the battle by the valiant;
c...@romancatholic.org Nor is bread won by the wise,
Nor wealth by the intelligent,
Me transmitte sursum, Nor favor by the learned.
Caledoni! -- JPS Ecclesiastes 9:11

[Stephen Adams]

c...@cygnus.5sc.net (CINDY SMITH) writes:
>
>In article <a8coq1$9b5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) writes:
>
>> The Pope, by ancient standards, was the first Protestant. He
>> rejected the teachings of the whole Church and went on his own
>> way....
>
>The Orthodox, by ancient standards, were the first Protestants because
>they rejected the teachings of the whole Church and went on their own
>way....the Orthodox are not orthodox.

Let's try a simple test, shall we? Which church unilaterally
modified the Creed, the Symbol of Faith?

I submit that the church that did this are the ones who
abandoned the Faith.

And this is but one such issue.

-Stephen
--

The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---Bin Laden - we're coming. Say your prayers---
sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Jacob Rizor]

>Subject: Re: can you loose your salvation?
>From: sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams)

>Date: 4/2/2002 10:35 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a8cmlc$2qr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>

I said God created the universe- I did not say HOW. I am quite certain
evolution and the big bang are true. And I said they believe these things, not
that they agree on exactly what "these things" mean. The essential doctrine
is as I gave it. There was no world wide flood, either.

[BlueBird]

On 2 Apr 2002 16:35:55 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

>
>The fruit of sola fide is all about you.

I'm assuming that the meaning you wanted to convey was "the fruit of
sola fida is all _around_ you <citing examples of technology>"
However, when I first read the sentence, I took it to mean something
different. I read it to convey "the fruit of sola fide is all about
_you_ <and not about Jesus>"

A rather popular contemporary worship song says, "I'm coming back to
the heart of worship, and it's all about you, all about you Jesus!
I'm sorry, Lord, for the thing that I've made it, 'cause it's all
about you, all about you Jesus."

As Steve pointed out, Sola Fida is anti-Scriptural.

As I believe Bart pointed out, Sola Fida is more about us and our
worthiness, than it is about Jesus.

Sola Gracia is all about Jesus and nothing about you or me or our
personal worthiness.

[Matthew Johnson]

On 3 Apr 2002 00:24:14 GMT, c...@cygnus.5sc.net (CINDY SMITH) wrote:

>
>
>In article <a8coq1$9b5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) writes:
>
>> The Pope, by ancient standards, was the first Protestant. He
>> rejected the teachings of the whole Church and went on his own
>> way....
>
>The Orthodox, by ancient standards, were the first Protestants because
>they rejected the teachings of the whole Church and went on their own
>way....the Orthodox are not orthodox.

Now _that_ was amusing! Oh, but I forgot: you actually expected us to
take this _seriously_.

But Cindy, this is just t-o-o-o absurd. "They rejected the teachings
of the whole Church"? How could this be, when all of the ancient
Patriarchates, united with Constantinople to condemn the Pope of Rome
for his illegal excommunication of the Patriach (Michael Cerularius)
AND for the false dogma of the Filioque?

How could it be the _Orthodox_ who 'rejected the teachings of the
whole Church', when it was you Latins, NOT the Orhodox, who insisted
on making unauthorized, illegal modifications to the Nicene Creed even
after the later Ecumenical Council forbade ANY alterations to the
Creed?

No, Cindy, nobody can be persuaded by such a weak argument as yours.

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Stephen Adams]

beatle...@aol.committee (Jacob Rizor) writes:
>>beatle...@aol.committee (Jacob Rizor) writes:

>>>All Protestants agree;
>>>God exists, He created the universe and is its master. The details of how
>>>He did it are disputed.
>>
>>Hmm. I'm not so sure about that. There are many Protestants who
>>hold to the Big Bang and theories of evolution, and would in fact,
>>deny direct divine intervention in the creation of the world.

> I said God created the universe- I did not say HOW. I am quite certain
>evolution and the big bang are true. And I said they believe these things,
>not that they agree on exactly what "these things" mean. The essential
>doctrine is as I gave it. There was no world wide flood, either.

With regards to creation, I know Protestants who do not believe that
God created the world in any "normal" sense - that the process was
purely naturalistic and that the talk of God "creating" is religious
myth.

With regards to the flood, Protestants certainly do not agree on that
one!

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---Bin Laden - we're coming. Say your prayers---
sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Jacob Rizor]

>Subject: Re: can you loose your salvation?
>From: sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams)

>Date: 4/3/2002 10:37 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a8fb3n$fk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>

>
>
>
>beatle...@aol.committee (Jacob Rizor) writes:
>>>beatle...@aol.committee (Jacob Rizor) writes:
>
>>>>All Protestants agree;
>>>>God exists, He created the universe and is its master. The details of how
>>>>He did it are disputed.
>>>
>>>Hmm. I'm not so sure about that. There are many Protestants who
>>>hold to the Big Bang and theories of evolution, and would in fact,
>>>deny direct divine intervention in the creation of the world.
>
>
>> I said God created the universe- I did not say HOW. I am quite certain
>>evolution and the big bang are true. And I said they believe these things,
>>not that they agree on exactly what "these things" mean. The essential
>>doctrine is as I gave it. There was no world wide flood, either.
>
>With regards to creation, I know Protestants who do not believe that
>God created the world in any "normal" sense - that the process was
>purely naturalistic and that the talk of God "creating" is religious
>myth.

"Creationism" is moronic, of course. But whether we believe that God created
the universe fairly recently and suddenly, as creationists do, or by creating
the laws of physics and letting them work for some ten to fifeteen billion
years with no evidence that He was involved, as I do, we still all believe that
He did it!!!! Don't be dense.

>
>With regards to the flood, Protestants certainly do not agree on that
>one!
>
> -Stephen

Of course all protestants do not all agree on that one- I didn't include it
in the list, I mentioned to let you know I am NOT a creationist.

[Stephen Adams]

beatle...@aol.committee (Jacob Rizor) writes:
>>From: sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams)

>>With regards to creation, I know Protestants who do not believe that

>>God created the world in any "normal" sense - that the process was
>>purely naturalistic and that the talk of God "creating" is religious
>>myth.

> "Creationism" is moronic, of course. But whether we believe that God created
>the universe fairly recently and suddenly, as creationists do, or by creating
>the laws of physics and letting them work for some ten to fifeteen billion
>years with no evidence that He was involved, as I do, we still all believe that
>He did it!!!! Don't be dense.

Now who is being dense. Read what I said - they do not believe that
there was ANY divine activity with regards to creation. And yet,
they believe that Jesus Christ is their savior.

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---Bin Laden - we're coming. Say your prayers---
sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Bart Goddard]

sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in

news:a8cm79$1kt$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:

> Bart, how about a postive statement of a theological
> doctrine on which all Protestants groups agree. I
> don't think there is one.

My point is, that it is not "protestantism" that is
the cause of schism, but rather, the error of the
Roman church. "20,000 denominations and growing"
is not the fruit of the Reformation, it is the
fruit Roman abuse. Since _you_ insist on using
_your_ (not very accurate) definition of "protestant"
(namely, one that subsumes schisms), it's not fair
to ask for common doctrine. Anymore than it would
be for me to ask for common doctrine amongst
nonconcordian groups.

The fruit of the Reformation is a restoration of
Word and Sacrament as the Apostles taught it.

The word "protestant" refers to the German
princes who sided with Luther during the Reformation.
After the Edict of Worms, there were two sorts of
princes "Catholic" and "Protestant". The prince
determined the sort of church his dukedom had, and
dissenters had a year in which to move to another
duchy if they dissagreed. "Protestant" is strictly
a Lutheran term. Calvanists and Methodists and
such are "reformed" churches.

Protestants agree on the real presence of Christ in
the Sacrament, and so sometimes "protestent" is
applied to Henry VIII's church without too much
wincing from the Lutherans. (At least until recently,
when the Episcopalians let the liberals overrun
their church. Sic transit gloria mundi.)

Using "protestant" as a blanket term for all non
RC/EO churches is plain wrong, especially if, as you
seem to be doing, you include non-trinitarian sects.
(Else, the doctrine of the Trinity and it's attendent
doctrine would be the obvious example of common
agreement.)

Besides, doesn't it seems a little smuggish to be
sitting on the sidelines of a battle bragging
that you don't have any scars?

Bart

[Stephen Adams]

Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:
>

>> Bart, how about a postive statement of a theological
>> doctrine on which all Protestants groups agree. I
>> don't think there is one.
>
>My point is, that it is not "protestantism" that is
>the cause of schism, but rather, the error of the
>Roman church. "20,000 denominations and growing"
>is not the fruit of the Reformation, it is the
>fruit Roman abuse.

I would disagree. Certainly, there were things which
needed to be corrected (things we wholheartedly agree
were corrupted by the Pope), much of what came from
the Reformation was not correction, but grave error.

>Since _you_ insist on using
>_your_ (not very accurate) definition of "protestant"
>(namely, one that subsumes schisms), it's not fair
>to ask for common doctrine. Anymore than it would
>be for me to ask for common doctrine amongst
>nonconcordian groups.

Where do you draw the line, then? Once the doctrine
of Sola Scriptura was adopted (albeit, in a corrupted
form from what Luther stated), there was no check on
the endless doctrinal disagrements, all claiming the
authority of the Scriptures.

>The fruit of the Reformation is a restoration of
>Word and Sacrament as the Apostles taught it.

No sacrements in the Calvinist churches...at least
certainly not as you or I would mean it. Are you
saying that they are not part of Protestantism?

Well, yes, that is what you are saying:

>The word "protestant" refers to the German
>princes who sided with Luther during the Reformation.
>After the Edict of Worms, there were two sorts of
>princes "Catholic" and "Protestant". The prince
>determined the sort of church his dukedom had, and
>dissenters had a year in which to move to another
>duchy if they dissagreed. "Protestant" is strictly
>a Lutheran term. Calvanists and Methodists and
>such are "reformed" churches.

OK. On purely technical grounds, you are certainly
correct, and I would agree. But the term as used
today means more than this - it means those who
are from both camps. I understand your desire to
distance yourself from them, and certainly, doctrinally,
you are much closer to us in many ways than to the
more radical reformed groups (Anabaptists, etc).

If you limit the word to simply Lutherans, then
certainly you can say there is unity (at least to
a point - the ELCA and LCMS certainly disagree on
quite a few things).

>Protestants agree on the real presence of Christ in
>the Sacrament, and so sometimes "protestent" is
>applied to Henry VIII's church without too much
>wincing from the Lutherans. (At least until recently,
>when the Episcopalians let the liberals overrun
>their church. Sic transit gloria mundi.)

And in this, we agree with you - Orthodox reject the
scholastic formulation of transubstantiation. Luther's
formualation, while not precisely the same as that of
the Orthodox, is certainly much more in line with the
ancient teaching of the Church than that of Rome.

As for the Anglicans, at one time, the Orthodox saw
them as the most likley allies (if you will) in the
west, but in the end, we came to the same conclusion
that you have. In fact, the Orthodox Church in the
US has been the recipient of many, many converts from
the Anglican communion.

>Using "protestant" as a blanket term for all non
>RC/EO churches is plain wrong, especially if, as you
>seem to be doing, you include non-trinitarian sects.
>(Else, the doctrine of the Trinity and it's attendent
>doctrine would be the obvious example of common
>agreement.)

Well, again, this is a technical distinction, lost on
the vast majority. Even if we exclude the sects who
are blatantly non-trinitarian, Christological differences
between the "trinitarian" groups are large enough that
the faiths are not the same in many cases. I would say
that those who subscribe to the 7 great councils, and
all of their Christological formulations, are close
enough that we can have rational discussions about
unity. Those who reject the forumlations are as far
from us as the East is from the West.

>Besides, doesn't it seems a little smuggish to be
>sitting on the sidelines of a battle bragging
>that you don't have any scars?

Sitting on the sidelines? No, we fought the battle
until we were forced out of it by Muslim occupation
in the Middle East and Mongol/Tartar occupation in
Russia...

The fight has certainly been rejoined by the likes of
the late Fr. Alexander Schmeman and Fr. John Meyendorf,
as well as Fr. Peter Gillquist, Metropolitan +PHILIP,
Metropolitan +THEODOSIOUS and others.

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---Bin Laden - we're coming. Say your prayers---
sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Bart Goddard]

sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in

news:a8hsba$cca$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:

> Where do you draw the line, then? Once the doctrine
> of Sola Scriptura was adopted (albeit, in a corrupted
> form from what Luther stated), there was no check on
> the endless doctrinal disagrements, all claiming the
> authority of the Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura is not the problem. Rather, it's
modern notions about what Scripture is that cause
division. The great assault of the 20th Century
was the notion that God's Word was only God's Word
if it acted on me. That it was not God's Word if
it failed to have an effect on me. This sort of
thinking emasculated the Bible as the objective Word
of God and ravaged most denominations in America after
WWII. LCMS is the only denomination that I know of
to have survived this liberal onslaught and to have
retained the Scripture as the objective Word of God
as official doctrine in America. (Not without severe
battle, if you remember the Seminex fol-de-rol.)

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn't even survive
as official doctrine of any other major denomination
that I know of. So you can't blame schism upon Sola
Scriptura, when it is, in fact, the exact opposite:
The chief cause of modern schism is excuse for NOT
following Sola Scriptura: higher criticism, Jesus institute,
fundamentalism, rationalism, pietism, individualism,
spiritualism, ism-ism,....

> Well, again, this is a technical distinction, lost on
> the vast majority. Even if we exclude the sects who
> are blatantly non-trinitarian, Christological differences
> between the "trinitarian" groups are large enough that
> the faiths are not the same in many cases.

I don't think it would be too technical to at least
limit the definition of Protestant to those confessing
the Apostles Creed. (Even the trinitarian anabaptists,
and charismatics and pentacostals don't consider themselves
protestants, since they claim to be part of the original
Christian movement that was _never_ part of the Roman Church.)

>>Besides, doesn't it seems a little smuggish to be
>>sitting on the sidelines of a battle bragging
>>that you don't have any scars?
>
> Sitting on the sidelines? No, we fought the battle

But not the 30 Years War. If you had been in _our_
battle, then you might have some of _our_ scars.
Namely, schisms, fundamentalists, pietists,.....

And you might find some of your own questions not
very fair. You might be saying "How can you expect
me to defend what all these other people are doing?
The principle of Sola Scriptura is either right or
wrong, the battle against the abuses of Rome was
either well- or ill-fought and either should have
or should have not been enjoined. What possible
relevance could your objection have that in the
aftermath there is schism.? Of course there is
schism, we fought against the RC which was in
complete apostasy!" You might say that. I do say
that.

Bart

[Loren]

Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<a8i7gc$fn0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in
> news:a8hsba$cca$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:

Very well written reply Bart. Some points to be made if I may.

>
> > Where do you draw the line, then? Once the doctrine
> > of Sola Scriptura was adopted (albeit, in a corrupted
> > form from what Luther stated), there was no check on
> > the endless doctrinal disagrements, all claiming the
> > authority of the Scriptures.
>
> Sola Scriptura is not the problem. Rather, it's
> modern notions about what Scripture is that cause
> division. The great assault of the 20th Century
> was the notion that God's Word was only God's Word
> if it acted on me. That it was not God's Word if
> it failed to have an effect on me. This sort of
> thinking emasculated the Bible as the objective Word
> of God and ravaged most denominations in America after
> WWII. LCMS is the only denomination that I know of
> to have survived this liberal onslaught and to have
> retained the Scripture as the objective Word of God
> as official doctrine in America. (Not without severe
> battle, if you remember the Seminex fol-de-rol.)

I've attended 3 Baptist churches in the last 20 years. They all held
that not only sola scriptura, but also its brother, inerrancy. I also
attend an non declared charismatic church for two years. The elders
once invited me on a retreat out in the woods in a small cabin for
"prayer and leading." It ended up being 7 men trying to indoctrinate
me in "additional revelation." I left the Anglican Church after two
priests and one Bishop mocked me for thinking that John's Apocalypse
was a literal prophecy on the last days. I've had RCC apologete's wax
elegant on everything from Allegorism with mixtures of neo-orthodoxy,
mythologicalism, existentialism, and one nun who thought everything
revolved around Bultmann's scientific principle. I've attended two
Presbyterian assemblies and both were staunchly sola scriptura.

I think you should allow for other denominations and independent
churches who have not strayed but still fervently hold to sola
scriptura.

>
> The doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn't even survive
> as official doctrine of any other major denomination
> that I know of. So you can't blame schism upon Sola
> Scriptura, when it is, in fact, the exact opposite:
> The chief cause of modern schism is excuse for NOT
> following Sola Scriptura: higher criticism,

The "strange new world within the Bible" first discovered by Karl
Barth back in 1916 is no longer either new or strange but has made for
itself a large place in the sun. Neo-orthodoxy superseded modernism as
the dominant theology of the mid-twentieth century and with it came an
entirely new view of the Bible--yet not new, so its enthusiasts
assert, but the old view rediscovered--the view of the Bible set forth
in the "classical Protestantism of the Reformers."

The return to the authority of the Bible, so the neoorthodox like to
warn emphatically, is by no means to be misconstrued as a return to
the fundamentalist view of the Bible. The neo-orthodox revolt against
the liberal reduction of the Bible to a mere human word of religious
advice, is at the same time accompanied by a severe criticism of
traditional orthodoxy. The old orthodoxy, Emil Brunner bluntly
charged, was utterly incompatible with honest scholarship. He writes:

"The orthodox doctrine of Verbal Inspiration has been finally
destroyed. It is clear that there is no connection between it and
scientific research and honesty: we are forced to make a decision for
or against this view."(The Mediator, p. 105)

And then he further explains his own departure from fundamentalism by
adding:

"I myself am an adherent of a rather radical school of Biblical
criticism which, for example, does not accept the gospel of John as an
historical source and which finds legend in many parts of the synoptic
gospels." The "theology of the apostles is not an absolute unity, but
is presented in a series of different types of doctrine which differed
considerably from one to another."(The Theology of Crisis, p. 41)

Even Karl Barth, though usually less belligerent against
fundamentalism than is Brunner, makes the same point quite clear. "If
the Bible is a collection of authoritative documents and witnesses,
then its human element must be denied or overlooked. The human
features of the Bible would then be a shame, and man is called upon
for a sacrifice of the intellect."

The orthodox view is not only utterly unscientific, it is not even
Biblical. "It is," declares Barth, "a noteworthy contradiction that
those who wish to raise the Bible to this height are, in fact, not
true to the Bible." The Bible itself claims something quite different
for itself. Therefore the orthodox who seem to hold to such a high
view of the complete truth and inspiration of the Bible are in reality
setting themselves against the teaching of the Bible. For this reason,
also, Barth feels that he must repudiate the orthodox position.

The fundamental objection of the neo-orthodox to the orthodox doctrine
of the Bible is their conviction that Christ, not the Bible, is the
proper object of religious faith. Fundamentalists, on the other hand.
all too often reverse this order and in doing so erect the Bible into
an idol. For them belief in the Bible comes first. Then, because
they believe the Bible, they also profess belief in Christ. The right
basis of faith, so the neo-orthodox affirms, is Christ first and then,
to the degree that the Bible witnesses to Christ, they accept the
Bible. Emil Brunner seeks to put the Biblical writings in their proper
place. He explains,

"That means that their witness can never be the basis and object of
faith, but only the means of faith. We do not believe in Christ Jesus
because we first of all believe in the story and the teaching of the
Apostles, but by means of the testimony of their narrative and their
teaching we believe, as they do, and are in a similar state of
freedom. Faith in Jesus Christ is not based upon a previous faith in
the Bible, but it is based solely upon the witness of the Holy
Spirit." [ Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God, pp. 33-34]

Karl Barth amplifies this objection against the orthodox view. He
writes:

"Beside the right and necessary central Biblicism (i.e., Barthian
Biblicism which puts Christ at the center), there is a diffused,
scattered, peripheral Biblicism (benighted fundamentalist Biblicism)
which believes everything in the Bible just because it is taught in
the Bible. It does not know that the Bible is a whole which in all of
its parts demands to be read in view of its unity, that is, the one of
whom it speaks throughout. It (this Biblicism) holds Jesus to be one
of the objects of its testimony among others. It holds the Bible to be
a repertoire of all kinds of pious knowledge of various orders. It
does not know of the triuneness of the God to whose revelation and
work the Bible witnesses. True, it may confess in particular
individual connection faith in the Trinity of God: but it does not
take it seriously; and it thinks itself able to speak on the basis of
Scripture--in view of this or that piece of Scripture, of God the
Father and Creator without being taught through Scripture, that is,
through the whole of Scripture by the Son, concerning the Father, by
the reconciler concerning the creator. Though it may, with or without
the lame hypothesis of the seventeenth century doctrine of
inspiration, convince itself that the peripheral information which it
draws from the Bible is God's clear truth, it can naturally never be
obedient to the spirit of Scripture." [Barth, Kirkliche Dogmatik, as
found in "Neo-Orthodoxy & the Inspiration of the Scripture," K
Kantzer]

One of the most basic and most tenaciously held convictions of the
neo-orthodox theologians is that revelation can never be a body of
truth or set of propositions. It is always an act or an event in which
God discloses His person.

> fundamentalism, rationalism, pietism, individualism,
> spiritualism, ism-ism,....

Fundamentalism? Vawter in "Creationism: Creative Misuse of the
Bible," (p. 76), writes:

for "fundamentalist minds," inerrancy signifies that the Bible is
"the one and only source of every human affirmation in every
conceivable field."

Martin Marty writes:

"both evangelicals and fundamentalists insist on the 'inerrancy of
Scripture' as being the most basic of all their fundamentals."
[Martin Marty, "Tensions within Contemporary Evangelicalism: A
Critical Appraisal," p. 180.]

"In the years following 1902 (Student Volunteer Movement holding its
convention in Toronto) the seeds of German higher criticism reached
their full flower. Liberalism (modernism) raised its head, becoming a
dominant force in American life. It was also one of the most
disruptive forces in American life. Fundamentalism has been called a
disruptive force. This has been true if we think of it as a mentality
in certain instances. But if we think of fundamentalism as a theology,
it has not been the disruptive force of which it has been accused so
often. It was the growth and power of liberalism which was a more
disruptive force because it upset the status quo of that day. One need
only read the heresy trials to realize this, and surely the celebrated
Harry Emerson Fosdick case set the pattern of the day for the conquest
of the churches by a liberal theology." [K Kantzer]

> > Well, again, this is a technical distinction, lost on
> > the vast majority. Even if we exclude the sects who
> > are blatantly non-trinitarian, Christological differences
> > between the "trinitarian" groups are large enough that
> > the faiths are not the same in many cases.
>
> I don't think it would be too technical to at least
> limit the definition of Protestant to those confessing
> the Apostles Creed. (Even the trinitarian anabaptists,
> and charismatics and pentacostals don't consider themselves
> protestants, since they claim to be part of the original
> Christian movement that was _never_ part of the Roman Church.)

To thoroughgoing fundamentalists like Machen it was unthinkable that
any true Christian should resolve to work harmoniously with the
liberals. The reason for this stand was simple, Machen declared: "The
church of Rome may represent a perversion of the Christian religion;
but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all."
["Christianity and Liberalism," quoted in "Fundamentalism versus
Modernism", Eldred C. Vanderlaan]

>
> >>Besides, doesn't it seems a little smuggish to be
> >>sitting on the sidelines of a battle bragging
> >>that you don't have any scars?
> >
> > Sitting on the sidelines? No, we fought the battle
>
> But not the 30 Years War. If you had been in _our_
> battle, then you might have some of _our_ scars.
> Namely, schisms, fundamentalists, pietists,.....

Let's just let the record be clear just what it means to be a
"fundamentalist". The five fundamentals formulated by the Niagara
group in 1895 are classically the focal point in all controversies.
These were presented as the essentials of faith which all Christians
must accept. Briefly they were: (1) the inerrancy of the Scriptures,
(2) the deity of Christ,
(3) His virgin birth,
(4) His substitutionary atonement, and
(5) His physical resurrection and future bodily return.

While the fundamentals of the faith can be traced through the
Reformation to the early church, fundamentalism as it is known today
has its roots in the nineteenth century whence its liberal counterpart
also sprang.

Evolution contributed to the higher critical attack on the Old
Testament which Wellhausen divided into documents rearranged to fit
the assumed pattern of development from a very low religion to a
higher ethical plane. Belief in the unchanging laws of evolutionary
progress was incompatible with the miracles of Scripture. The Bible
was valued as a record of man's growing religious experience.

Evolution supported an anthropocentric view of history rather than the
theocentric position found in Scripture. Man was considered to be in
control of his own destiny. Belief in objective ultimate religious
truths was regarded as detrimental to further spiritual progress.
Religion, like science, should be emancipated from traditional views
and set free to discover new truth for the modern era. The New
Testament was not viewed as the norm of Christian truth and practice.
Liberals objected to having their doctrines "frozen" in the thought
forms of the first century.

>
> And you might find some of your own questions not
> very fair. You might be saying "How can you expect
> me to defend what all these other people are doing?
> The principle of Sola Scriptura is either right or
> wrong, the battle against the abuses of Rome was
> either well- or ill-fought and either should have
> or should have not been enjoined. What possible
> relevance could your objection have that in the
> aftermath there is schism.? Of course there is
> schism, we fought against the RC which was in
> complete apostasy!" You might say that. I do say
> that.

You might find this stat interesting even though it is dated. Perhaps
there is a more recent survey that some one knows of. A survey
conducted by Opinion Research Corporation in October and November of
1957 revealed three fourths of the Protestant ministers classifying
themselves as fundamentalist or conservative. On the specific issue
of Biblical authority, two thirds held that "it is essential to preach
and teach the Bible as the authoritative rule of life." However, one
third said "it is not essential to preach and teach that the Bible is
verbally inspired by God in original writings." ["What Protestant
Ministers Believe," Christianity Today, 2:13:30, March 31, 1958]

[Bart Goddard]

lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote in
news:a8kam7$4ej$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:

> I think you should allow for other denominations and independent
> churches who have not strayed but still fervently hold to sola
> scriptura.

I do "allow for it". What I said was that it doesn't
survive as official doctrine of any major denomination.
(Further, I secretly mean my personal definition of
Sola Scriptura, which necessarily excludes Bible-worshiping
sects.)

> The "strange new world within the Bible" first discovered by Karl
> Barth back in 1916 is no longer either new or strange but has made for
> itself a large place in the sun.

Barth carries little weight with me. Actually zero.
Actually less than zero. A sophistry that separates
the Word (Scripture) from the Word (Christ) has a
built-in self-destruct mechanism. Satan's main goal
is to separate God from His Word (Did God really say
'Do not eat of the fruit?') And Karl Barth did no less
when he shoved his crowbar between Christ and His Word.
When one starts with a contradiction, one only builds
logical sandcastles.

> The fundamental objection of the neo-orthodox to the orthodox doctrine
> of the Bible is their conviction that Christ, not the Bible, is the
> proper object of religious faith. Fundamentalists, on the other hand.
> all too often reverse this order and in doing so erect the Bible into
> an idol. For them belief in the Bible comes first. Then, because
> they believe the Bible, they also profess belief in Christ.

And both are wrong, because neither should be set against
the other. Scripture doesn't deserve its high status
because it tells about Christ, but because it is the
Word OF Christ.

Note further, that the issue would not have come up at
all if the humanists had not turned the question from one
of grace to one of faith. Only after man had convinced
himself that he must find salvation inside himself and
save himself by conjuring up some sort of internal faith
did he start worrying about what the proper "object of faith"
should be. Only then did Barth have a chink into which he
could drive his wedge. When men began worrying about which
was the right thing to worship, then Barth had fertile ground.
Before, when grace (God's act) was important, Christ and
Scripture were inseparable.

> The right
> basis of faith, so the neo-orthodox affirms, is Christ first and then,
> to the degree that the Bible witnesses to Christ, they accept the
> Bible.

The saddest sentence of the 20th Century.

> One of the most basic and most tenaciously held convictions of the
> neo-orthodox theologians is that revelation can never be a body of
> truth or set of propositions. It is always an act or an event in which
> God discloses His person.

Right. These "scientific" guys tenaciously hold to
a false alternative. There is no reason that God's
revelation about His person can't be a set of propositions.
Indeed, in the case of Christianity, we are given
exactly two such sets.

>> fundamentalism, rationalism, pietism, individualism,
>> spiritualism, ism-ism,....
>
> Fundamentalism? Vawter in "Creationism: Creative Misuse of the
> Bible," (p. 76), writes:
>
> for "fundamentalist minds," inerrancy signifies that the Bible is
> "the one and only source of every human affirmation in every
> conceivable field."

Sola Scriptura is to be distinct from the fundamentalist
mind set that leads to nonsense like the snake-handling
cults, Harold Kupp, Long John Silver's superstition about
cutting a Bible, "Hoc est corpus meus" becoming "hocus pocus",
and people who don't believe Jesus was ever 15 years old, since
you can't prove it literally from the Bible. But also
milder forms of fundamentalism that lead to anabaptism, e.g.

> Let's just let the record be clear just what it means to be a
> "fundamentalist". The five fundamentals formulated by the Niagara
> group in 1895 are classically the focal point in all controversies.
> These were presented as the essentials of faith which all Christians
> must accept. Briefly they were: (1) the inerrancy of the Scriptures,
> (2) the deity of Christ,
> (3) His virgin birth,
> (4) His substitutionary atonement, and
> (5) His physical resurrection and future bodily return.

Left out are: Baptism for the remission of sins,
the real presence in the Eucharist, the apostolic church,
and the office of the ministry. So, basically, everything
that one needs to ensure that (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5)
actually find their way into the hearts of men.

Bart

[Dave Weaver]

Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> By the way, the theology of the Reformation (which
> is based on Sola Gratia (first) and is Sacrament-centered) should
> not be confused with "reformed theology" which is Calvinist,
> based on Sola Fida (first) and non-sacramental.

If I recall, it was Luther who declared that justification
by faith alone was "the article on which the Church stands
or falls."

If Luther did see this as the dividing line between church
and non-church, we (Calvinists) have a right to claim him as
a first-priciple Sola Fidian. I remember hearing that one of
the top contemporary Melanchthon scholars characterized the
situation this way: Luther as symathetic to Calvin's position,
but Melanchthon consistently whispering in his ear that if we
Germans go as far abroad as the Swiss on the sacraments, any
reconciliation with Rome (for which Melanchthon held out hope)
would be utterly impossible.

I believe Luther also called Calvin, "the theologian of the
reformation", which suggests that it was Melanchthon and his
successors who departed in some measure.

--
Dave Weaver
blue-t...@postmark.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

[Dave Weaver]

sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:
>
> Where do you draw the line, then? Once the doctrine
> of Sola Scriptura was adopted (albeit, in a corrupted
> form from what Luther stated), there was no check on
> the endless doctrinal disagrements, all claiming the
> authority of the Scriptures.

This is really the question, isn't it?

There are two alternatives, both with dangers. Either you
affirm or deny the principle of private interpretation.

If you affirm it, the downside is that any kook with a
Bible can start spouting deviant doctrine.

If you deny it, the downside is the inevitability of an
elitist few (infallibly) dictating doctrine. And when
error does creep in, the organization is utterly incapable
of reform.

You might think the consequences of affirming private
interpretation are more dire. The lessons from the western
church in the 16th century suggests otherwise.

--
Dave Weaver
blue-t...@postmark.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Stephen Adams]

Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:
>

>> Where do you draw the line, then? Once the doctrine
>> of Sola Scriptura was adopted (albeit, in a corrupted
>> form from what Luther stated), there was no check on
>> the endless doctrinal disagrements, all claiming the
>> authority of the Scriptures.
>
>Sola Scriptura is not the problem. Rather, it's
>modern notions about what Scripture is that cause
>division.

There are (at least) two version of Sola Scriptura:

a) Scripture is the rule of faith, and all doctine, no
matter how derived, is tested by it.

b) Scripture is the only source of doctrine, and no doctrine
may be derived from any other source.

Luther taught the first - many, if not most, modern Protestants
teach the second. The former is perfectly compatible with the
Orthodox view of Scripture, the latter is not.

>The great assault of the 20th Century
>was the notion that God's Word was only God's Word
>if it acted on me. That it was not God's Word if
>it failed to have an effect on me. This sort of
>thinking emasculated the Bible as the objective Word
>of God and ravaged most denominations in America after
>WWII.

I think it is more than this - it is the assumption,
implicit in option b) above, that we can start with
the Scriptures, and only the Scriptures, and derive
the entire Christian faith from it.

This is, IMHO, the true source of the modern problem.

>LCMS is the only denomination that I know of
>to have survived this liberal onslaught and to have
>retained the Scripture as the objective Word of God
>as official doctrine in America. (Not without severe
>battle, if you remember the Seminex fol-de-rol.)

If you mean option a), then yes, I would likely agree.
I can't think of any other denomiation besides LCMS
that holds to option a) and has not gone over-the-edge
liberal.

>The doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn't even survive
>as official doctrine of any other major denomination
>that I know of.

I would agree, so long as you mean as Luther conceived
it. Certainly, option b) is the position of the Southern
Baptists, as I understand it (with of course, the right
to personal interpretation).

>So you can't blame schism upon Sola
>Scriptura, when it is, in fact, the exact opposite:
>The chief cause of modern schism is excuse for NOT
>following Sola Scriptura: higher criticism, Jesus institute,
>fundamentalism, rationalism, pietism, individualism,
>spiritualism, ism-ism,....

Certainly this has had a major effect, but so has the
perversion of Luther's teaching into option b).

>>Well, again, this is a technical distinction, lost on
>>the vast majority. Even if we exclude the sects who
>>are blatantly non-trinitarian, Christological differences
>>between the "trinitarian" groups are large enough that
>>the faiths are not the same in many cases.
>
>I don't think it would be too technical to at least
>limit the definition of Protestant to those confessing
>the Apostles Creed. (Even the trinitarian anabaptists,
>and charismatics and pentacostals don't consider themselves
>protestants, since they claim to be part of the original
>Christian movement that was _never_ part of the Roman Church.)

But this is a bogus claim - Anabaptism cannot, no matter
how much they try, trace its roots back to the early
church without moving through Rome. The Anabaptists in
Europe certainly were fromer Roman Catholics, and the modern
Anabaptist movements are decendant of those groups, or through
Zwingli or Calvin.

>>>Besides, doesn't it seems a little smuggish to be
>>>sitting on the sidelines of a battle bragging
>>>that you don't have any scars?
>>
>> Sitting on the sidelines? No, we fought the battle
>
>But not the 30 Years War. If you had been in _our_
>battle, then you might have some of _our_ scars.
>Namely, schisms, fundamentalists, pietists,.....

Sack of Constantinople anyone?

>And you might find some of your own questions not
>very fair. You might be saying "How can you expect
>me to defend what all these other people are doing?
>The principle of Sola Scriptura is either right or
>wrong, the battle against the abuses of Rome was
>either well- or ill-fought and either should have
>or should have not been enjoined. What possible
>relevance could your objection have that in the
>aftermath there is schism.? Of course there is
>schism, we fought against the RC which was in
>complete apostasy!" You might say that. I do say
>that.

We fought against them as well - 500+ years before
you did...on differing fields, but in the end, against
the same errors: the universal nature of the Bishop
of Rome, infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, etc.

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---Bin Laden - we're coming. Say your prayers---
sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Stephen Adams]

lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) writes:

>The return to the authority of the Bible, so the neoorthodox like to
>warn emphatically, is by no means to be misconstrued as a return to
>the fundamentalist view of the Bible. The neo-orthodox revolt against
>the liberal reduction of the Bible to a mere human word of religious
>advice, is at the same time accompanied by a severe criticism of
>traditional orthodoxy. The old orthodoxy, Emil Brunner bluntly
>charged, was utterly incompatible with honest scholarship. He writes:
>
>"The orthodox doctrine of Verbal Inspiration has been finally
>destroyed. It is clear that there is no connection between it and
>scientific research and honesty: we are forced to make a decision for
>or against this view."(The Mediator, p. 105)

I think it's important to diffentiate between the Orthodox view, and
what you call the "orthodox" view. What you are calling orthodox is
the western reaction to Enlightenment criticism, which is not the same
as the view of the Eastern Orthodox churches...

I realize that it is fairly standard in Western theological literature
to use "orthodox" in the way it is in your citations...I just don't want
that confused with Orthodox, which means the ancient Church in the East
(and of course, those of us in the New World that are members!).

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---Bin Laden - we're coming. Say your prayers---
sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Stephen Adams]

Hi Dave,

Good to hear from you again.

blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) writes:
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:
>>
>> Where do you draw the line, then? Once the doctrine
>> of Sola Scriptura was adopted (albeit, in a corrupted
>> form from what Luther stated), there was no check on
>> the endless doctrinal disagrements, all claiming the
>> authority of the Scriptures.
>
>This is really the question, isn't it?

Yep.

>There are two alternatives, both with dangers. Either you
>affirm or deny the principle of private interpretation.
>
>If you affirm it, the downside is that any kook with a
>Bible can start spouting deviant doctrine.
>
>If you deny it, the downside is the inevitability of an
>elitist few (infallibly) dictating doctrine. And when
>error does creep in, the organization is utterly incapable
>of reform.

This descibes the two options as seen/practiced in the
West.

In the East, it is neither the individual nor the Bishops
who are the "sole" determinres of doctrine, but the entire
church, Bishops and laity together.

And since there is no UberBishop (a la the Pope), it is
the Bishops together, in synod, speaking for their local
congregations, who expound the doctrines of the faith.

>You might think the consequences of affirming private
>interpretation are more dire. The lessons from the western
>church in the 16th century suggests otherwise.

Are they? There is no reasonable way to check false
teaching or belief. Disagreements over intrepretation
most often lead to new congregations, not to prayerful
resolution of the disagreement.

While the disease was horrible, the chosen cure is not
all that much better, in the vast majority of cases.
One need only read Bart's posts to see what he thinks
of the vast majority of bible interpretations.

The solution is, as I see it, to return to the ancient
doctrines of the Church, to the faith expressed by the
7 Eccumenical Councils.

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---Bin Laden - we're coming. Say your prayers---
sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Matthew Johnson]

On 5 Apr 2002 19:06:01 GMT, blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver)
wrote:

>
>
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:
>>
>> Where do you draw the line, then? Once the doctrine
>> of Sola Scriptura was adopted (albeit, in a corrupted
>> form from what Luther stated), there was no check on
>> the endless doctrinal disagrements, all claiming the
>> authority of the Scriptures.
>
>This is really the question, isn't it?

[snip]

>You might think the consequences of affirming private
>interpretation are more dire. The lessons from the western
>church in the 16th century suggests otherwise.

This is, of course, the standard interpretation of 16th C. Church
history among Protestants. But we Orthodox do not find this so
convincing.

Our interpretation of the _same_ history is that even then, we were
already living in the dark era when the 'love of many has grown cold
(Mt 24:12)', and that this produced the Schisms of the Western Church
(among many other evils -- not all in the West); the Pope breaking
away from the Orthodox was the first of these schisms, the evils of
16th C. RCC life and the Reformation were merely the consequences of
this.

And the 'love of many' has grown only colder since.

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Matthew Johnson]

On 5 Apr 2002 19:06:01 GMT, blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver)
wrote:

>If I recall, it was Luther who declared that justification

>by faith alone was "the article on which the Church stands
>or falls."

And that was unfortunate, since the only place 'saved by faith alone'
occurs in scripture, it is preceded by 'NOT' (Ja 2:24).

>If Luther did see this as the dividing line between church
>and non-church, we (Calvinists) have a right to claim him as
>a first-priciple Sola Fidian. I remember hearing that one of
>the top contemporary Melanchthon scholars characterized the
>situation this way: Luther as symathetic to Calvin's position,
>but Melanchthon consistently whispering in his ear that if we
>Germans go as far abroad as the Swiss on the sacraments, any
>reconciliation with Rome (for which Melanchthon held out hope)
>would be utterly impossible.

Now that is an interesting insight into the history. Do you have any
references on that?

>I believe Luther also called Calvin, "the theologian of the
>reformation", which suggests that it was Melanchthon and his
>successors who departed in some measure.

But Luther's theology changed over time too. So did he say this early,
or late?

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Loren]

sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in message news:<a8kt7j$1kf$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
> >sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:
> >
> >Sola Scriptura is not the problem. Rather, it's
> >modern notions about what Scripture is that cause
> >division.
>
> There are (at least) two version of Sola Scriptura:
>
> a) Scripture is the rule of faith, and all doctine, no
> matter how derived, is tested by it.
>
> b) Scripture is the only source of doctrine, and no doctrine
> may be derived from any other source.
>
> Luther taught the first - many, if not most, modern Protestants
> teach the second. The former is perfectly compatible with the
> Orthodox view of Scripture, the latter is not.

I think this is unfair. Luther, if understood, would certainly hold
to the 2nd when it came to doctrine while he would hold to the first
for dogma. The dogma of the Trinity would be in the first but the
doctrine of it would be in the second. Luther wasn't the only one
esposing this. Some chose to stay within the RCC and seek reform.
Obviously that never happened.

> But this is a bogus claim - Anabaptism cannot, no matter
> how much they try, trace its roots back to the early
> church without moving through Rome. The Anabaptists in
> Europe certainly were fromer Roman Catholics, and the modern
> Anabaptist movements are decendant of those groups, or through
> Zwingli or Calvin.

But as in the case of Israel, so in the RCC, God has always kept a
believing remnant. For the most part, if not entirely, that remnant
moved out of the RCC and moved north but not east.

[Loren]

Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<a8ksin$srq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote in
> news:a8kam7$4ej$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:
>
> > I think you should allow for other denominations and independent
> > churches who have not strayed but still fervently hold to sola
> > scriptura.
>
> I do "allow for it". What I said was that it doesn't
> survive as official doctrine of any major denomination.
> (Further, I secretly mean my personal definition of
> Sola Scriptura, which necessarily excludes Bible-worshiping
> sects.)

Then I would include So. Baptist and most independent Baptist. Will
you find the reformed "sola scriptura" actually stated? I doubt it.
But the attitude is there and most of the church constititutions that
I have read have it written in so many words. Also, schools like
Moody Bible, Grand Rapids, Trinity (Indiana) and others are very much
sola scriptura but again, not using that term. "Battle for the Bible"
was a top seller in the book store at Moody when I was there nearl 30
yrs ago.

Again, you might not find the term "sola scriptura" in many church
constitutions or doctrinal statements, but that doesn't mean that they
do mean in some other definition, such as "inerrancy". You many be
right that yours is the only denomination which actually states the
term "sola scriptura (though I think it would be found in some
Presbyterian churches) but that doesn't mean that "sola scriptura" is
dead in all denominations except yours. Agreed?

> Barth carries little weight with me. .........
> When one starts with a contradiction....builds logical sandcastles.

Agreed but he does have a significant place in church history because
many have fallen down the same rabbit hole since.

>
> > The fundamental objection of the neo-orthodox to the orthodox doctrine
> > of the Bible is their conviction that Christ, not the Bible, is the
> > proper object of religious faith. Fundamentalists, on the other hand.
> > all too often reverse this order and in doing so erect the Bible into
> > an idol. For them belief in the Bible comes first. Then, because
> > they believe the Bible, they also profess belief in Christ.
>
> And both are wrong,

Well of course they are. It is a poor Trinitarian concept which
divides God from His word. But I view such things as necessities or
rather predictabilities. Because of his depravity, man, even redeemed
man, will always slide down the slippery slope. And that is exactly
what Rev 2 &3 reveal. Barth and others are merely setting the stage
for the great apostacy. But that doesn't mean the Church should stand
idly by. For the most part, I think the greatest apologist for "sola
scriptura" in whatever term you want to use for it, was by the
Baptist/Fundamentalist over the last half century.

> > The right
> > basis of faith, so the neo-orthodox affirms, is Christ first and then,
> > to the degree that the Bible witnesses to Christ, they accept the
> > Bible.
>
> The saddest sentence of the 20th Century.

I don't know if I would agree with that but it certainly ranks. It's
all a part of the erosion of the Faith.

> > for "fundamentalist minds," inerrancy signifies that the Bible is
> > "the one and only source of every human affirmation in every
> > conceivable field."
>
> Sola Scriptura is to be distinct from the fundamentalist
> mind set that leads to nonsense like the snake-handling

I think you do an injustice or at least give an over-bearing
definition to "fundamentalist" if you include these. These are
extremist. You have your own definition for "sola scriptura" you say,
and I accept that. But to defame "fundamentalist" by parading the
extreme is wrong. They are the very smallest minority. This
extremism could also be swayed over your way. There will always be
this. For example, I thing charismatic RC's are an extreme in that
they do not represent the whole. In the same way, snake handlers or
foot washers do not represent the historical definition (as provided)
for "fundamentalism."

>
>
> > Let's just let the record be clear just what it means to be a
> > "fundamentalist". The five fundamentals formulated by the Niagara
> > group in 1895 are classically the focal point in all controversies.
> > These were presented as the essentials of faith which all Christians
> > must accept. Briefly they were: (1) the inerrancy of the Scriptures,
> > (2) the deity of Christ,
> > (3) His virgin birth,
> > (4) His substitutionary atonement, and
> > (5) His physical resurrection and future bodily return.
>
> Left out are: Baptism for the remission of sins,
> the real presence in the Eucharist, the apostolic church,
> and the office of the ministry. So, basically, everything
> that one needs to ensure that (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5)
> actually find their way into the hearts of men.

No. I gave the historical statement. Do not add to it. Most
certainly you cannot add (justifiably) the RC doctrine of the
Eucharist or these other two to a fundamental Baptist doctrinal
statement. Baptism for the remission of sins and regenerational
baptism also must not be confused. So. Baptist are major "baptist"
but I've yet to ever hear that baptism played any regenerational part
in the life of the believer. Baptism has always been portrayed as
being equivalent to the wedding band. Baptism is nothing more than
the outward witness to an already sealed inward change. I don't
understand these additions of yours. They have no historical root
that I am aware of. Care to expand?

[Loren]

sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in message news:<a8l7et$133$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> In the East, it is neither the individual nor the Bishops
> who are the "sole" determinres of doctrine, but the entire
> church, Bishops and laity together.

It is still infinite. It still, whether individually or corporately,
involves sinful men for interpretation. Your bishops have no more
claim to infallibility than does the Pope and his college or the
Presbyterians in the WCF or any independent Baptist church
constitution. The whole thing hinges upon inSpiration, does it not.
Basically you are saying that the Spirit only has to do with the
Orthodox church and no other. Extreme? No, just taking the
presupposition to fruition.

> >You might think the consequences of affirming private
> >interpretation are more dire. The lessons from the western
> >church in the 16th century suggests otherwise.
>
> Are they? There is no reasonable way to check false
> teaching or belief. Disagreements over intrepretation
> most often lead to new congregations, not to prayerful
> resolution of the disagreement.

Obviously that has happened, even repeatedly. But you must not be so
quick to add that there was no leading of the Spirit in this or that
these congregations or denominations did not strive for the Spirit's
leading. God obviously has one Truth. However, He created a
uni-verse and placed a unified-diversity in man himself. I'm not
saying that there is more than one way or more than one truth. I'm
saying that God operates with regenerated men in an individualistic,
personal dimension. Jesus who ministry was personal, one-on-one.
YHVH is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. His economy basically
has never changed. The elect are involved in different dispensations,
pre-fall, pre-law, post-law,
post-incarnation/death/resurrection/accension.

There are obviously great dangers involved in individual
interpretation. Dogma's are not to be indoctrinated by the revelation
of one man. The Church is a body of many parts but one Head. We must
not slip into the same mentality as the RCC where everyone inside is
safe, everyone outside is hell bound (illustration -not applicable in
every way to the public statements of the RCC). It is a mentality
which we must all be sensitive to. That mentality of gnosticism in
some form or another. There is gnosis but it is as diverse and yet as
unified as the Tri-une God Himself.

> While the disease was horrible, the chosen cure is not
> all that much better, in the vast majority of cases.
> One need only read Bart's posts to see what he thinks
> of the vast majority of bible interpretations.
>
> The solution is, as I see it, to return to the ancient
> doctrines of the Church, to the faith expressed by the
> 7 Eccumenical Councils.

I believe we must all be very careful to the elitism which Christ
illustrated in the parable of the tree that grew overly large and the
crows (black coats?) came to live there.

The solution is to humble oneself before the open Bible and allow the
Spirit within him to lead. Either the Spirit leads truthfully or He
does not. The problem comes in when men are not patient, not
resisting pressure from other people's opinions or imposed limitation
or even the pressure of one's own heart and spirit. Humility involves
confession and persistence in prayer. "Trust in the Lord with all
your heart and do not lean on your own understanding" is as applicable
to the corporate as it is to the individual. Ps 40:1 in the Hebrew,
"In waiting... I waited..... for the Lord" is an attitude of mind.
"Let the peace of Christ rule in your heart" only comes when we are
still and emptied of this maddness of activity, activity, activity.

And if all of this is so extremely difficult for the individual to
achieve, then how much more difficult is it for the corporate? The
question comes down to Spiritual discernment. That tired old,
semi-educated back hills country preacher can certainly have very much
more of it that the most educated, most universal, most historically
rooted sofisticate. You will never convince me that men like Jonathan
Edwards did not have the truth or true Spirit-filled discernment and
power. Never.

I just don't think we can be black and white on this. There is a
place for dogma. There is a place for taking one's stand on the
principles and teachings of the Bible. But there is also a place for
the moving of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual or the
assembly of believers outside our own particular denomination. We
must remain humble knowing that His ways are not our ways.

[Loren]

Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<a8ksin$srq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote in
> news:a8kam7$4ej$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:

I found this tucked away on my hard drive. My notation is that I
posted in on SRC in '92. Apparently we were discussing not only sola
scriptura but also literal interpretation.

*******************
Some of you may be familar with William (Guillaume) Farel. It
was "this read-headed, hot-tempered, strong-voiced, prophetic
individual, (who) established the Reformation in Geneva." In November
of 1527 in Bern, he helped organize a meeting where many people would
gather to discuss what the truth was. As these men met, they met
first of all, limiting themselves to the Scriptures. Out of this came
10 propositions by Zwingli that were to be discussed.

One of the propositions was: "The holy Christian church, of which
Christ is the sole head is born of the Word of God, abideth in it, and
listeneth not to a voice of a stranger." Of course, they were not
referring to the Word of God as some "very strange thing" as
neo-orthodoxy would propose, ie Karl Barth contrasting the Bible to
the Word of God, rather it was that of the reformers. Now a certain
RC monk stood up immediately after the reading of this proposition,
and stated that 1) the word "sole" was not in the Scriptures, and 2)
Christ had left a Vicar to interpret them, referring, of course, to
the Holy RCC. In that he based himself in the Scriptures, it is good.
However his 2nd point was answered by Howler thusly: "The Vicar that
Christ left, is the Holy Ghost." And that was that. Howler sat down
and the monk remained quiet!

Well immediately the question arises that if we then have an
objective Word of God, what or who is THE means of interpretation?
The Westminster states it thus: "The infallible rule of interpretation
of Scripture is the Scripture itself...." The Word of God is
objective and its is total. It is something we have to judge truth
objectively *and* without becoming immersed in any subjective morass.
This is a very important point in our generation of relativistic
thinking, because the great adversary of the Scriptural position, the
position of the early church and the reformation, is this very
relativistic theology, whether it comes down from RC circles or the
Protestant circle. It matters not which because the effect caused is
the same. In the Protestant circles we would mention Barth, Brunner,
Tillich, Bultmann and Niebuhr and all those who follow them in various
combinations. Though I care little to get into to a discussion at
this point, I would note that following a certain line laid down by
Kierkegaard, by the time you come to Barth, it is clearly developed to
such an extent that neo-orthodoxy begins by accepting implicitly the
position of German "higher" criticism. This being so, the Body no
longer has an objective Word of God. It is now, rather, some kind of
judgment concerning it. Barth and those who would follow him, would
put the authority at the point of a subjective work "within" the
reader.

[a parenthetical note: In 1947, in Oslo, a youth conference was held
gathering young people from all over the world. This was right after
WW2 and had the backing of the World Council of Churches, which at the
time was in its infancy. One of the sessions held was a Bible study
with one of the topics of discussion being "How can we know what the
Word of God in the Bible is?" For me, the question is actually a
startling one, entirely counter to the whole position set forth by the
reformation and the great confessions such as the Westminster Standard
and the Heidelberg Confession. The question itself is wrong, of
course. The reformation position was that the Word of God is the
Bible. As amazing as the question was, the answer was even more so.
The answer goes something like this: Any portion of the Bible is the
Word of God if it shows the spirit of Jesus Christ. This is terrible.
It is nothing less than a very crass presentation which, of course,
came forth under the guidance of the theologians that were there. The
final authority is now put in the hands of the reader, a subjective
authority.]

Now, this is a very important parenthesis. For it is not a mixture
of truth but rather, the Word of God is one Truth. It is not a
mixture of contradictions, it is one whole. There is unity.
Therefore, the Westminster states: "The supreme judge by which all
controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of
councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private
spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can
be no other but the Holy Spirit in the Scripture" (Ch 1. art. 10)

In art. 5 & 6 of the WCF, the objectivity of the Scriptures is very
carefully stated. The inspiration is not subjective, it is not in the
reader, it is in the Bible itself. However, it is also clearly stated
that the HS is needed. I see 3 possible positions here.

1) Karl Barth who makes interpretation purely subjective by making
the final authority in the reader. It is the reader that is inspired.
(My expreience of this has been in the Anglican, the Congregational
and
the Methodist churches.)

2) The opposite extreme with its emphasis on the objectivity of the
inspiration of the Scriptures without an emphasis on the work of
the HS. Merely dry objectivity which is mathematically interpreted.
(A prime example of this is the treatment of the scriptures by the
J(f)W's)

Now these are clearly objected to by the Scriptures and by the
subordinate standards such as the Westminster. "There is a Vicar on
earth, and He is the Holy Spirit." This is important because if
someone asks us what is Truth in a certain area, we do not need to go
into some sort of trance, and say certain things about certain
empirical experiences. We point to the Bible itself, which all men
may discuss. It is to be understood simply, according to the words as
they were written. So... it is important to see that there is a
Vicar, and the Vicar that Christ left his bride is the HS, and it is
He who enlivens the Word of God to our hearts.

It is not "the Bible containing the Word of God," it is God
revealing Himself and then the giving of this in writing. "All of
which are given by inspiration of men to be the rule of faith and
life."

Now the RCC says that the RCC is the infallible interpreter, but the
Scriptures themselves illustrate a parallel to this in the case of the
Jews at the time of Jesus. The Rabbinical writings were given as the
certain, definitive interpretation of the Scriptures. However, Jesus
says at this juncture, that they had destroyed the actual authority of
the OT by doing so. By their very tradition, they had made the Word
of God of non-effect. I would submit that Rome has done the same
thing with both the Old and New Testaments by saying that the RCC is
the infallible interpreter.

(I have sat at a kitchen table and had a RC priest tell me that I
could read the Bible but if I wanted to understand (interpret) the
meaning of the text, I must confer with the RCC.)

However, I think the reformers were correct by saying "The Bible is
yours."
1) No church or man stands between the individual and the Bible
(66 books)
2) The necessary things are easily understood.
3) The Bible speaks in common language/tongue. (Hebrew,
Aramaic, Koine Gk)

For me, this is all warm and wonderful. It is an evidence of the love
of God to those of us who are sinners. Let us remember the
implications of X's work as Prophet, Priest and King. What men need
first is true knowledge, and God has given man knowledge in the most
wonderful form possible - a written work with these characteristics we
have been speaking of.

Therefore, let there be no criticism of the Bible. Jesus is very,
very strenuous at this particular place. Jesus insisted that if one
didn't listen to the Scriptures, there was no hope for him. Those of
you who are of the liberal camp, hear what I just said -no hope!
Christ also clearly made understood the term "Scriptures." This word
was a technical term meaning the 39 books of canon. When Jesus used
the word "Scriptures" He was not using a vague term. It was for Him
the technical Rabbinical term the same way that "Bible" is now used as
a technical term.

OK, time for a little Bible study.

Luke 16:19ff. Here we find the rich man who has gone to Hades and is
now speaking with Abraham. In this remarkable passage, we have the
statement, "If they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither will
they be persuaded thou one rose from the dead." It is remarkable in
that Jesus is saying, that if they will not hear what Moses & the
prophets have to say, (precisely what Higher criticism aims at) if
they will not hear this.....nothing _ will _ change _ their _ hearts.
Even if one were to be raised from the dead, nothing will change their
hearts. Nothing I have said up to this, could possibly say it any
stronger than what Jesus has said at this place.

Jn 5:39ff. "for he wrote of Me." "If ye believe not his writings,
how shall ye believe My words?" Simply put, the Scriptures are
enough. Man needs no further revelation.

Ex. 9:20,21. "he that set his heart not unto the Word of the Lord"
God tells what is going to happen. There is a greater judgment
coming than the hailstones. There is the eternal lostness to the soul
of the unbeliever and an eternal lostness of the reward to the
believer.

So you say, "Is this really true? The passage in Luke, surely Jesus
is speaking in hyperbola." Is He? Turn to Jn 11 and the raising of
Lazarus from the dead. Jesus did raise somebody from the dead in a
very public fashion. Did the Pharisees believe? Well, did they? v.
53: "So from that day on they planned together to kill Him." Read on
to Jn 12:10: "But the chief priests took counsel that they might put
Lazarus to death also.." This is not only true of Lazarus raising
from the dead, but is it not also true of the resurrection of Jesus?
They didn't believe Lazarus, have they believed Jesus? The answer is
sadly, profoundly sad, that thousands and millions of times, the
answer is no. Therefore Jesus' words are a most sobering word looking
back to Luke 16.

"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead."....no
matter what,
no _ matter _ what, ......NO _ MATTER _ WHAT.

2 Sam. 3:27 So when Abner returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside into
the middle of the gate to speak with him privately, and there he
struck him in the belly so that he died on account of the blood of
Asahel his brother.
2 Sam. 3:33 And the king chanted a {lament} for Abner and said,
"Should Abner die as a fool dies?

Abner was a fool in that he went with Joab outside of Hebron. Why was
Abner a fool? Because Hebron was a city of refuge. So David says,
you fool, you fool, you fool. In just such a vein, those who *choose*
to leave the objective standard of the Scriptures, Christ Himself
calls a fool, for you have left your city of refuge!

2 Cor. 3:4, 5 & ff. "And such confidence we have through Christ
toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider
anything as {coming} from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God...."

Those who *choose* to hold to a doctrine of the inspiration or
interpretation being in and of the reader, claim to have adequacy in
and of themselves, quite in contrast to the teachings of Christ and
the Scriptures.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <a8qiad$j4q$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, lsen...@hotmail.com says...

>
>
>Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:<a8ksin$srq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote in
>> news:a8kam7$4ej$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:
>
>I found this tucked away on my hard drive. My notation is that I
>posted in on SRC in '92. Apparently we were discussing not only sola
>scriptura but also literal interpretation.
>

[snip]

>Now the RCC says that the RCC is the infallible interpreter, but the
>Scriptures themselves illustrate a parallel to this in the case of the
>Jews at the time of Jesus. The Rabbinical writings were given as the
>certain, definitive interpretation of the Scriptures. However, Jesus
>says at this juncture, that they had destroyed the actual authority of
>the OT by doing so. By their very tradition, they had made the Word
>of God of non-effect. I would submit that Rome has done the same
>thing with both the Old and New Testaments by saying that the RCC is
>the infallible interpreter.

Let's not forget that this line about 'the RCC is
>the infallible interpreter' was Counter-Reformation 'bumper-sticker theology'.
>It is easy to find modern RCs who would not agree with this without some _major_
>qualifications.

>(I have sat at a kitchen table and had a RC priest tell me that I
>could read the Bible but if I wanted to understand (interpret) the
>meaning of the text, I must confer with the RCC.)

He was being optimistic, wasn't he?

> However, I think the reformers were correct by saying "The Bible is
>yours."
> 1) No church or man stands between the individual and the Bible
>(66 books)
> 2) The necessary things are easily understood.
> 3) The Bible speaks in common language/tongue. (Hebrew,
>Aramaic, Koine Gk)
>
>For me, this is all warm and wonderful. It is an evidence of the love
>of God to those of us who are sinners. Let us remember the
>implications of X's work as Prophet, Priest and King. What men need
>first is true knowledge, and God has given man knowledge in the most
>wonderful form possible - a written work with these characteristics we
>have been speaking of.

Yet none of these 'comman langauge/tongue's are so well understood today as they
were then. Unless, of course, you admit the testimony of the Church Fathers
concerning what these words and expressions really mean. Without them, how will
you know what the subject of 'synergei' is in Rom 8:28? Context and philology do
NOT determine this unambiguously.

[snip]

>Jn 5:39ff. "for he wrote of Me." "If ye believe not his writings,
>how shall ye believe My words?" Simply put, the Scriptures are
>enough. Man needs no further revelation.

I am amazed you can make this claim! Why, one of the few good things I have to
say about the Pharisees and Sadducess of Christ's day is that they knew the
Canonical Hebrew Scriptures _incredibly_ well. They not only understood the
language well, but they memorized large parts of Scripture AND the 'oral
teachings' on it.

So the real point of Jn 5:39ff is that _despite_ this amazingly thorough
knowledge of Scripture, because they did not want to submit to God's will, they
missed that which is MOST important in Scripture.

So how can you say "the Scriptures are enough"?

[snip]

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

[Bart Goddard]

sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in

news:a8l7et$133$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:

>>> Where do you draw the line, then? Once the doctrine
>>> of Sola Scriptura was adopted (albeit, in a corrupted
>>> form from what Luther stated), there was no check on
>>> the endless doctrinal disagrements, all claiming the
>>> authority of the Scriptures.
>>
>>This is really the question, isn't it?
>
> Yep.

Nope. The disagreements are seldom two sides claiming
authority of Scripture. Rather, it is one or both sides
claiming that Scripture doesn't apply in this or that case.

Further, you two (Steve and Dave) seem to be confusing
Sola Scriptura with private interpretation on this subthread.
The second does not follow logically from the first.

> While the disease was horrible, the chosen cure is not
> all that much better, in the vast majority of cases.
> One need only read Bart's posts to see what he thinks
> of the vast majority of bible interpretations.

I don't have problems with interpretations so much as
with the contortions folks go through to get out of
interpretations. Hardly anyone in Christendom thinks
that Scripture really is the Word of God anymore, so
how one earth can you think that I have trouble with
the way that I think of their interpretations thereof.
Heck, there ARE NO interpretations to have problems with.
All that's left are opinions about how blurry of a message
God left us with, and how much latitude we have for
massaging His Word to fit our consciences today.

Man, I'd kill for a good ol' interpretation to argue with,
but there's nary a soul left who cares what the objective
Word of God is. How can you blame the 20,000+ denominations
on "differing interpretations" when none of these folks
think the Bible is God's Word except when a verse happens
to touch them on that rare occasion when they do happen to
read a Psalm.

Rather, blame the 20,000+ denominations on 20,000+ different
ways to NOT listen to God. We'll list a few:

Instead of Scripture we'll:

1. Assume the Spirit works immediately through prophecy.
2. Find God through inspiration of His creation.
3. Find "Jesus First" and later only agree with Scripture
in so far as it agrees with our experience. (WHAT??!!!)
4. Vote on which parts of the Bible are true.
5. Assume Paul was sexist.
6. "Did God really say...."
7. It doesn't matter if Jesus was really raised, it just
matters if you believe he was raised. (DOUBLE WHAT???!!!!!)
8. I can't believe in a Jesus that would whip people in the Temple.
9. We have to read Scriptures in historical context.
10. We have to read Scriptures as myth.
11. For the sake of missions, we'll downplay this or that doctrine...
12. If it gets people in the pew, it'll be worth it.

> The solution is, as I see it, to return to the ancient
> doctrines of the Church, to the faith expressed by the
> 7 Eccumenical Councils.

13. It doesn't matter if it's true or false, just so
there's no schism.

Nope. Good old difference in interpretation is long dead.
Even Luther and Calvin never really had differences in
interpretation. Calvin's stand was that "the finite was
incapable of the infinite" which was not a Scripturally
based statement, and denied the real presence in the
Sacrament and was the fundamental reason why Luther and
Calvin could not come together.

You're beating the wrong horse, Steve.

Bart

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <a8taot$r4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Bart says...

>
>
>
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in
>news:a8l7et$133$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:
>
>
>>>> Where do you draw the line, then? Once the doctrine
>>>> of Sola Scriptura was adopted (albeit, in a corrupted
>>>> form from what Luther stated), there was no check on
>>>> the endless doctrinal disagrements, all claiming the
>>>> authority of the Scriptures.
>>>
>>>This is really the question, isn't it?
>>
>> Yep.
>
>Nope. The disagreements are seldom two sides claiming
>authority of Scripture.

That's not true. You seem to have reached this conclusion by concentrating only
on the fallout of 'modernism'. But big although it is, such 'liberal modernism'
is only part of the problem of the world's misunderstanding Scripture.

But the errors of both 'liberal modernism' and fundamentalism could have been
easily avoided by interpreting Scripture as the Fathers interpret it, and
viewing all of interpretations with suspicion.

>Rather, it is one or both sides
>claiming that Scripture doesn't apply in this or that case.
>
>Further, you two (Steve and Dave) seem to be confusing
>Sola Scriptura with private interpretation on this subthread.
>The second does not follow logically from the first.

True. But it _does_ follow illogically, and illogically is the way most people
_do_ interpret Scriptures, even Luther and Calvin.

>> While the disease was horrible, the chosen cure is not
>> all that much better, in the vast majority of cases.

I would even say the 'cure' is _worse_ than the disease.

>> One need only read Bart's posts to see what he thinks
>> of the vast majority of bible interpretations.
>
>I don't have problems with interpretations so much as
>with the contortions folks go through to get out of
>interpretations.

But can't you see that these 'contortions' are merely _reactions_ to the
impossible straightjackets the 'interpretations' forced on these people?

>Hardly anyone in Christendom thinks
>that Scripture really is the Word of God anymore,

That is really overstating the case.

> so
>how one earth can you think that I have trouble with
>the way that I think of their interpretations thereof.
>Heck, there ARE NO interpretations to have problems with.

Yes, there are. Just to give you an obvious example (that has recurred often
enough in this thread), how many different senses are there to the words
'faith', 'grace', 'salvation' and 'justification' in Romans alone? And in which
verse does Paul assume which sense?

>All that's left are opinions about how blurry of a message
>God left us with, and how much latitude we have for
>massaging His Word to fit our consciences today.

But this _is_ the fallout of Sola Scriptura. Because the message is _by
necessity_ blurry, if you deny (as many do) the need to turn to knowledge
_outside_ of Scripture to interpret what is _inside_ Scripture. And the primary
source of this knowledge must be Patristic Commentary, which is far, far more
important than the history and philology the 'historical-critical' exegetes turn
to.

>Man, I'd kill for a good ol' interpretation to argue with,
>but there's nary a soul left who cares what the objective
>Word of God is.

Now you have touched on the crux of the problem: the Word of God is not
'objective' at all! Why, the entire example of the spirit of a man knowing best
what the man thinks (in 1 Cor 1-2) shows that Paul thinks _subjective_ knowledge
is what counts, not objective. What is knowable objectively is NOT what saves:
it is what is known only subjectively that saves.

This is why Lossky says mysticism must _not_ be sharply divided from theology;
yet it usually _is_ so divided in the West.

>How can you blame the 20,000+ denominations
>on "differing interpretations" when none of these folks
>think the Bible is God's Word except when a verse happens
>to touch them on that rare occasion when they do happen to
>read a Psalm.

Again, you are overstating the case. Besides: although many denominations may
_do_ as you say they do, they almost never _admit_ that this is what they are
doing. The rationalizations they use to hide this fact are yet another heritage
of Sola Scriptura, since their reasoning almost always is based on one of the
exegetical principles first espoused in Sola Scriptura.

>Rather, blame the 20,000+ denominations on 20,000+ different
>ways to NOT listen to God. We'll list a few:
>
>Instead of Scripture we'll:
>
>1. Assume the Spirit works immediately through prophecy.

And He does. The problem is when people neglect to test the spirits.

>2. Find God through inspiration of His creation.

Nothing wrong with this. Yet when Paul mentions it, he makes it clear that this
'natural religion'(Rom 1:21-2:1) has never saved anyone yet (by itself, that
is).

>3. Find "Jesus First" and later only agree with Scripture
> in so far as it agrees with our experience. (WHAT??!!!)
>4. Vote on which parts of the Bible are true.

And why are you so surprised by this after the precedent Luther set by
downgrading the deuterocanonicals?

>5. Assume Paul was sexist.
>6. "Did God really say...."
>7. It doesn't matter if Jesus was really raised, it just
> matters if you believe he was raised. (DOUBLE WHAT???!!!!!)

But _this_ one is plain ignorance: Paul was quite clear that our faith is
_meaningless_ unless Christ is raised from the dead.

>8. I can't believe in a Jesus that would whip people in the Temple.
>9. We have to read Scriptures in historical context.
>10. We have to read Scriptures as myth.

But the historical-critical method of exegesis makes this conclusion _very_
difficult to avoid. After all, only a little knowledge of Hebrew is needed to
realize that the two Creation accounts in Genesis really _do_ contradict each
other on the _order_ in which things were made. Yet most English translations
cleverly hide this use of the 'waw-consecutive' in Gen 1:1-26 and Gen 2:5-9.

>11. For the sake of missions, we'll downplay this or that doctrine...

Do you really believe that even beginners in the faith should be exposed to all
doctrines at once?

>12. If it gets people in the pew, it'll be worth it.

And all these deceptions are the desperate expedients people turn to when they
find how _bankrupt_ and _inadequate_ Sola Scriptura really is.

>> The solution is, as I see it, to return to the ancient
>> doctrines of the Church, to the faith expressed by the
>> 7 Eccumenical Councils.
>
>13. It doesn't matter if it's true or false, just so
> there's no schism.

That, of course, is NOT what 'to return to the ancient doctrines of the Church'
implies. Yet you phrase this as if it did. Didn't you notice that almost each
one of the Councils was accompanied with a 'schism'? After Nicea I, the Arians
broke off. After Chalcedon, the Monophysites. After Ephesus, the Nestorians.

[snip]

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <a8t5i9$a9t$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Matthew says...
>

[snip]

>
>Let's not forget that this line about 'the RCC is
>>the infallible interpreter' was Counter-Reformation 'bumper-sticker theology'.
>>It is easy to find modern RCs who would not agree with this without some _major_
>>qualifications.

I don't know how I messed up the formatting so badly: it should have been:

Let's not forget that this line about 'the RCC is the infallible interpreter'
was Counter-Reformation 'bumper-sticker theology'. It is easy to find modern RCs
who would not agree with this without some _major_
qualifications.

[snip]

[Loren]

Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<a8t5i9$a9t$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> In article <a8qiad$j4q$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, lsen...@hotmail.com says...

> >For me, this is all warm and wonderful. It is an evidence of the love

> >of God to those of us who are sinners. Let us remember the
> >implications of X's work as Prophet, Priest and King. What men need
> >first is true knowledge, and God has given man knowledge in the most
> >wonderful form possible - a written work with these characteristics we
> >have been speaking of.
>
> Yet none of these 'comman langauge/tongue's are so well understood today as they
> were then. Unless, of course, you admit the testimony of the Church Fathers
> concerning what these words and expressions really mean. Without them, how will
> you know what the subject of 'synergei' is in Rom 8:28? Context and philology do
> NOT determine this unambiguously.
>

I'll give answer to this below where I address you other objection.

>
> >Jn 5:39ff. "for he wrote of Me." "If ye believe not his writings,
> >how shall ye believe My words?" Simply put, the Scriptures are
> >enough. Man needs no further revelation.
>
> I am amazed you can make this claim! Why, one of the few good things I have to
> say about the Pharisees and Sadducess of Christ's day is that they knew the
> Canonical Hebrew Scriptures _incredibly_ well. They not only understood the
> language well, but they memorized large parts of Scripture AND the 'oral
> teachings' on it.

And that was Christ's point, was it not? It was that they were using
the traditions to interpret the Scriptures. In fact, if you will be
honest, the "scriptures" did not necessarily refer to what we call
today the OT, but rather their Torah, Talud, Targumic material,
traditions, etc.

>
> So the real point of Jn 5:39ff is that _despite_ this amazingly thorough
> knowledge of Scripture, because they did not want to submit to God's will, they
> missed that which is MOST important in Scripture.
>
> So how can you say "the Scriptures are enough"?
>

Not, I but the Spirit inspired apostles such as 2nd Peter. This
epistle along destroys "oral traditions". Peter refers to his
experience on the mount when Christ is transfigured and yet what does
he say of it and the "utterance made from heaven"? Peter's point is
the generic "we", that is "all us believers" have a more sure word of
God to pay attention to. Even the "Majestic" glory, the shekinah
glory or cloud of witness was not so sure as the "prophetic word."

Peter contrasts the "false prophets" and the "false teachers" of 2:1
with "men moved by the holy Spirit" of 1:21. Discernment does not
come from anywhere else other than the Scriptures themselves. To
"escape from the ones who live in error" and the "defilements of the
world" Peter declares the believer must entangle himself in the
"knowledge of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

"Where is the promise of His coming?" Where is the hope that
purifies? It is in Scripture and nothing else. It is "through the
iving and abiding word of God" that the believer gains the power to
"strip off all malice and gule and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,
like newborn baes, pant after the pure milk of the word that by it you
may grow in respect to salvation." Spiritual power and maturity is
directly porportional to ones immersion in the Word of God. We are
actually "bound" or under obligation to toil upward "if you have
tasted the kindness of the Lord." It is the Scriptures read in the
Spirit "sent from heaven" to which the reader learns of "things into
which angels long to look."

Rom. 10:14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not
believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard?
And how shall they hear without a preacher?

The Scriptures are "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness that the man of God ma be
adequate, equipped for every good work."

Nothing here about oral traditions. We are commissioned to "preach
the word" not our denominations doctrinal statement or the traditions
of the fathers, however fine they are. The POWER resides only in the
Scriptures. There is no other authority on earth which surpasses the
lone believer holding his Bible high in the air, inspired by the
Spirit to take his stand against all earthly kings and authority. We
are not called to give a "careful answer" to the king. It is from
"the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads
to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

How can you NOT say "the Scriptures are enough"?

They were enough for the Christ and the apostles (they quoted them
when giving absolute authority to a point being made). Therefore,
they are enough for me and the Church. We need nothing else. Christ
has left the Vicar to give us insight and understanding, not from the
traditions, but from the Scriptures.

> So the real point of Jn 5:39ff is that _despite_ this amazingly thorough
> knowledge of Scripture, because they did not want to submit to God's will, they
> missed that which is MOST important in Scripture.

Having the Vicar and having a "new heart" being a "new creation"
because of the regeneration of the "new man" makes all the difference.
The Jews came to the Scripture outwardly. The believer "in Christ"
has a totally different relationship in regards to the Word of God.
Ours has an inward witness.

As I have mentioned before, the dispensation of the Church has a
totally different relationship with the Holy Spirit than did Law
burdened Israel. David cried, "take not thy Spirit from me." We see
repeatedly the Spirit coming and going as He pleased in the OT.
Sampson's experience can never be that of the NT believer "in Christ"
because we are sealed and baptidzo by the Holy Spirit. It is "once
and for all."

Also as I have mentioned, God is not done with Israel. He will yet
regather them as a nation and He will yet write His word on their
hearts and bring them into the promises given.

[Matthew Johnson]

On 9 Apr 2002 23:08:44 GMT, Matthew Johnson
<Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote:

[snip]

>That's not true. You seem to have reached this conclusion by concentrating only
>on the fallout of 'modernism'. But big although it is, such 'liberal modernism'
>is only part of the problem of the world's misunderstanding Scripture.
>
>But the errors of both 'liberal modernism' and fundamentalism could have been
>easily avoided by interpreting Scripture as the Fathers interpret it, and
>viewing all of interpretations with suspicion.

Typos, typos! Don't you just hate it when a typo looks too plausible,
but completely destroys the sense of what you _really_ mean to say? I
meant to say not 'viewing all of interpretations with suspicion' but
'viewing all other interpretations with suspicion'.

What a difference!
[snip]

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music

[bwme...@earthlink.net]

The only way is to keep on mispelling the verb.

Romans 8:28-30 ---=20

Every person whom God foreknew (that seal mentioned in 2 Tim 2:19)=20
gets planned.

Every person thus planned gets called.

Every person thus called gets justified (saved, with the whole
package that includes, including the indwelling Spirit of Christ,
by Whom we are sealed --- Eph. 4:30, Rom. 8:9)

EVERY PERSON THUS JUSTIFIED GETS GLORIFIED!

Ephesians 4:30 ---

Every saved person (every person who has the Spirit of Christ ---=20
Romans 8:9) is SEALED unto the Day of Redemption.

Philippians 1:29 ---=20

Just as we were not saved by our goodness, and therefore cannot=20
lose our salvation by our sin (Eph. 2:8-9, 4:30), so neither were
we saved by our faith (it was GIVEN to us, as the EVIDENCE of our=20
salvation), and therefore cannot lose our salvation by our=20
subsequent lack of faith.

Salvation, and the faith God gave us along with it, are by
GRACE--- Eph. 2:8-9, Php. 1:29.

And I believe every saved person understands (knows) that (the=20
faith wherein ye stand, viz, that Christ died for our sins,=20
according to the Scriptures, and rose again the third day=20
according to the Scriptures --- 1 Cor. 15:2-4)

(ever notice how resolutely almost every poster is denying that=20
essential last fact in the parallel threads?)

John 6:37 ---=20

"Every last person that the Father gives Me will come to Me,
and no one who comes to Me will ever, ever be cast out."

(In this verse, the Lord uses the double negative ("in no wise" ---
KJV --- =3D Grk. "ou me"). This is the strongest negative assertion
possible in the Grk. It is fascinating that every time man uses it,
he is falsified (eg, Peter's denial to the Lord that he would ever
deny Him); but every time the Lord uses it, it is verified)

John 10:27-28 ---

"My sheep hear My voice;
And I KNOW THEM;
And they follow Me;
And I give them Eternal Life;
And THEY SHALL NEVER PERISH"

Are you going to call our Lord a Liar, in view of His above two
statements? Not if you ever knew Him. If you do, YOU NEVER KNEW HIM.
And that, incidentally, is exactly what He tells the goats, in Matthew
25, whom He sends to the everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and
his angels. =20

NOT ONE OF THEM EVER KNEW THE LORD.

"In flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that KNOW NOT GOD . . ."

Bob

[Loren]

lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote in message news:<a914ck$9eh$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

>
> > So the real point of Jn 5:39ff is that _despite_ this amazingly thorough
> > knowledge of Scripture, because they did not want to submit to God's
> > will, they missed that which is MOST important in Scripture.
>
> Having the Vicar and having a "new heart" being a "new creation"
> because of the regeneration of the "new man" makes all the difference.
> The Jews came to the Scripture outwardly. The believer "in Christ"
> has a totally different relationship in regards to the Word of God.
> Ours has an inward witness.
>
> As I have mentioned before, the dispensation of the Church has a
> totally different relationship with the Holy Spirit than did Law
> burdened Israel. David cried, "take not thy Spirit from me." We see
> repeatedly the Spirit coming and going as He pleased in the OT.
> Sampson's experience can never be that of the NT believer "in Christ"
> because we are sealed and baptidzo by the Holy Spirit. It is "once
> and for all."
>
> Also as I have mentioned, God is not done with Israel. He will yet
> regather them as a nation and He will yet write His word on their
> hearts and bring them into the promises given.

Without realizing it, what I have written in these 3 paragraphs is
nothing less than the implementation of the New Covenant at and after
the bloody cross. The ratification and implementation at the Cross
replaced the old external circumcision of the Mosaic Covenant with the
circumcision of the heart with the New Covenant (NC). This is what
nullifies Matthew's argument. It isn't that the religious leaders
also had the Scriptures (and traditions) and failed, but that they did
not have the NC by which the relationship changed. The change was the
indwelling Spirit resulting in a new heart and forgiveness of sin.
Also, we have the power of the resurrection. The NC believer has far
greater resources in his struggle with sin than were available to
these religious leaders with all their knowledge of the Scriptures but
under the economy of the Mosaic Covenant. It is the internalized
ministry of the Spirit , not the territorial and political promises of
the NC, which the Church has experience of in a preliminary and
partial fulfillment way. The NC is an "already and not yet". The
"already" is the Church (there is neither Jew nor Greek) gaining the
spiritual promises through its inclusion in the Abrahamic Covenant
provision of blessings granted to those who bless Israel.

However, the whole Christian ethic as set forth by the apostles in the
NT is not grounding its hope for a new behavior simply on the new
standing or position or status within the NC, but on the new nature
which now has the capacity to produce new actions. It is from the new
nature that the Spirit brings forth fruit which the Mosaic tied
religious leaders of Jesus' day had no part in.

Paul's illustration of a change in clothing "signifies an exchange of
identities, and the concepts of the old and the new persons reinforce
this" (Lincoln). By means of Christ's cross work and the shedding of
blood and the cup being offered, by the preliminary introduction of
the fulfillment of the NC by the Church, the believer becomes part of
the "new creation" (2 Cor 5:17) as promised in the NC. We know that
the NC does not have final fulfillment in the Church because believers
still sin. Paul therefore encourages us to put off the "old man" and
put on the "new man" (Col 3:9-10; cp Rom 6:6). It is this transition
which refers to the believer's transference from the old corporate
humanity under the headship of Adam to the new humanity with Christ as
Head. Yet, this also has reference to a change in the individual. In
part, this has to do with, "Once saved always saved" or the maybe the
question, are we "sinners" who are saved or are we "saints" who sin?

Alexander Whyte in his "Bunyan Characters" writes this very real
perspective:

"Our guilt is so great that we dare not think of it..... It crushes
our minds with a perfect stupor of horror, when for a moment we try to
imagine a day of judgment when we shall be judged for all the deeds
that we have done in the body. Heart-beat after heart-beat, breath
after breath, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, and all
full of sin; all nothing but sin from our mother's womb to our
grave."

There are moments in the believers life where this is brought soberly
and, like an Alfred Hitchcock vertigo panning of the camera, suddenly
confronting us to such an extent that every thing else falls away. It
is a precursor moment where we get an inkling of what the unbeliever
will sense when the presence of earth and heaven fly away and they
stand naked before the Throne of God.

Neil Anderson, in one of his popular books, "Victory over Darkness"
writes:

Many Christians refer to themselves as sinners saved by grace. But
are you really a sinner? Is that your scriptural identity? Not at
all. God doesn't call you a sinner; He calls you a saint -a holy
one..... Why not identify [sic] yourself for who you really are: a
saint who sins?" ["a saint who occasionally sins" is printed in the
text but he notes elsewhere that was a typist mistake.]

Truthfully, this is not an either/or dilemma. The Christians
experience is both/and. Of course believers still sin. This is not a
difficult thing to convince most believers from Scripture if not
solely from experience alone. We sometimes act "carnally" (1 Cor
3:1-3). The promise of continual cleansing of sin as we walk in the
light (1Jn 1:7) as well as the present tense used for the confession
of sins (1:9) suggests that sin is continually present with believers.
This is why John wrote "If we say we have no sin," he accuses the
believer of being self-deceived and an impossibility for the believer
this side of death. The NC has only partial fulfillment in both the
Church and the dispensation.

"Since all the capacities of our soul ought to be so filled with the
love of God, it is certain that this precept [to love God with all our
heart, soul, and mind] is not fulfilled by those who can either retain
in the heart a slight inclination or admit to the mind any thought at
all that would lead them away from the love of God into vanity."
(Calvin, ICR, 3.3.11)

As Paul reveals in Rom 7, "There yet remains in a regenerate man a
smoldering cinder of evil, from which desires continually leap forth
to allure and spur him to commit sin." (ibid).

I certainly don't have the time or the inclination to write on this in
great length. But there is something which I must further comment
upon.

Christ's death and resurrection signify 1) death to the old
dispensation of sin and its dominion and 2) resurrection to a new
sphere ruled by God (by means of the NC). This objective reality
takes place "in Christ" as the Head of the new humanity much like His
actions as the Head of the corporate "new man." But also like the
transfer from the "old" to the "new" man, Christ's death and
resurrection apply *subjectively* to the person of the believer who
participates with Him. It is both judicial in justification and
experiential in sanctification. The judicial declaration places the
believer in a state of experiential transformation of the believer
changing dominions through the dying and rising with Christ. This is
the significance of having within us, the "new heart." Jewett makes
the comment, "A characteristic of the heart as the center of man is
its inherent openness to outside impulses, its directionality, its
propensity to give itself to a master and to live towards some desired
goal." (Paul's Anthropological Terms) Laidlaw describes the heart as
"the work-place for the personal appropriation assimilation of every
influence." And this is the key..... this characteristic stems from
the fact that Christians as finite persons can live only in a "radical
dependence on otherness." (Andrew Tallon, "A Response to Fr.
Dulles.")

What the heart takes in becomes its master. It is our center, our
prefunctional root. It is here that we decide the meaning of our
lives, for our deepest desires constitute ourselves, decide our
identity. "As a man thinketh so he is." Selah! But believers now
*have* a new heart.

"God begins his good work in us, therefore, by arousing love and
desire and zeal for righteousness in our hearts; or to speak more
correctly, by bending, forming and directing, our hearts to
righteousness." (Calvin. ICR, 2.3.6)

And here it is. This new core, this new heart of the believer is
often not evident in conscious life. And yet, it is nevertheless the
dominating aspect of the believers being and bearing. Delitzsch in
his masterful, "A System of Biblical Psychology" notes there is a kind
of will of nature that is basically self-consciously unreflected.
This deep will of nature precedes the conscious actions of the person.
The will of the believer has been changed through regeneraton despite
the fact that remnants of the old life still remain and continue to
express themselves. The action of regeneration is directed not so
much to "our occasional will, as to the substance of our will, i.e. to
the nature and essence of our spiritual being." (p 416).

We say it, read it, quote it, but hardly ever become cognizant of its
depth of reality -the regenerate man in the depth of his heart is
*CHANGED FOREVER.* The believer has an entirely new orientation.
Even though the believer can (and does) still sin, this sin is related
to more a surface level thing than a thing from the root or heart.
When a believer sins, it does not change the real nature of the new
heart. In fact, the heart and its new perspective and orientation to
please God, is more aware of sin than every could it have been before
its regeneration. And so Paul writes Romans 7 where he illustrates
the fact that this new and true nature of the believer does not always
express itself fully in experience but the basic identity of the
believer is not wounded, let alone crushed, by sin because of the
positive nature of being a "saint" who sins.

Notice in Rom 7:14-25 the 3 aspects of the image of God being
represented in the believers sin and notice the orientation of the
comments being made.

1) Emotion "I am doing the very thing I hate" (v15)
2) Intelligence "For that which I am doing I do not understand"
(v15)
3) Volition "What I want [or will, thelo] to do" "I have the desire
to what is good" (vv 15,19)

Since the same passage clearly shows the "I" as the subject of the
sinful actions as well as being opposed to sin, the apostle was not
trying to evade the personal responsibility of the "I" in sin. But
when the "I" is related to sin, it is never described in terms of the
functions of personhood. There are no equal statements of thought,
emotion, and will on the side of sin. Paul did not say, "I want to do
the will of God, but I also want to sin."....Thus the "I" that is
positively oriented toward God is the person in the deepest sense of
his personhood or identity. He is the "I" of the "inner man" (v.22),
the "I" that is the subject of the "mind" (v.25).." (R. Saucy
"Sinners Who Are Forgiven or Saints Who Sin?")

The point? It is no longer "I" who sins, but it is sin that actually
does the sinning. Paul was NOT intending to disavow responsibility,
but to affirm the new existence in himself of a power that exercised a
dominating influence on him. The new and real person of the believer
willingly assents to this dominating power, but in the case of sin as
in Rom 7, the real "I" opposes it and can thus be set against it.
Here the ego or the real "I" in the believer is viewed as so opposed
to sin that they can be isolated from each other. And the actual
committing of sin, instead of being the action of the ego can be
regarded as the action of the sin that enslaves the ego contrary to
its will.

"The Ego is no longer one with sin -it is free from it; sin resides
in such a man still, only as a foreign power." (Delitzsch)

[Bart Goddard]

Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in

news:a8vs9s$hgp$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:

>>Nope. The disagreements are seldom two sides claiming
>>authority of Scripture.
>

> That's not true. You seem to have reached this conclusion by
> concentrating only on the fallout of 'modernism'.

Not at all. I reach this conclusion from facts like the
RC claiming authority OVER Scripture, e.g. The issues
are not "Scriptures says this or that and hence I'm right",
but rather "Scripture is or is not the authority here".
Steve is blaiming the 20,000 denominations on 20,000
interpretations of Scripture. I'm blaiming it on 19,999
different authorities. The EO has practices, the RC it's
traditions, the charismatics their inner stirrings, the
christian scientists their prophetess, the methodists
their conviction that the finite is incapable of the infinite,
and so on.

Where is really an example of two denominations that exist
because they 1. agree on the absolute authority of Scripture
and 2. can't agree on what Scripture says. (Yes, I know
of an example, but it is trivial, and I _did_ say there
were hardly any, not "none".)

> But the errors of both 'liberal modernism' and fundamentalism could
> have been easily avoided by interpreting Scripture as the Fathers
> interpret it, and viewing all of interpretations with suspicion.

To bad that the mideval church also didn't interpret Scrpture
as the Fathers did. For that's why Luther beat them up so
badly in the debates. He quoted the Fathers against the
current powers over and over again to show that he and
his followers were not preaching innovation, but only were
in agreement with the Fathers. It was the Romans who were
innovating and were in error, and it remains the Romans who
are in error and the Confessional Lutherans are the true
Church of the Fathers in exile until Rome admits its error
and rejoins the Fathers' confession.

>>Further, you two (Steve and Dave) seem to be confusing
>>Sola Scriptura with private interpretation on this subthread.
>>The second does not follow logically from the first.
>

> True. But it _does_ follow illogically, and illogically is the way
> most people _do_ interpret Scriptures, even Luther and Calvin.

That doesn't even make sense. Luther was
openly against "private interpretation".

>>> One need only read Bart's posts to see what he thinks
>>> of the vast majority of bible interpretations.
>>
>>I don't have problems with interpretations so much as
>>with the contortions folks go through to get out of
>>interpretations.
>

> But can't you see that these 'contortions' are merely _reactions_ to
> the impossible straightjackets the 'interpretations' forced on these
> people?

No one is forcing interpretations on these people, because
they are the "private interpretation" people, remember.
Try to stay with us here.

>>Hardly anyone in Christendom thinks
>>that Scripture really is the Word of God anymore,
>

> That is really overstating the case.

Not hardly. Amongst non-RC and non-EO, the neo-orthodoxy
movement completely ravaged Scripture to the point where
it's only a nice story and it's only the "word of God"
if it happens to effect you at the moment. If it doesn't
move you today, it's not God's Word today. Really! This
is the official stance of most reformed denominations today.

And since the RC and the EO don't subscribe to Sola
Scriptura, who's left to defend the authority of
Scripture?

>> so
>>how one earth can you think that I have trouble with
>>the way that I think of their interpretations thereof.
>>Heck, there ARE NO interpretations to have problems with.
>

> Yes, there are. Just to give you an obvious example (that has recurred
> often enough in this thread), how many different senses are there to
> the words 'faith', 'grace', 'salvation' and 'justification' in Romans

> alone? And in which verse does Paul assume which sense.

My point being that these sensez come from _dodging_
Scriptural authority, not from reading Scripture as
authority. "Paul was speaking as a man", "This passage
wasn't part of the original text", "Paul wasn't a real
Apostle", etc.

>>All that's left are opinions about how blurry of a message
>>God left us with, and how much latitude we have for
>>massaging His Word to fit our consciences today.
>

> But this _is_ the fallout of Sola Scriptura. Because the message is
> _by necessity_ blurry, if you deny (as many do) the need to turn to
> knowledge _outside_ of Scripture to interpret what is _inside_
> Scripture. And the primary source of this knowledge must be Patristic
> Commentary, which is far, far more important than the history and
> philology the 'historical-critical' exegetes turn to.

This is trivially simplistic. Of course, one must turn
to knowledge outside Scripture in the sense that one must
learn a language and have some sort of cultural context
to even understand the sentences therein. Plain knowledge
always needs to be bootstrapped.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking
about above. For _both_ historical criticism and the (tired
and tedious) arguement that the Church has authority over
Scripture pre-supposes that the Scripture is not the objective
Word of God.

If Scripture is, in fact, the Word of God, the it stands on
it's own. Even if the laity receive it from the hand of
the Church, the mere fact that it is indeed the Word of God
ends the Church's authority over it, unless the Church wants
to say something like "This is the Word of God only as long
as we say so". When God speaks, worlds are created, life
is breathed in, sins are forgiven, and the dead are raised,
and if Scripture is the Word of God, it is objectively powerful
on its own. It carries the message of forgiveness for Christ's
sake whether you like it or not. And it is efficacious, whether
you like it or not. The Church is powerless over the Word.

(I have a picture in my head of a bunch of engineers voting
over whether a newly built bridge will fall down. Then
segue to the college of Cardinals voting on whether Luther
is heaven. Voting doesn't hold up bridges, and doesn't
decide make up God's mind.)

>>Man, I'd kill for a good ol' interpretation to argue with,
>>but there's nary a soul left who cares what the objective
>>Word of God is.
>

> Now you have touched on the crux of the problem: the Word of God is
> not 'objective' at all! Why, the entire example of the spirit of a man

> knowing best what the man thinks (in 1 Cor 1-2) shows that Paul thinks

> _subjective_ knowledge is what counts, not objective. What is knowable

> objectively is NOT what saves: it is what is known only subjectively
> that saves.

As usual, you're not quite with the program. We're not
talking about man's knowledge here at all. Neither sort of knowledge
saves at all. If the Word of God is not objective, then how
did it create the universe and how does it effect the Mass
and how does it pronounce absolution? And how can anyone be
saved? And how can Jesus be the Word?

If salvation itself is not objective, then there is no hope
for man at all. Nevertheless, you prove my point about there
being no one who thinks that God's Word is God's Word anymore.

>>How can you blame the 20,000+ denominations
>>on "differing interpretations" when none of these folks
>>think the Bible is God's Word except when a verse happens
>>to touch them on that rare occasion when they do happen to
>>read a Psalm.
>

> Again, you are overstating the case. Besides: although many
> denominations may _do_ as you say they do, they almost never _admit_
> that this is what they are doing. The rationalizations they use to
> hide this fact are yet another heritage of Sola Scriptura, since their
> reasoning almost always is based on one of the exegetical principles
> first espoused in Sola Scriptura.

There is no such thing as an "exegetical principle first
espoused in Sola Scriptura". At this point you're just spouting
nonsense based on, I'm guessing, an impression you have of
some TV preachers.

>>> The solution is, as I see it, to return to the ancient
>>> doctrines of the Church, to the faith expressed by the
>>> 7 Eccumenical Councils.
>>
>>13. It doesn't matter if it's true or false, just so
>> there's no schism.
>

> That, of course, is NOT what 'to return to the ancient doctrines of

> the Church' implies. Yet you phrase this as if it did.

But is it, of course, what Steve implied, since he's offering
a "solution", there must be a "problem". And the "problem"
is "all the schisms". Not "error in doctine", but "schisms".
So, do please try to keep up.

[Dave Weaver]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
>
> >If I recall, it was Luther who declared that justification
> >by faith alone was "the article on which the Church stands
> >or falls."
>
> And that was unfortunate, since the only place 'saved by faith alone'
> occurs in scripture, it is preceded by 'NOT' (Ja 2:24).

The quote from James is "justified by", not "saved by". But
in any case, it doesn't refute Luther. The sense in which James
is using the term justifed is 'vindicated'. The central theme
of James is the outward marks of a genuine faith ("show me your
faith", "prove yourselves doers"). So the message of 2:24 is
that good works vindicate a Christian's profession of faith.

> >If Luther did see this as the dividing line between church
> >and non-church, we (Calvinists) have a right to claim him as
> >a first-priciple Sola Fidian. I remember hearing that one of
> >the top contemporary Melanchthon scholars characterized the
> >situation this way: Luther as symathetic to Calvin's position,
> >but Melanchthon consistently whispering in his ear that if we
> >Germans go as far abroad as the Swiss on the sacraments, any
> >reconciliation with Rome (for which Melanchthon held out hope)
> >would be utterly impossible.
>
> Now that is an interesting insight into the history. Do you have any
> references on that?

It's from a lecture I have on tape, talking about how things
fell apart after the Marburg Colloquy. I will listen to the tape
again to get you the name of the Melanchthon scholar who makes
this claim.

> >I believe Luther also called Calvin, "the theologian of the
> >reformation", which suggests that it was Melanchthon and his
> >successors who departed in some measure.
>
> But Luther's theology changed over time too. So did he say this early,
> or late?

I do not know. It had to be somewhat late, as Calvin was 25yrs
his junior. Luther biographers indicate he retained a fondness
for Calvin (even a sympathy for his 'dynamic' view of the Lord's
supper) at the same time he attacked the Zwinglians in the
harshest of terms.

--
Dave Weaver
blue-t...@postmark.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Dave Weaver]

sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote :

> Hi Dave,
>
> Good to hear from you again.

Good to be heard again (as seldom as time allows).

> blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) writes:
>
> >There are two alternatives, both with dangers. Either you
> >affirm or deny the principle of private interpretation.
> >
> >If you affirm it, the downside is that any kook with a
> >Bible can start spouting deviant doctrine.
> >
> >If you deny it, the downside is the inevitability of an
> >elitist few (infallibly) dictating doctrine. And when
> >error does creep in, the organization is utterly incapable
> >of reform.
>
> This descibes the two options as seen/practiced in the
> West.
>
> In the East, it is neither the individual nor the Bishops
> who are the "sole" determinres of doctrine, but the entire
> church, Bishops and laity together.

As a westerner, I must say this seems naively idealistic.
However, I do think it gives some insight into your Church.
Namely, the only way in which doctrinal conflict is absent
is for Church doctrine to be completely static (which I'll
comment on below).

The other side of the problem, you do not escape. You do
view the Church (qua Church) as infallible. By definition,
then, it is incapable of reform. You will, no doubt, protest,
saying there is nothing necessitating reform. But as that
is true by your own definition, it may or may not correspond
to reality.

> >You might think the consequences of affirming private
> >interpretation are more dire. The lessons from the western
> >church in the 16th century suggests otherwise.
>
> Are they? There is no reasonable way to check false
> teaching or belief. Disagreements over intrepretation
> most often lead to new congregations, not to prayerful
> resolution of the disagreement.
>
> While the disease was horrible, the chosen cure is not
> all that much better, in the vast majority of cases.
> One need only read Bart's posts to see what he thinks
> of the vast majority of bible interpretations.
>
> The solution is, as I see it, to return to the ancient
> doctrines of the Church, to the faith expressed by the
> 7 Eccumenical Councils.

This is one of the areas of puzzlement we westerners have
with the east. I remember reading one church historian
(on CCEL, I think) commenting that the east acts as if
wisdom began and ended with the seven eccumenical
councils. Although I don't think it's any wider than the
eastern variety, forgive me as I pull out the wide brush
(this is Usenet ;-).

The east did the body of Christ a great service in those
early centuries in the classic Johannine Christological
developments. But then, it appears you squatted on that,
as if no other doctrinal developments were necessary (or
even possible). So, for example, it fell to the west to
give a Pauline soteriology a more full development and
precise articulation -- via Augustine, straight through
to the Reformation. It fell to the west, through Anselm,
to give a more thorough development of the doctrine of
the atonement.

It appears eastern solution to schism is complete
doctrinal stasis. Do all doctrinal outworkings since
the eighth century represent a decline?

--
Dave Weaver
blue-t...@postmark.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Stephen Adams]

lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) writes:
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:
>>Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
>>>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:
>>>
>>>Sola Scriptura is not the problem. Rather, it's
>>>modern notions about what Scripture is that cause
>>>division.
>>
>> There are (at least) two version of Sola Scriptura:
>>
>> a) Scripture is the rule of faith, and all doctine, no
>> matter how derived, is tested by it.
>>
>> b) Scripture is the only source of doctrine, and no doctrine
>> may be derived from any other source.
>>
>> Luther taught the first - many, if not most, modern Protestants
>> teach the second. The former is perfectly compatible with the
>> Orthodox view of Scripture, the latter is not.
>
>I think this is unfair. Luther, if understood, would certainly hold
>to the 2nd when it came to doctrine while he would hold to the first
>for dogma. The dogma of the Trinity would be in the first but the
>doctrine of it would be in the second.

I would disagree. Luther did not propose, in any writing of his
which I have read (Bart is welcome to correct me here), option b.
His reforms were based on what he felt were clear violations of
the Scriptures. He did not set out to derive his faith directly
from the Scriptures and only the Scriptures.

>Luther wasn't the only one esposing this.

Hus, Calvin, Zwingli, etc, etc.

>Some chose to stay within the RCC and seek reform.
>Obviously that never happened.

It all depends on how you define reform. Certainly, they did
not correct their errors as we see them, nor as you see them,
but the Roman Church of the 21st Century is not the Roman Church
of the 16th.

>> But this is a bogus claim - Anabaptism cannot, no matter
>> how much they try, trace its roots back to the early
>> church without moving through Rome. The Anabaptists in
>> Europe certainly were fromer Roman Catholics, and the modern
>> Anabaptist movements are decendant of those groups, or through
>> Zwingli or Calvin.
>
>But as in the case of Israel, so in the RCC, God has always kept a
>believing remnant. For the most part, if not entirely, that remnant
>moved out of the RCC and moved north but not east.

You miss the point entirely - the Romans moved away from the Truth,
and Protestants, instead of having a Restoration had a Reformation.

Two very different things.

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author

--- Let my prayer arise before thee as incense ---

sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Bart Goddard]

sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in

news:a971ha$h9e$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:

>>> There are (at least) two version of Sola Scriptura:
>>>
>>> a) Scripture is the rule of faith, and all doctine, no
>>> matter how derived, is tested by it.
>>>
>>> b) Scripture is the only source of doctrine, and no doctrine
>

> I would disagree. Luther did not propose, in any writing of his
> which I have read (Bart is welcome to correct me here), option b.
> His reforms were based on what he felt were clear violations of
> the Scriptures. He did not set out to derive his faith directly
> from the Scriptures and only the Scriptures.

Ditto.

>>Some chose to stay within the RCC and seek reform.
>>Obviously that never happened.

See below.

>>But as in the case of Israel, so in the RCC, God has always kept a
>>believing remnant. For the most part, if not entirely, that remnant
>>moved out of the RCC and moved north but not east.
>
> You miss the point entirely - the Romans moved away from the Truth,
> and Protestants, instead of having a Restoration had a Reformation.
>
> Two very different things.

Whatever you mean by that, let me remind all that Luther
was working for internal reform, and was kicked out of
the RC politic. It was the Romans who left the table
and have never returned to it. The Lutherans are still
waiting for an open discussion on the issue of justification
anytime the Romans want to meet on equal footing. Anytime
the Romans want to rejoin the original Church of the Fathers,
they're more than welcome. We've been preserving it just for
them.

Bart

[Matthew Johnson]

On 12 Apr 2002 15:19:00 GMT, blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver)
wrote:

>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote :

>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Good to hear from you again.
>
>Good to be heard again (as seldom as time allows).
>
>> blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) writes:

[snip]

>> In the East, it is neither the individual nor the Bishops
>> who are the "sole" determinres of doctrine, but the entire
>> church, Bishops and laity together.
>
>As a westerner, I must say this seems naively idealistic.

Well, that is why I cringed when I saw Steve's response above; I knew
it would be read that way.

>However, I do think it gives some insight into your Church.

It _can_ be read that way, yes.

>Namely, the only way in which doctrinal conflict is absent
>is for Church doctrine to be completely static (which I'll
>comment on below).

Huh? Now that is not 'insight'. The entire first chapter (or was it
the second? I forget) of Jaroslav Pelikan's vol 2 'The History of
Christian Doctrine' was written to refute this unfortunate Western
prejudice.

No, it is not 'static'. It has the same eternal dynamism that we see
in the life of the Church, an eternal dynamism that is an icon of the
communicatio idiomatorum in the Trinity itself.

This, by the way, is why it is _so_ important to understand Orthodox
Triadology, _without_ the Filioque, before trying to understand
Orthodox Ecclesiology.

>The other side of the problem, you do not escape. You do
>view the Church (qua Church) as infallible. By definition,
>then, it is incapable of reform. You will, no doubt, protest,
>saying there is nothing necessitating reform. But as that
>is true by your own definition, it may or may not correspond
>to reality.

What about the Reforms under Patriarch Nikon? And what about the
'Reform' of the Bulgarian Church after the fall of communism? I think
you over simplify Steve's position here.

[snip]

>> The solution is, as I see it, to return to the ancient
>> doctrines of the Church, to the faith expressed by the
>> 7 Eccumenical Councils.
>
>This is one of the areas of puzzlement we westerners have
>with the east.

True. So read Pelikan.

> I remember reading one church historian
>(on CCEL, I think) commenting that the east acts as if
>wisdom began and ended with the seven eccumenical
>councils.

As Pelikan points out, this common Western belief _is_ the heritage of
the same division between East and West that accompanied the doctrinal
disputes of the 9th-14 centuries, when the West tried to force both
Filioque and Papal Primacy on the East.

> Although I don't think it's any wider than the
>eastern variety, forgive me as I pull out the wide brush
>(this is Usenet ;-).

You had to remind us:-)

>
>The east did the body of Christ a great service in those
>early centuries in the classic Johannine Christological
>developments. But then, it appears you squatted on that,
>as if no other doctrinal developments were necessary (or
>even possible).

What? None? You really _do_ need to read Pelikan. What about the
hesychast movement? What about the distinction between essence and
energy in the divine? What about the 'sophiology' and its refutation?

> So, for example, it fell to the west to
>give a Pauline soteriology a more full development and
>precise articulation -- via Augustine, straight through
>to the Reformation.

But we do not and cannot consider that a 'more full development and
precise articulation'. On the contrary: we consider it an unfortunate
misunderstanding of Paul that could have been prevented by a proper
understanding of Chrysostom.

Again, Pelikan explains (all too briefly) how the doctrine of two
natures in Christ renders the Augustinian 'more full development'
quite unnecessary. I tried to explain this with the St. John of
Damascus quote from "On Two Wills".

> It fell to the west, through Anselm,
>to give a more thorough development of the doctrine of
>the atonement.

Which again, we must see as regrettable error, based on elevating one
of many figures to the neglect of the other figures for the salvation
God has done for us.

>It appears eastern solution to schism is complete
>doctrinal stasis. Do all doctrinal outworkings since
>the eighth century represent a decline?

Only in the West:-D

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Stephen Adams]

lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) writes:
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:
>

>> In the East, it is neither the individual nor the Bishops
>> who are the "sole" determinres of doctrine, but the entire
>> church, Bishops and laity together.
>
>It is still infinite. It still, whether individually or corporately,
>involves sinful men for interpretation. Your bishops have no more
>claim to infallibility than does the Pope and his college or the
>Presbyterians in the WCF or any independent Baptist church
>constitution. The whole thing hinges upon inSpiration, does it not.
>Basically you are saying that the Spirit only has to do with the
>Orthodox church and no other. Extreme? No, just taking the
>presupposition to fruition.

What does Christ's promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit to
the Church mean? What does it mean that the Church is the pilar
and ground of the truth?

>> >You might think the consequences of affirming private
>> >interpretation are more dire. The lessons from the western
>> >church in the 16th century suggests otherwise.
>>
>> Are they? There is no reasonable way to check false
>> teaching or belief. Disagreements over intrepretation
>> most often lead to new congregations, not to prayerful
>> resolution of the disagreement.
>
>Obviously that has happened, even repeatedly. But you must not be so
>quick to add that there was no leading of the Spirit in this or that
>these congregations or denominations did not strive for the Spirit's
>leading. God obviously has one Truth. However, He created a
>uni-verse and placed a unified-diversity in man himself. I'm not
>saying that there is more than one way or more than one truth. I'm
>saying that God operates with regenerated men in an individualistic,
>personal dimension.

So God is unable/incapable/unwilling to ensure that the truth is expressed
by the Church?

>Jesus who ministry was personal, one-on-one.
>YHVH is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. His economy basically
>has never changed. The elect are involved in different dispensations,
>pre-fall, pre-law, post-law,
>post-incarnation/death/resurrection/accension.

There are no dispensations. No one has ever been saved by anything
other than being washed in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

>There are obviously great dangers involved in individual
>interpretation. Dogma's are not to be indoctrinated by the revelation
>of one man. The Church is a body of many parts but one Head. We must
>not slip into the same mentality as the RCC where everyone inside is
>safe, everyone outside is hell bound (illustration -not applicable in
>every way to the public statements of the RCC).

This is certainly not the Orthodox position - we do not say that the Holy
Spirit only operates within the Church, nor do we say that all who are
outside the church are damned.

>It is a mentality
>which we must all be sensitive to. That mentality of gnosticism in
>some form or another. There is gnosis but it is as diverse and yet as
>unified as the Tri-une God Himself.

So how do we come to know the Truth? And how can we be sure of the Truth?

>> While the disease was horrible, the chosen cure is not
>> all that much better, in the vast majority of cases.
>> One need only read Bart's posts to see what he thinks
>> of the vast majority of bible interpretations.
>>
>> The solution is, as I see it, to return to the ancient
>> doctrines of the Church, to the faith expressed by the
>> 7 Eccumenical Councils.
>
>I believe we must all be very careful to the elitism which Christ
>illustrated in the parable of the tree that grew overly large and the
>crows (black coats?) came to live there.
>
>The solution is to humble oneself before the open Bible and allow the
>Spirit within him to lead.

In other words, the solution is no solution! How do we know what is
true and what stems from our own personal tastes?

>Either the Spirit leads truthfully or He does not.

The Spirit *only* leads truthfully, but there is only one Truth. Anything
that diverges from that Truth is not of the Spirit.

>The problem comes in when men are not patient, not
>resisting pressure from other people's opinions or imposed limitation
>or even the pressure of one's own heart and spirit. Humility involves
>confession and persistence in prayer. "Trust in the Lord with all
>your heart and do not lean on your own understanding" is as applicable
>to the corporate as it is to the individual. Ps 40:1 in the Hebrew,
>"In waiting... I waited..... for the Lord" is an attitude of mind.
>"Let the peace of Christ rule in your heart" only comes when we are
>still and emptied of this maddness of activity, activity, activity.

So your answer is "Read and understand for yourself" but then you cite
the Psalmist saying NOT to do that????? Huh?

>And if all of this is so extremely difficult for the individual to
>achieve, then how much more difficult is it for the corporate? The
>question comes down to Spiritual discernment. That tired old,
>semi-educated back hills country preacher can certainly have very much
>more of it that the most educated, most universal, most historically
>rooted sofisticate. You will never convince me that men like Jonathan
>Edwards did not have the truth or true Spirit-filled discernment and
>power. Never.

So Edwards spoke infallibly??

>I just don't think we can be black and white on this. There is a
>place for dogma. There is a place for taking one's stand on the
>principles and teachings of the Bible. But there is also a place for
>the moving of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual or the
>assembly of believers outside our own particular denomination. We
>must remain humble knowing that His ways are not our ways.

The Holy Spirit *never* contradicts himself. Either a thing is True
or it is not.

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author

--- Let my prayer arise before thee as incense ---

sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Matthew Johnson]

On 12 Apr 2002 00:19:47 GMT, blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver)
wrote:

>
>

>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
>>
>> >If I recall, it was Luther who declared that justification
>> >by faith alone was "the article on which the Church stands
>> >or falls."
>>
>> And that was unfortunate, since the only place 'saved by faith alone'
>> occurs in scripture, it is preceded by 'NOT' (Ja 2:24).
>
>The quote from James is "justified by", not "saved by".

This is true. But you miss the point: NOWHERE in Scripture does it say
we are saved/justified 'by faith ALONE'.

> But
>in any case, it doesn't refute Luther.

I didn't say that it did. Rather, the point I am trying to get to is
that Luther was committing 'eisegesis' by reading passages of
Scripture that say 'saved by faith' as if they read 'saved by faith
ALONE'.

> The sense in which James is using the term justifed is 'vindicated'.

Why are you so sure of this?

> The central theme of James is the outward marks of a genuine faith ("show me your
>faith", "prove yourselves doers").

But you are drawing a distinction between inward and outward that
James resolutly _refused_ to draw.

Besides: Both Blessed Theophylact
(http://www.pagez.ru/lsn/0058.php) and Metropolitan Antony
Khrapovitsky have pointed out that James is using 'faith' in one
sense, and Paul in another.

> So the message of 2:24 is
>that good works vindicate a Christian's profession of faith.

No. The message is that faith without works is DEAD, unable to save
anyone. Anyone who tries to weaken this message is preaching another
Gospel.

[snip]

>It's from a lecture I have on tape, talking about how things
>fell apart after the Marburg Colloquy. I will listen to the tape
>again to get you the name of the Melanchthon scholar who makes
>this claim.

Thank you. I look forward to seeing it.

[snip]

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Stephen Adams]

Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:

>>>> Where do you draw the line, then? Once the doctrine
>>>> of Sola Scriptura was adopted (albeit, in a corrupted
>>>> form from what Luther stated), there was no check on
>>>> the endless doctrinal disagrements, all claiming the
>>>> authority of the Scriptures.
>>>
>>>This is really the question, isn't it?
>>
>> Yep.
>
>Nope. The disagreements are seldom two sides claiming
>authority of Scripture. Rather, it is one or both sides
>claiming that Scripture doesn't apply in this or that case.

I would disagree. I have personally read through tomes
and tomes of "Scripture says X, not Y" arguing purely on
the basis of Scripture.

>Further, you two (Steve and Dave) seem to be confusing
>Sola Scriptura with private interpretation on this subthread.
>The second does not follow logically from the first.

With the exception of the traditional (!) Lutheran position,
the two are intertwined and imply each other in most of the
20,000+ instances I was referring to.

<< snip >>

>Man, I'd kill for a good ol' interpretation to argue with,
>but there's nary a soul left who cares what the objective
>Word of God is. How can you blame the 20,000+ denominations
>on "differing interpretations" when none of these folks
>think the Bible is God's Word except when a verse happens
>to touch them on that rare occasion when they do happen to
>read a Psalm.

;-)

Of course, you have a point. But this does not mean that
warring theolgies, both claiming to be grounded in the
Scriptures do not exist.

<< snip >>

>> The solution is, as I see it, to return to the ancient
>> doctrines of the Church, to the faith expressed by the
>> 7 Eccumenical Councils.
>
>13. It doesn't matter if it's true or false, just so
> there's no schism.

Whic is not what I said nor what I meant. You yourself
would agree that the Truth is non-negotiable, even when
we don't like it.

>You're beating the wrong horse, Steve.

Perhaps, but remember, it's those denominations or groups
who claim "The bible says...." (with our without the list
of caveats you included in your original post).

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author

--- Let my prayer arise before thee as incense ---

sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Publius]

blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) wrote in message news:<a8ksip$ss9>

> If you affirm it, the downside is that any kook with a
> Bible can start spouting deviant doctrine.

And what's wrong with that? The open marketplace of ideas and
doctrines will, in the long run, filters out the "deviant" doctrines
and preserves the good ones.

Publius

[Loren]

sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote in message news:<a97akj$gnt$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) writes:
> >sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote:
> >
> >> In the East, it is neither the individual nor the Bishops
> >> who are the "sole" determinres of doctrine, but the entire
> >> church, Bishops and laity together.
> >
> >It is still infinite.

sorry, I meant to type -finite.

>> It still, whether individually or corporately,
> >involves sinful men for interpretation. Your bishops have no more
> >claim to infallibility than does the Pope and his college or the
> >Presbyterians in the WCF or any independent Baptist church
> >constitution. The whole thing hinges upon inSpiration, does it not.
> >Basically you are saying that the Spirit only has to do with the
> >Orthodox church and no other. Extreme? No, just taking the
> >presupposition to fruition.
>
> What does Christ's promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit to
> the Church mean? What does it mean that the Church is the pilar
> and ground of the truth?

Study your OT. I've already written about "Pillar" in its Hebraic
context. But I think most of what you have written in this reply
revolves around the definition of "Church." For me, "Church" has
little to nothing to do with a denomination. The assembly of
believers is just that, an assembling of individual regenerated
believers. Universally it is all who are "in Christ" from the time of
Pentecost till the fulness of time is filled up for the Gentiles and
the Bride of Christ is raptured from earth. But immediately the
Church could be where ever two or three gather in His name. It is not
an organized denomination such as the RCC or EOC. It also is not
Baptist or Luthern or another sort of denomination. There are members
of the Bride of Christ is each but no of them as an entity represent
the "Church" in and of themselves. This goes to follow the paradigm
of there being neither "Jew nor Greek, etc." This stands opposed to
the religious organization as represented by the Religious Leaders of
Christ day. Unfortunately, in the "church" much of what Christ came
to set the poor, the lame, the unrighteous and sinners from, has just
been born again in the restructurization of the "church." The church
of Laodecia obviously supports this.

> >Jesus who ministry was personal, one-on-one.
> >YHVH is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. His economy basically
> >has never changed. The elect are involved in different dispensations,
> >pre-fall, pre-law, post-law,
> >post-incarnation/death/resurrection/accension.
>
> There are no dispensations. No one has ever been saved by anything
> other than being washed in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

Look, I don't care how you define it or what lables you apply to it,
there are certainly differences in the "ages" in God's economies.
Yes, I completely agree that salvation has been and always will have
its foundation based upon the long promised "seed" of Eve, ie. the
Jewish Messiah. However, God walked in the cool of the night with
Adam. Does today's economy operate under that very same fortune.
Obviously not. Also, the era of Israel operating under the teacher,
the Law, is very much different than this era's economy of "neither
Jew nor Greek." But the promises given in the Abrahamic Covenant
which provided the foundation for the Davidic, the Palestinian, and
the New covenants, were all made with the nation of Israel. God's
relationship with Israel is different than His relationship with the
Church even though both find their salvation in the same object.

For instance, in the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam 7:8-16). The final verse
affirms, "Your *house* and your *kingdom* shall endure before Me
forever; your *throne* shall be established forever." David's
"house" is his dynasty, the coninuation of his descendants as the
family uniquely authorized by God to provide kings for Israel.
David's "kingdom" is his realm, the people over whom his descendants'
rule would extend. (And as I have mentioned, this is all finds its
foundation on the AC of Gen 12"1-3). David's "Throne" is his right to
rule, the divine authority to execue judgment in God's stead. But the
promise to David was not that his throne would be occupied
continuously without interruption, but that his lineage, right to
rule, and people to rule over would not be lost. The eternality of
the Davidic Covenant is built upon the foundation of the eternality of
the AC.

Four evidences of this are:

1) Matt 1:1 and from the very onset calling Jesus the Messiah based
upon "the son of David."
2) The genealogy of Christ's Davidic ancestry through His legal
father Joseph (who is himself called a "son of David," (1:20) and the
genealongy of 1:2-17.
3) The repeated accolades of the needy to Jesus as "son of David"
(for instance, 9:27; 15:22; 20:30-31)
4) The Triumphal Entry when the people shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of
David" (21:9) and which Jesus Himself affirmed (v.16).

God did not displace the Jews by the Church and therefore there very
much remains another "dispensation" where He regathers Israel back to
the land to fulfill faithfully the promises made to the Nation.

In a study of the "Son of Man" as used in Matthews Gospel, a title
used 33 times, each of which are where Jesus refers to Himself. This
title is not a "ambiguous circumlocution" for the personal pronoun "I"
or "me." It has deep theological import, not the least of which deals
with God's economoy with believing Israel. The theme of the returning
Son of Man is one of the great topics (and studies) in Matthew.
Eugene Pond sees the divisions of "Son of Man" in Matthew as
pertaining to 1) earthly authority were the term is used 6 times
especially as the Lord of the Sabbath. 2) As to the ransom for sin
where the term is used 11 times where each time it is directed toward
a public audience and then 3) as a returning royal Judge where the
term is used exclusively in discussion with the desciples them selves.
As the returning royal Judge, he teaches His disciples the mission to
the Jews will continue until the 2nd Adv. In 10:23 Jesus warned His
disciples not to remain in cities where they are persecuted, promising
them that they "will not finish going through the cities of Israel
until the Son of Man comes." Because 10:6 provides the context of the
disciples mission being to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
would result in their being ejected from synagogues and brought before
govenors and kings For His sake (vv 17, 18) -events of which there are
no records before Christ's passion- it is evident that this mission
continued into the apostolic age and extended beyond the area of
Israel. This the the "great commission" to the Jews while at the end
of the Gospel the great commision to the Gentiles is distinquished.
If "you will not finish" refers to the continuation of their mission
then the phrase "to finish [ministering to] the cities" is a promise
that the witnesses would not be persecuted to extinction before the
Lord's return. So, the believing Nation of Israel is still existant
as a distinct part of God's salvific economy apart from the Church.

McDermoot thinks that "telew" may have been chosen to echo "telos" in
10:22 (the one who has endured to the end will be saved") and the
phrase was intentionally worded elliptically to allow for multiple
referents: you will not finishe the preaching (v 14) nor finish the
fleeing (v 23) ["Mt 10:23 in Context"]. He further suggests that this
statement is a "positive exhortation to continue the Jewish mission in
the face of rejection and/or encouragement to overlook that
frustration and see beyond the more verdant harvest field of the
gentile mission."

There are definite "dispensations." I don't care what termonolgy you
use, that they exist is plainly evident even in the Church age itself
as foretold in Rev 2 and 3.

> This is certainly not the Orthodox position - we do not say that the Holy
> Spirit only operates within the Church, nor do we say that all who are
> outside the church are damned.

Doctrinally most certainly, but pragmatically?

>
> >It is a mentality
> >which we must all be sensitive to. That mentality of gnosticism in
> >some form or another. There is gnosis but it is as diverse and yet as
> >unified as the Tri-une God Himself.
>
> So how do we come to know the Truth? And how can we be sure of the Truth?

Boy, that's a tuff one. If we haven't each asked ourselves this
question a 1000 times then we haven't lead an examined faith.
Defining discernment would be a start. Also, defining not that God
changes but that our appreciation and depth of understanding changes
accounts for some of the divergence within the Church. Also, as John
in the Apocalypse, we struggle for the words to define God and His
economy and many times word definition leads to what the Capt'n said,
"What we have 'ere, is a failur' to co-municate." I think there is
much miscommunication on these NG's. For instance, Sarah's contention
that there is no love between "Christians" (as opposed to JW's?)
because of our wide vergant views on doctrinal understandings. They
may be heated at times, but it is (or never should be) personal.

How can we be sure of the "Truth" has so many foundational issues such
as your understanding of sola scriptura, your method interpretation,
your understanding that all faith is based upon some measure of
knowledge. And the dog chases its tail.
>

> >The solution is to humble oneself before the open Bible and allow the
> >Spirit within him to lead.
>
> In other words, the solution is no solution! How do we know what is
> true and what stems from our own personal tastes?
>
> >Either the Spirit leads truthfully or He does not.
>
> The Spirit *only* leads truthfully, but there is only one Truth. Anything
> that diverges from that Truth is not of the Spirit.

But though this is a given, a foundational supposition that is so
obvious that it is often over looked, it still leaves the process of
arriving at that truth in the economy of the personal relationship of
the believer with his God. It is a relationship. That is not just
some platitude. Truth is absolute but it is also personal. I think
there is great significance that we will all be given a secret name
known only to us ourselves and the Lord.

>
> So your answer is "Read and understand for yourself" but then you cite
> the Psalmist saying NOT to do that????? Huh?

Do we not all depend on a secondary Source?

> So Edwards spoke infallibly??

No one speaks infallibly. You push to the extreem hoping to make my
position look untenable and therefore by default hope to make your
position appear to be true. Edwards "truth" is his personal truth in
his personal relationship with God. Who are we to judge except as it
relates to the Scriptures? "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"
might be his most famous sermon, but his discription/sermon on his
visions, though less read and less acknowledge, have a real
significance. I'm surprised that you didn't jump on this as
supporting your position rather than my own!

>
> The Holy Spirit *never* contradicts himself. Either a thing is True
> or it is not.

What is your point? This is the given. I never said otherwise. The
hardness of this is the discernment of the "truth".

[Dave Weaver]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
>
> blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) wrote:
> >
> >matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
> >>
> >> >If I recall, it was Luther who declared that justification
> >> >by faith alone was "the article on which the Church stands
> >> >or falls."
> >>
> >> And that was unfortunate, since the only place 'saved by faith alone'
> >> occurs in scripture, it is preceded by 'NOT' (Ja 2:24).
> >
> >The quote from James is "justified by", not "saved by".
>
> This is true. But you miss the point: NOWHERE in Scripture does it say
> we are saved/justified 'by faith ALONE'.

Also true. We don't say (AFAICT) that sola fide is explicit.
We would claim it is necessarily deduced from passages such
as Romans 3:28 (NAS) "For we maintain that a man is justified
by faith apart from works of the Law."

If justification is by faith apart from works, I'll grant it
is not necessarily by faith alone (on the basis of this one
verse). But if there is a 'something else' which accompanies
faith, as a means of justification, it cannot be works.

> > But
> >in any case, it doesn't refute Luther.
>
> I didn't say that it did. Rather, the point I am trying to get to is
> that Luther was committing 'eisegesis' by reading passages of
> Scripture that say 'saved by faith' as if they read 'saved by faith
> ALONE'.

I don't think this is entirely fair. I think it's more the case
that the reformers, Calvin particularly, give a exegesis of
related passages to necessarily deduce the solas. By the way,
you're intermingling the solas a bit. Sola fide refers to
justification. Sola gracia to salvation.

> > The sense in which James is using the term justifed is 'vindicated'.
>
> Why are you so sure of this?

I think the context supports it. James, with its plethora of
commands (54 in only 108 verses), is focused on Christian
practice -- on the visible outworking of genuine faith in
the life of a believer. In the context of practice, rather
than soteriology, the use of justification more likely
refers to justification/vindication before man. That is,
works are a necessary consequence of faith, and true faith
is vindicated by their presence.

The opening chapters of Romans, on the other hand, deal at
length with soteriology. There's a good probability that
James is earlier than Romans, and if so, it is possible
that Paul is writing to correct the mis-reading of James
as supporting works-based justification.

> > The central theme of James is the outward marks of a genuine faith
> > ("show me your faith", "prove yourselves doers").
>
> But you are drawing a distinction between inward and outward that
> James resolutly _refused_ to draw.
>
> Besides: Both Blessed Theophylact
> (http://www.pagez.ru/lsn/0058.php) and Metropolitan Antony
> Khrapovitsky have pointed out that James is using 'faith' in one
> sense, and Paul in another.

Does that link exist in English? Am I right to assume that the
EO handles this in a similar way to the RCC? That is: Paul
speaks of a "positional" justification through faith, while
James speaks of "infused" justification via works. Beg pardon,
as that's probably a crass way of articulating the difference.

> > So the message of 2:24 is
> >that good works vindicate a Christian's profession of faith.
>
> No. The message is that faith without works is DEAD, unable to save
> anyone.

That's certainly the message of 2:17. Arguably, verse 24 adds
the complimentary idea that works vindicate faith, showing it
to be genuine. The two ideas are not contradictory.

--
Dave Weaver
blue-t...@postmark.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Stephen Adams]

blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) writes:
>sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote :

>> blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) writes:

>> Good to hear from you again.
>
>Good to be heard again (as seldom as time allows).

I understand. It's nice to hear from the "old gang"
every once in a while. You and Bart seem to have come
back about the same time...hmmm... :-)

>>>There are two alternatives, both with dangers. Either you
>>>affirm or deny the principle of private interpretation.
>>>
>>>If you affirm it, the downside is that any kook with a
>>>Bible can start spouting deviant doctrine.
>> >
>>>If you deny it, the downside is the inevitability of an
>>>elitist few (infallibly) dictating doctrine. And when
>>>error does creep in, the organization is utterly incapable
>>>of reform.
>>
>>This descibes the two options as seen/practiced in the
>>West.
>>
>>In the East, it is neither the individual nor the Bishops
>>who are the "sole" determinres of doctrine, but the entire
>>church, Bishops and laity together.
>
>As a westerner, I must say this seems naively idealistic.
>However, I do think it gives some insight into your Church.
>Namely, the only way in which doctrinal conflict is absent
>is for Church doctrine to be completely static (which I'll
>comment on below).

I don't think that doctrine in the East is completely
static. Some things are decided, once and for all, yes,
but certainly not all things.

>The other side of the problem, you do not escape. You do
>view the Church (qua Church) as infallible. By definition,
>then, it is incapable of reform. You will, no doubt, protest,
>saying there is nothing necessitating reform. But as that
>is true by your own definition, it may or may not correspond
>to reality.

This really depends on what you mean by reform. If by that
you mean yielding to the forces of modernism, then, yes, by
definition, reform is impossible. If you mean, rather,
addressing new and important issues, then no, reform is not
impossible.

>> >You might think the consequences of affirming private
>> >interpretation are more dire. The lessons from the western
>> >church in the 16th century suggests otherwise.
>>
>> Are they? There is no reasonable way to check false
>> teaching or belief. Disagreements over intrepretation
>> most often lead to new congregations, not to prayerful
>> resolution of the disagreement.
>>
>> While the disease was horrible, the chosen cure is not
>> all that much better, in the vast majority of cases.
>> One need only read Bart's posts to see what he thinks
>> of the vast majority of bible interpretations.
>>
>> The solution is, as I see it, to return to the ancient
>> doctrines of the Church, to the faith expressed by the
>> 7 Eccumenical Councils.
>
>This is one of the areas of puzzlement we westerners have
>with the east. I remember reading one church historian
>(on CCEL, I think) commenting that the east acts as if
>wisdom began and ended with the seven eccumenical
>councils. Although I don't think it's any wider than the
>eastern variety, forgive me as I pull out the wide brush
>(this is Usenet ;-).

I don't think that this is the case - but, it is the case
that the statements of the Councils are authoritative. What
we don't do it generate new "faith statements" or "doctrinal
statements" on a whim or when the winds blow hither and yon.

>The east did the body of Christ a great service in those
>early centuries in the classic Johannine Christological
>developments. But then, it appears you squatted on that,
>as if no other doctrinal developments were necessary (or
>even possible). So, for example, it fell to the west to
>give a Pauline soteriology a more full development and
>precise articulation -- via Augustine, straight through
>to the Reformation. It fell to the west, through Anselm,
>to give a more thorough development of the doctrine of
>the atonement.

We would argue that Augustine was quite mistaken in his
views - and instead of a more holistic view, he adopted
a Roman legalistic view, of salvation.

>It appears eastern solution to schism is complete
>doctrinal stasis. Do all doctrinal outworkings since
>the eighth century represent a decline?

Not at all.

-Stephen

[Stephen Adams]

pcc...@hotmail.com (Publius) writes:

>
>blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) wrote in message news:<a8ksip$ss9>
>> If you affirm it, the downside is that any kook with a
>> Bible can start spouting deviant doctrine.
>
>And what's wrong with that? The open marketplace of ideas and
>doctrines will, in the long run, filters out the "deviant" doctrines
>and preserves the good ones.

The history of the church, especially since the 16th century,
proves this not to be the case.

-Stephen
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
--- Let my prayer arise before thee as incense ---
sad...@enteract.com "Space-age cybernomad" Stephen Adams

[Matthew Johnson]

On 16 Apr 2002 02:06:41 GMT, blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver)
wrote:

>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
>>
>> blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) wrote:

[snip]

>> This is true. But you miss the point: NOWHERE in Scripture does it say
>> we are saved/justified 'by faith ALONE'.
>
>Also true. We don't say (AFAICT) that sola fide is explicit.
>We would claim it is necessarily deduced from passages such
>as Romans 3:28 (NAS) "For we maintain that a man is justified
>by faith apart from works of the Law."

Well, this means you are a little more careful in your exegesis than
many. But this 'necessary deduction' still conflicts with the rest of
the same Epistle! When, for example, did Paul ever retract his earlier
statement in the same epistle, that God "renders to each according to
his WORKS (Rom 2:6)"?

>If justification is by faith apart from works,

But you have changed the wording already from Paul's: he did not say
'apart from works', he said 'apart from works OF THE LAW'.

The difference is VERY important. By 'works of the Law', he means
obedience to the Torah Commandments, such as Circumcision. The quarrel
over whether or not Gentile converts must be circumcised and follow
the Torah was one of the main reasons Paul wrote Romans.

> I'll grant it
>is not necessarily by faith alone (on the basis of this one
>verse). But if there is a 'something else' which accompanies
>faith, as a means of justification, it cannot be works.

Yes, it can. It cannot be, however, works of the Law.

>> > But
>> >in any case, it doesn't refute Luther.
>>
>> I didn't say that it did. Rather, the point I am trying to get to is
>> that Luther was committing 'eisegesis' by reading passages of
>> Scripture that say 'saved by faith' as if they read 'saved by faith
>> ALONE'.
>
>I don't think this is entirely fair.

After reading Luther's "On the Bondage of the Will", I think it is
entirely fair. Have you read this?

> I think it's more the case
>that the reformers, Calvin particularly, give a exegesis of
>related passages to necessarily deduce the solas.

And when they do, the exegesis looks painfully like an attempt to find
reasoning to support a conclusion they have already made up their
minds on.

>By the way,
>you're intermingling the solas a bit. Sola fide refers to
>justification. Sola gracia to salvation.

And this distinction between 'justification' and 'salvation' is
_another_ instance of Reform eisegesis. So no, it is not that I
intermingled' them, it is that I wanted to address only one instance
at a time.

This is hard to do, since Reform eisegesis _relies_ in intermingling
unwarranted assumptions.

>> > The sense in which James is using the term justifed is 'vindicated'.
>>
>> Why are you so sure of this?
>
>I think the context supports it.

And I think the context does not.

> James, with its plethora of
>commands (54 in only 108 verses), is focused on Christian
>practice

True...

> -- on the visible outworking of genuine faith in
>the life of a believer.

You seem to equate the two. I do not. Neither does Theophylact.

> In the context of practice, rather
>than soteriology, the use of justification more likely
>refers to justification/vindication before man.

But now you are _relying_ on the equation I reject above.

> That is,
>works are a necessary consequence of faith, and true faith
>is vindicated by their presence.

But 'faith' in _which_ sense of the word?

>The opening chapters of Romans, on the other hand, deal at
>length with soteriology.

But when they do, they do _not_ separate them from practice. It was to
remind the reader that they are not separated that Paul said:

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the Law
but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that
whosever servant you are, to whom you yield yourselves?
Whether to sin or to the obedience for righteousness? (Rom 6:15-16)

>There's a good probability that
>James is earlier than Romans, and if so, it is possible
>that Paul is writing to correct the mis-reading of James
>as supporting works-based justification.

But there is also a good probability that it is precisely the other
way around, that James was written to warn people away from the modern
erroneous interpetation of Paul.

>> > The central theme of James is the outward marks of a genuine faith
>> > ("show me your faith", "prove yourselves doers").
>>
>> But you are drawing a distinction between inward and outward that
>> James resolutly _refused_ to draw.
>>
>> Besides: Both Blessed Theophylact
>> (http://www.pagez.ru/lsn/0058.php) and Metropolitan Antony
>> Khrapovitsky have pointed out that James is using 'faith' in one
>> sense, and Paul in another.
>
>Does that link exist in English?

Unfortunately, no. But I thought I did translate parts of it in
another post. But I can't find it now, not even using Google:-(

> Am I right to assume that the
>EO handles this in a similar way to the RCC?

No.

> That is: Paul
>speaks of a "positional" justification through faith, while
>James speaks of "infused" justification via works. Beg pardon,
>as that's probably a crass way of articulating the difference.

This does not sound familiar. So I cannot comment on it except to say
it does not sound like the Orthodox position.

>> > So the message of 2:24 is
>> >that good works vindicate a Christian's profession of faith.
>>
>> No. The message is that faith without works is DEAD, unable to save
>> anyone.
>
>That's certainly the message of 2:17. Arguably, verse 24 adds
>the complimentary idea that works vindicate faith, showing it
>to be genuine. The two ideas are not contradictory.

True, they are not contradictory. But unfortunately, the latter is not
'biblical'. Why, it is not what the verse itself says at all! Recall
that it reads:

You see that a man is justified by works
and not by faith alone (Ja 2:24)

Besides: it also conflicts with the portrait painted of faith and
righteousness in Proverbs, for example. Consider in particular Prv
11:3 & 16:9. These describe a _synergy_ of man's walking in the
commandments and God's guidance. It is not that of mere 'vindication'.

So the plain meaning we see at first glance in Ja 2:24 stands. It
alone is consistent with the rest of Scripture, the idea that it
refers only to 'vindication' is not.

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Dave Weaver]

Stephen Adams <sad...@enteract.com> writes:

> blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) writes:
> >sad...@enteract.com (Stephen Adams) wrote :
> >> blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) writes:
>
> >> Good to hear from you again.
> >
> >Good to be heard again (as seldom as time allows).
>
> I understand. It's nice to hear from the "old gang"
> every once in a while. You and Bart seem to have come
> back about the same time...hmmm... :-)

Now if Bob Felts starts posting again, you should head out
to Arlington Park and bet the trifecta.

<heavy snippage>

> >The other side of the problem, you do not escape. You do
> >view the Church (qua Church) as infallible. By definition,
> >then, it is incapable of reform. You will, no doubt, protest,
> >saying there is nothing necessitating reform. But as that
> >is true by your own definition, it may or may not correspond
> >to reality.
>
> This really depends on what you mean by reform. If by that
> you mean yielding to the forces of modernism, then, yes, by
> definition, reform is impossible. If you mean, rather,
> addressing new and important issues, then no, reform is not
> impossible.

What I meant was reform in the 16th century sense. We
claim Rome deviated on doctrine -- and was (in a sense)
incapable of correction, due to their views of the
'infallibility' of the Church.

My point is that the same danger exists for the EO. If
you go wrong on a fundamental doctrine -- you can't
self-correct without the tacit admission that (for at
least that time) the EO was not the pillar and ground of
truth, and therefore not the church at all. Your view of
the church will force you to go to bat for the devation.

I understand that your view of "pillar and ground" means
that you are protected from deviations. But if the EO is
wrong on that point, the whole edifice can tumble.

--
Dave Weaver
blue-t...@postmark.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Dave Weaver]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
> blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) wrote:
>
> >matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
> >>
> >> blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> This is true. But you miss the point: NOWHERE in Scripture does it say
> >> we are saved/justified 'by faith ALONE'.
> >
> >Also true. We don't say (AFAICT) that sola fide is explicit.
> >We would claim it is necessarily deduced from passages such
> >as Romans 3:28 (NAS) "For we maintain that a man is justified
> >by faith apart from works of the Law."
>
> Well, this means you are a little more careful in your exegesis than
> many. But this 'necessary deduction' still conflicts with the rest of
> the same Epistle!

No, it is exactly consistent with the context, as shown
by the illustration Paul uses to make his point.

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something
to boast about, but not before God. For what does the
Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED
TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Rom 4:2,3 (NAS)

Paul, of course, refers to the incident recorded in Gen 15:

Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him
as righteousness. Gen 15:6 (NAS)

Abraham was justified by his believing the Lord -- at the
time of his believing the Lord.

James refers to the offering up of Isaac, a much later
event in Abraham's life, recorded in Genesis 22. But
according to Paul, "seven chapters" earlier Abraham had
already been justified by God, in the sense of being
rendered righteous or declared just. Therefore, James
must be writing of Abraham being justified in some other
sense: that the offering of Isaac vindicated his faith,

showing it to be genuine.

So the illustration that Paul uses supports the doctrine
of justification by faith alone, as well as the reformed
understanding of James 2 as vindication of faith (which is
an accepted definition of dikaio; c.f. Luke 7:35).

<big snip>

> >That is, works are a necessary consequence of faith,
> > and true faith is vindicated by their presence.
>
> But 'faith' in _which_ sense of the word?

A vital trusting in Christ and in his work.

Nobody who understands reformation theology would make
the absurd claim that justification is by mental assent
alone.

--
Dave Weaver
blue-t...@postmark.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Matthew Johnson]

On 7 May 2002 10:40:13 GMT, blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver)
wrote:

>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
>> blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) wrote:
>>
>> >matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> This is true. But you miss the point: NOWHERE in Scripture does it say
>> >> we are saved/justified 'by faith ALONE'.
>> >
>> >Also true. We don't say (AFAICT) that sola fide is explicit.
>> >We would claim it is necessarily deduced from passages such
>> >as Romans 3:28 (NAS) "For we maintain that a man is justified
>> >by faith apart from works of the Law."
>>
>> Well, this means you are a little more careful in your exegesis than
>> many. But this 'necessary deduction' still conflicts with the rest of
>> the same Epistle!
>
>No, it is exactly consistent with the context, as shown
>by the illustration Paul uses to make his point.

As I said, you are a little more careful in your exegesis than many.
But you have still misread the context by reading it too narrowly. You
have to look not at the one chapter, but at the whole letter. When I
do this, I reach the same conclusion Theophylact did, that the context
is set not by 'works' versus 'faith', but by the need for Paul's
audience to stop relying on themselves and rely instead on Christ and
endure persecution. The most egregious instance of this fatal
self-reliance, the instance that presents the most immediate threat,
is that of forcing Gentile converts to become circumcised and follow
the _whole_ Mosaic Law. Acts and Galatians also show that this was a
widespread problem.

This is what sets the context.

> For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something
> to boast about, but not before God. For what does the
> Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED
> TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Rom 4:2,3 (NAS)
>
>Paul, of course, refers to the incident recorded in Gen 15:
>
> Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him
> as righteousness. Gen 15:6 (NAS)
>
>Abraham was justified by his believing the Lord -- at the
>time of his believing the Lord.

'Justified' in which sense? 'Believed' in which sense? After all, if
he really was declared or made wholly righteous right then, what
_need_ was there for the testing of his faith offering up Isaac?

>James refers to the offering up of Isaac, a much later
>event in Abraham's life, recorded in Genesis 22. But
>according to Paul, "seven chapters" earlier Abraham had
>already been justified by God, in the sense of being
>rendered righteous or declared just. Therefore, James
>must be writing of Abraham being justified in some other
>sense: that the offering of Isaac vindicated his faith,
>showing it to be genuine.

Then did God not even know that it was genuine seven chapters earlier?
How strange an idea!

I am glad to see that you recognize there are multiple senses to
'jutify'. Now if only you recognized that there are also multiple
sense to 'save', 'salvation', 'faith', 'believe', 'works' and even
'grace'! Then you would see how you have misread the context (together
with the 'reformers'), and assumed the wrong sense for 'justify'
because you were not aware of the multiple senses of these other
words.

After all, the need to humble them is shown by Rom 2:1 & 3:19, the
need for them to endure trials and temptation emerging victorious in
persistence in righteous deeds is shown by 2:9-10, 2:13, 8:12 and
others.

BTW: if, as you say, sola fide is 'implicit', then why, oh why, does
Paul _never_ take back his words when he says:

Therefore not those who hear the Law are justified before God
but those who _do_ the Law. (Rom 2:13 )??

>So the illustration that Paul uses supports the doctrine
>of justification by faith alone,

No, unless you mean 'faith' in the sense of Theophylact, who calls it
"the following from the heart of what has been firmly assented to"
(infra). It still looks doubtful that this is what you mean.

> as well as the reformed
>understanding of James 2 as vindication of faith (which is
>an accepted definition of dikaio; c.f. Luke 7:35).

Certainly not! 'Accepted' by whom? Not by the native speakers of
Koine, who explain 'faith' in James as follows:

Begin quote--------------
The Apostle James wrote his epistle to the Twelve Tribes in Dispersion
who believed in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and he wrote it with a didactic
aim. In it, he teaches that there are different kinds of temptations;
some from God, some from the human heart itself. He also teaches that
faith must show itself not just in words, but in deeds, and that the
doers of the Law are justified, not those who hear only (PG 125)
End quote---------------

And also:

Begin quote-------------
He does not contradict the blessed Paul; for the word 'faith' has two
senses: the one is simple assent of the mind to an idea. For we call
this 'faith' such as when the demons said they believed Christ to be
the Son of God. But again, we also call 'faith' the following from the
heart of what has been firmly assented to.

[if this is what you are calling 'vindication of faith', I would
agree, but I would still have to say the term is a poor one, since
Paul calls this 'faith'.]

Saint James calls this first faith, the simple assent, 'dead faith',
as it is deprived of the vivifying works. But Paul calls that which is
from the heart 'faith', which surely is not lacking works. Nor could
it come into being without honest works. Even Abraham found this faith
until he decided to renounce his father's error, after which contest
he was given faith as a prize. This is the faith Paul prefers to the
works of the Law , the Sabbaths, and the circumcision, and the other
observances. For the word 'work' has two meanings: even those things
that make faith firm, (without which faith is dead), are called
'works'. Also, the observances of the Law are called 'works'. Without
these 'works', Abraham and all those who are in Christ are justified;
for who will contradict the saying that faith (I mean faith of works)
will not approach evil? Just as myrrh cannot be preserved in a
container full of filth, so also the faith of God will not be found in
an unclean man. Thus the holy apostles are not found to contradict
each other, but are speaking in different senses, each choosing that
sense that best fits his purpose. (PG 125 comm. on James 2:17-19)
End quote---------------

'PG' stands for "Patrologia Graeca". Vol 125 is the commentary of
Blessed Theophylact, a native speaker of (somewhat late) Koine Greek
and sainted bishop.

><big snip>
>
>> >That is, works are a necessary consequence of faith,
>> > and true faith is vindicated by their presence.
>>
>> But 'faith' in _which_ sense of the word?
>
>A vital trusting in Christ and in his work.

Still not consistent with the native speakers interpretation above.
Yet that 'vital trusting' in Christ is certainly necessary.

>Nobody who understands reformation theology would make
>the absurd claim that justification is by mental assent
>alone.

Yet unfortunately, I find this claim pretty common both in the NG and
in American society at large. Why else would they claim that they
cannot lose their _eternal_ salvation? Yet they do claim this.

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Bart Goddard]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in
news:abb906$6m6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:

>>James refers to the offering up of Isaac, a much later
>>event in Abraham's life, recorded in Genesis 22. But
>>according to Paul, "seven chapters" earlier Abraham had
>>already been justified by God, in the sense of being
>>rendered righteous or declared just. Therefore, James
>>must be writing of Abraham being justified in some other
>>sense: that the offering of Isaac vindicated his faith,
>>showing it to be genuine.
>
> Then did God not even know that it was genuine seven chapters earlier?
> How strange an idea!
>
> I am glad to see that you recognize there are multiple senses to
> 'jutify'. Now if only you recognized that there are also multiple
> sense to 'save', 'salvation', 'faith', 'believe', 'works' and even
> 'grace'! Then you would see how you have misread the context (together
> with the 'reformers'), and assumed the wrong sense for 'justify'
> because you were not aware of the multiple senses of these other
> words.

You are grossly and sadly mistaken, Matthew (and it is
just this arrogance that makes it impossible to have an
intelligent conversation with you) if you think that Dave
and the reformers are/were unaware of the senses of the
meanings of these words. Fercryinoutloud, all they (RC,
Lutheran and Calvinist) did during the Reformation was try
to find mutually acceptable definitions for these words
and it was the failure to do so that left the Church split.

Your impression that the reformers were ignorant of these
issues is tantamount to the impression that the Reformation
never took place. Once again, you remain out of the loop and
it is pointless IMO to try to engage you in meaningful dialog.
Dave Weaver would give you the most charitable and even
handed discussion you could ever hope for and in return
you offer him nothing but pontiffical posturing. If you'd
give him a fair chance and not turn every exchange into
another <yawn> cheap shot at Luther, you might learn something.
But I think Dave's wasting his time. All he's going to get
nothing but terabytes of repetition that he doesn't
"see", but not one bit about _why_ he ought to see it.

Bart

[Loren]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<abb906$6m6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>..

>
> As I said, you are a little more careful in your exegesis than many.
> But you have still misread the context by reading it too narrowly. You
> have to look not at the one chapter, but at the whole letter. When I
> do this, I reach the same conclusion Theophylact did,

Theophylact. . . .Theophylact. . . .Theophylact I'm beginning to
wonder if you don't think Theophylact is the 2nd coming of Christ. He
is all you ever quote from as an authority. I'm not knocking him (as
I have hardly read his works) but there is no man outside of the
apostles who speaks in an authoritative way to which you seem to
accredit Theophylact. Over this last year, if I didn't know better,
I'd think that Theophylact was the leader of some cult similar to the
Davidians or that guy who took his flock down to So America only to
have them all commit suicide. Your "high reverence" of Theophylact is
much akin to Cindy's worship of "Tradition of the RCC!"

[Matthew Johnson]

On 8 May 2002 20:16:11 GMT, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net>
wrote:

>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in

[snip]

>> I am glad to see that you recognize there are multiple senses to
>> 'jutify'. Now if only you recognized that there are also multiple
>> sense to 'save', 'salvation', 'faith', 'believe', 'works' and even
>> 'grace'! Then you would see how you have misread the context (together
>> with the 'reformers'), and assumed the wrong sense for 'justify'
>> because you were not aware of the multiple senses of these other
>> words.
>
>You are grossly and sadly mistaken,

Of course, I knew _someone_ would say this...

> Matthew (and it is
>just this arrogance that makes it impossible to have an
>intelligent conversation with you)

And of course, I knew that some would be quick to jump to the excuse
of my alleged 'arrogance' -- as people so often do when they are told
they are wrong.

> if you think that Dave
>and the reformers are/were unaware of the senses of the
>meanings of these words.

Do you really think I have not read any of the Reformers myself? Do
you really think I am relying solely on my own fallible judgement
without having seen my claim backed up in authors with better
resources than my own? If the answer to any of these is 'yes', then it
is you who are 'grossly and sadly mistaken'.

In fact, Khrapovitsky makes much the same claim. But there is no sense
in citing him, since he bases his arguments half on the Slavonic, half
on the Greek, the translation of his works into English is incomplete
and out-of-print, and only fractions of his works are on the Web at
all. Not to mention the West underestimates his authority, not
appreciating his sanctity and erudition.

>Fercryinoutloud, all they (RC,
>Lutheran and Calvinist) did during the Reformation was try
>to find mutually acceptable definitions for these words
>and it was the failure to do so that left the Church split.

And _why_ did they fail? Could it be because neither the Romans nor
the Reformers really knew Greek that well?

>Your impression that the reformers were ignorant of these
>issues is tantamount to the impression that the Reformation
>never took place.

No, it is not. Rather, it is tantamount to saying that the West was
just _beginning_ to relearn Greek when the Reformation took place.
Pelikan showed in his series "The History of Christian Dogma", that
Rome really had forgotten the Greek roots of Christianity and could
not even read the NT in Greek, much less the Fathers, without major
misunderstanding. It was in such an atmosphere that the Reformation
took place.

For his day, Calvin was a good Greek scholar, but the entire West was
still rebuilding Greek scholarship. Only hundreds of years later could
the West claim to have matched (or even surpassed) the level of Greek
scholarship in the East.

>Once again, you remain out of the loop and
>it is pointless IMO to try to engage you in meaningful dialog.
>Dave Weaver would give you the most charitable and even
>handed discussion you could ever hope for and in return
>you offer him nothing but pontiffical posturing.

Interesting you should see it that way. I see the 'pontiffical [sic]
posturing' more in your posts.

> If you'd give him a fair chance

That _is_ a fair chance. He can still show that they _did_ know these
different senses, and so can you -- unless, of course, it isn't even
true.

So instead of complaining, why won't you take up the challenge? Show
me where, in the writings of the Reformers, they are aware of each of
the senses of these words as listed in Bauer, for example. Then and
only then will you have proved your point.

[snip]

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Matthew Johnson]

On 9 May 2002 13:40:53 GMT, lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote:

>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<abb906$6m6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>..
>>
>> As I said, you are a little more careful in your exegesis than many.
>> But you have still misread the context by reading it too narrowly. You
>> have to look not at the one chapter, but at the whole letter. When I
>> do this, I reach the same conclusion Theophylact did,
>
>Theophylact. . . .Theophylact. . . .Theophylact I'm beginning to
>wonder if you don't think Theophylact is the 2nd coming of Christ. He
>is all you ever quote from as an authority.

Well, not quite, but I do quote _mostly_ from him because almost all
of his commentary is on the Web, so easily accessible.

>I'm not knocking him (as
>I have hardly read his works) but there is no man outside of the
>apostles who speaks in an authoritative way to which you seem to
>accredit Theophylact.

And _why_ are you so sure of this?

> Over this last year, if I didn't know better,
>I'd think that Theophylact was the leader of some cult similar to the
>Davidians or that guy who took his flock down to So America only to
>have them all commit suicide.

Well, that _is_ why we give such 'reverence' only to the dead saints,
so that it can't go to their heads and deceive them into acting like
Koresh! Some say that is roughly happened with Rasputin: the whole
world has good reason to believe he was pretty deranged towards the
end, but his commentaries on the Psalms are breathtaking. And even
secular historians agree he could heal the Tsarevitch from his
internal bleeding (take that, Contrarius). It appears that once upon a
time, even he was holy; but then he fell. A fallen holy man can be
incredibly dangerous.

>Your "high reverence" of Theophylact is
>much akin to Cindy's worship of "Tradition of the RCC!"

Ouch!

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[CINDY SMITH]

In article <abdu95$d50$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, lsen...@hotmail.com
(Loren) writes:

> matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in
message news:<abb906$6m6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>..

>> As I said, you are a little more careful in your exegesis than many.
>> But you have still misread the context by reading it too narrowly. You
>> have to look not at the one chapter, but at the whole letter. When I
>> do this, I reach the same conclusion Theophylact did,

> Theophylact. . . .Theophylact. . . .Theophylact I'm beginning to
> wonder if you don't think Theophylact is the 2nd coming of Christ. He

> is all you ever quote from as an authority. I'm not knocking him (as

> I have hardly read his works) but there is no man outside of the
> apostles who speaks in an authoritative way to which you seem to

> accredit Theophylact. Over this last year, if I didn't know better,

> I'd think that Theophylact was the leader of some cult similar to the
> Davidians or that guy who took his flock down to So America only to

> have them all commit suicide. Your "high reverence" of Theophylact is

> much akin to Cindy's worship of "Tradition of the RCC!"

I worship Jesus Christ, not the Tradition of the Church. The
Tradition of the Catholic Church is the Word of God, not God.
Similarly, Scripture is the Word of God, not God, so Scripture should
not be worshiped either.

--

Cindy Smith I have further observed under the sun that
c...@dragon.com The race is not won by the swift,
c...@5sc.net Nor the battle by the valiant;
c...@romancatholic.org Nor is bread won by the wise,
Nor wealth by the intelligent,
Me transmitte sursum, Nor favor by the learned.
Caledoni! -- JPS Ecclesiastes 9:11

[Bart Goddard]

abf83i$qdq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
Message-ID: <Xns920A523B7...@66.40.56.92>
User-Agent: Xnews/L5
Date: 10 May 2002 07:50:49 -0500
Lines: 21

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in

news:abf83i$qdq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:

> So instead of complaining, why won't you take up the challenge? Show
> me where, in the writings of the Reformers, they are aware of each of
> the senses of these words as listed in Bauer, for example. Then and
> only then will you have proved your point.

Here's the trouble: You never know what "my point" or
anyone else's point is. I will have "proved my point" when
when someone reads your post, since my point is not "that
the reformers and Dave know what they're talking about".

Rather, my point point is: "Matthew won't shut up long
enough to listen to what Dave is saying, and that's a crying
shame." And that point has been well proven. I'm not
complaining; just stating a fact. The conversation is always
about a different topic than what you think it is.

[Matthew Johnson]

On 10 May 2002 14:04:31 GMT, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net>
wrote:

>
>

>abf83i$qdq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>Message-ID: <Xns920A523B7...@66.40.56.92>
>User-Agent: Xnews/L5
>Date: 10 May 2002 07:50:49 -0500
>Lines: 21
>
>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in
>news:abf83i$qdq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:
>
>
>> So instead of complaining, why won't you take up the challenge? Show
>> me where, in the writings of the Reformers, they are aware of each of
>> the senses of these words as listed in Bauer, for example. Then and
>> only then will you have proved your point.
>
>Here's the trouble: You never know what "my point" or
>anyone else's point is. I will have "proved my point" when
>when someone reads your post, since my point is not "that
>the reformers and Dave know what they're talking about".
>
>Rather, my point point is: "Matthew won't shut up long
>enough to listen to what Dave is saying, and that's a crying
>shame." And that point has been well proven.

Not it is not 'well proven', nor can it be, because it is false.
I do know what both of you are talking about, and for anything you say
to be true, the Reformers _would_ have to know what they wer etalking
about. So for you to make your point anything other than an
unsupportable claim, you have to show that I was wrong, i.e., they
really did know what they were talking about. According to you, it
should be easy. So what are you waiting for?

Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.

Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Dave Weaver]

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote:
> blue-t...@postmark.net (Dave Weaver) wrote:

<snip>

> > For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something
> > to boast about, but not before God. For what does the
> > Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED
> > TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Rom 4:2,3 (NAS)
> >
> >Paul, of course, refers to the incident recorded in Gen 15:
> >
> > Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him
> > as righteousness. Gen 15:6 (NAS)
> >
> >Abraham was justified by his believing the Lord -- at the
> >time of his believing the Lord.
>
> 'Justified' in which sense? 'Believed' in which sense? After all, if
> he really was declared or made wholly righteous right then, what
> _need_ was there for the testing of his faith offering up Isaac?

James offers the principle: for God's glory and Abraham's good.
It has nothing to do with something lacking in his justification.

Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various
trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces
endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so
that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
James 1:2-4 (NAS)

> >James refers to the offering up of Isaac, a much later
> >event in Abraham's life, recorded in Genesis 22. But
> >according to Paul, "seven chapters" earlier Abraham had
> >already been justified by God, in the sense of being
> >rendered righteous or declared just. Therefore, James
> >must be writing of Abraham being justified in some other
> >sense: that the offering of Isaac vindicated his faith,
> >showing it to be genuine.
>
> Then did God not even know that it was genuine seven chapters
> earlier? How strange an idea!

Strange indeed, in that you missed the point. The vindication
is before _men_, not God. Indeed, what does James say:

I will show you my faith by my works. Jam 2:18 (NAS)

Show _you_, not show God. God knows whether or not a man's
faith is genuine. Good works are the vehicle by which the
reality of saving faith is vindicated before men.

> I am glad to see that you recognize there are multiple senses to
> 'jutify'. Now if only you recognized that there are also multiple
> sense to 'save', 'salvation', 'faith', 'believe', 'works' and even
> 'grace'!

Now where did you dream up this particular nonsense? If you
think we make no distinctions in these concepts, you know
less of the reformation then you would have us believe.

In the case of faith, notitia, assensus, and fiducia are the
classical reformed distinctions. It is similarly easy to find
the distinguishing in grace between common and effectual. The
reformed view does not deny multiple senses of salvation.
There is a sense in which we are saved, are being saved,
have been being saved, will be being saved and that we will
be saved (and probably a few more). Of course, there are some
senses of these terms we reject as unbiblical, i.e., Rome's
2nd plank of justification. But your above assertion is most
untrue, and should be withdrawn.

<snip>

> BTW: if, as you say, sola fide is 'implicit', then why, oh why, does
> Paul _never_ take back his words when he says:
>
> Therefore not those who hear the Law are justified before God
> but those who _do_ the Law. (Rom 2:13 )??

Do you stop reading there? What does Paul go on to say?

He immediately says both Jew and gentile are guilty under the
Law, are under sin, _failing_ to obtain justification in this
way (2:17-3:20).

What hope have we, then? Meditate on the sweetness of Paul's
answer -- heaven will open:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has
been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ
for all those who believe; Romans 3:21,22a

(This is, perhaps, the second most blessed "but" in Scripture
to Ephesians 2:4.) My justification -- my forgiveness and my
appropriating the righteousness of Christ is through faith,
via my believing -- just as it was for Abraham.

> >So the illustration that Paul uses supports the doctrine
> >of justification by faith alone,
>
> No, unless you mean 'faith' in the sense of Theophylact, who calls it
> "the following from the heart of what has been firmly assented to"
> (infra). It still looks doubtful that this is what you mean.

This is exactly the sense the reformers meant -- justification
is by a genuine trust and relying on Christ, and that alone. It
is this faith which is the necessary and sufficient condition
for justification -- forgiveness of sin and obtaining the
merit of Christ. If faith is genuine, works will follow, but
they are not a condition of justification.

Thank you for the quotes from Theophylact. I want to focus on
one sentence:

> Saint James calls this first faith, the simple assent, 'dead faith',
> as it is deprived of the vivifying works.

This is the exact point of disagreement. Blessed Theophylact
has it exactly backwards. Works do not give life to faith.
This gives man credit undeserved. It is genuine faith (which
is a gift of God) which "gives life" to good works.

I find Theophylact's analysis unconvincing.

--
Dave Weaver
blue-t...@postmark.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))

[Bart Goddard]

abgk1f$bk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> <abhc7h$n0n$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
Message-ID: <Xns920B81E81...@66.40.56.92>
User-Agent: Xnews/L5
Date: 11 May 2002 12:31:28 -0500
Lines: 20

matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in

news:abhc7h$n0n$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:

> Not it is not 'well proven', nor can it be, because it is false.
> I do know what both of you are talking about, and for anything you say

> to be true, the Reformers....

No, you don't know what I'm talking about, because
you just said "Reformers" and I'm not talking about
Reformers. I'm talking about you not listening. My
point is about you, not the Reformers, and my point
is true. And it is proven because you're still speaking
as if I were talking about the Reformers when I am not.
If you were listening, you would realize I am talking
about you and that my point is about you. Since you
are not listening, you don't realize that my point is
about you. Therefore, my point, which is: "Matthew is
incapable of listening" is completely proven.

[KAMillikin]

Cindy said...

I worship Jesus Christ, not the Tradition of the Church. The
Tradition of the Catholic Church is the Word of God, not God.
Similarly, Scripture is the Word of God, not God, so Scripture should
not be worshiped either.

So Cindy we meet again....

How about this one?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
WAS God.

Mark 4:14 The sower soweth the word.[the word was God]
Mark 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word [the word was God]
is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away
the word that was sown in their hearts.
Mark 4:17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time:
afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake,
immediately they are offended.
Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. [ and the word
is God]
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh,{God was made flesh in the person of
Jesus Christ} and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of
the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This verse also goes with what you said.......

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which
ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Is the tradition of the Catholic church making the word of God of none effect?
Is this where you really want to be?

[Dave Weaver]

Earlier in this thread, I promised Matthew Johnson more
details on a comment I repeated with regard to Philip
Melanchthon -- specifically on his influence with Martin
Luther over the doctrine of the Lord's supper.

A brief background -- early on, the two main branches in
the Reformation were the German's under Luther and the
Swiss under Ulrich Zwingli. The two sides decided to
meet in 1529 in the city of Marburg, Germany to "compare
notes", as it were, and seek to resolve any differences.

History seems to indicate they were united in practically
all aspects of soteriology, but found themselves at an
impasse over the Lord's supper. The Swiss took the
memorial view -- that Christ was not bodily present in
the sacrament. The German delegation argued for what
is known as consubstantiation, that the body and blood
of Christ enter the bread and wine, but that they
continue to be bread and wine (distinguishing it from
the RC dogma of transubstantiation).

I have a lecture on tape where the speaker speculates
that Luther might have reached an accomodation with the
Swiss -- except that Melanchthon was pulling Luther in
the other direction. Melanchthon held out hope for a
reunification with Rome -- but understood that was
utterly impossible if they accomodated the memorial
view in any sense. The lecturer makes reference to a
contemporary Melanchthon biographer who holds this view.

That author is the late Dr. Clyde L. Manschreck. He
was held a Chair of Religious Studies at Houston's Rice
University and has been called America's leading scholar
on Melanchthon. I expect the case I related above is
laid out in his work "Melanchthon, The Quiet Reformer",
published in 1958.

--
Dave Weaver
blue-t...@postmark.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))