Posted on 09/02/2006 5:53:18 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
I just want to say that I apologize if anyone misunderstood my comments as an attack on either the elder or younger minister in the thread above. I just wanted to make an obvious point about sola scriptura and its practical problems THAT LED TO THE DISPUTE between father and son.
I don't see how anyone can flame you for believing we are all loved by Jesus.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't hash out disputes over doctrine, but you're showing a much better example of charity than I am right now.
Thanks.
You are somewhat correct. That is why one commits to Sola Scriptura in our thinking, to allow God the Holy Spirit to perform that interpretation to our thinking by His work, and then to further sanctify our spirit. As we remain in fellowship with Him, by thinking the Word, His very communication of revealed truth, He is able to look upon our thinking of Him, which is the same thinking of Christ, which He finds to be righteous, and He is free to further have relationship with us and sanctify our spirit by His grace.
If we look to another bfore Him, rather than our faith through Him, we void our faith in God by placing another god before Him. Then He is not able to further bless us in His Perfect Holiness, because His Perfect Righteousness demands Perfect Justice. By our thinking through faith in Him, after repentence and confession through faith in Him, He is again in Perfect Justice, Righteousness and Holiness, free within His own immutable nature, to further grace us with continuing sanctification.
But don;t take my word for it, take His Word, through faith in Him, as He has already provided pastor-teachers for us to follow and learn Bible doctrine to further our faith and renew our hearts through His work within us.
Some outstanding points. In many points of faith, of doctrine, I believe they agree with one another, simply as relatives, and probably as the son may have had some outstandinig parental guidance and tutaledge growing up.
I suspect it isn;t the Bible or the Logos or revealed truth of God that divides men, as much as it is our scarred thinking which has been misshaped from the world about us, our proclivity to sin in the old man, and temptation to substitute our thinking for His Way.
Whereever two believers are both in fellowship with Him, there is no divergent interpretation on the issues which matter to Him and which He has revealed to man. There is a myriad of scarred thinking processes though which complicate things.
One of those scarred thinking processes is when we fail to submit to Him through faith in Christ in anything we perform or think. For example, there are many degenerate believers who have degenerated in morality and slip into false doctrine. Such believers are frequently found as Christian activists and moral do-gooders. They have a tendancy to become legalists or to bounce back to emotionalism as a counterfeit search for happiness or distraction away from fellowship with Him.
Such paths lead to many divergent expressions of doctrine and again some faulty thinking which is attributed to simply 'divergent interpretations'.
"The Pastor" makes an outstanding note, in that one way to reconcile between believers is to simply first to return to God on His grounds and protocol, then love our fellow man as we would love ourselves, and much of those contrived issues tend to lessen in intensity.
This is a real hit piece against Calvary Chapel.
To call Smith a pentecostal is sheer theological ignorance.
They must be leading too many to Christ that the devil needed a full frontal assault.
You wrote: "I will not provide you with another platform for preening."
What preening? How does your failure become my preening?
"You entered the thread as a provocateur; your choice of words made that clear."
How is pointing out the obvious provocative?
"The fact of the matter, that you are loath to admit, is that Roman Catholics church shop with the best of them."
1) AS I PROVED the person who wrote to me was looking for a parish to go to on a vacation. How exactly is that "church shopping"?
2) It's ONE Church. There are many parishes, but ONE Church. If you want to call it "parish shopping" be my guest, but don't call it what it isn't.
"Their only constraint is that it has to be in the franchise."
Oh, so now you are tacitly admitting it is ONE Church. Thanks.
"Your response indicates a Pharisaical proclivity for gotcha."
So when you make an error, and someone proves that you OBJECTIVELY made an error, that means the person who was right is a pharisee? That is a seriously twisted piece of logic. Also, you went through my old posts looking for something to bring up. Who here then has a proclivity for "gotcha"? Are you the kettle or the pot?
"I notice that although you quote certain things, you only comment on segments ignoring those that do not support your position."
No, you didn't notice that because no such thing happened. Somethings written are simply extraneous. I usually comment on everything or almost everything someone writes to me. In fact I usually quote what a person wrote and write a comment right underneath it. You, however, have dodged a number of comments and questions directed at you. I wrote, IN JUST ONE POST, the following which you completely ignored:
1) "Really? So how do you explain, using sola scriptura, the Bible alone, that Matthew is inspired or that the gospel of Matthew was in fact written by Matthew?"
(you offered no response whatsoever)
2) "What explanation is tortured about the Avignon Papacy? The popes moved to Avignon. So what? That's the Avignon Papacy. Do you really know what you're talking about? Apparently not."
(you offered no response whatsoever)
3) "Unbiblical? Like sola scriptura? Or condemned like sola fide (James 2:24)?"
(you offered no response whatsoever)
4) "Absurd? I know of unions that were definitely not properly made marriages. How is that fact absurd?"
(you offered no response whatsoever)
5) "When you say something intelligent let me know. I should point out that in my posts I actually focused on the article and sola scriptura. You are all over the place throwing darts hoping something will stick. Where's the kitchen sink?"
(you offered no response whatsoever)
6) "No? So the Church has no responsibility to truth? Did Christ not send the Church out into the world to teach and baptize? Wouldn't that duty to teach people automatically include a responsibility to teach truthfully?"
(you offered no response whatsoever)
I asked a number of questions. You made no response, offered no reply, whatsoever. I made a number of points. You dodged them all. You said exactly nothing in response to much of what was posted.
Again, are you the kettle or the pot?
I read your post. First you make a case of sorts for a belief in sola scriptura (urging reliance on the Holy Spirit as a way to combat differing interpretations).
Then, however, you wrote: "But don;t take my word for it, take His Word, through faith in Him, as He has already provided pastor-teachers for us to follow and learn Bible doctrine to further our faith and renew our hearts through His work within us."
Thus, you seem to urge sola scriptura first, and then you urge us to follow pastors. If I have sola scriptura (and the guidance of the Holy Spirit) why do I need pastors?
You wrote:
"Some outstanding points. In many points of faith, of doctrine, I believe they agree with one another, simply as relatives, and probably as the son may have had some outstandinig parental guidance and tutaledge growing up."
Okay.
"I suspect it isn;t the Bible or the Logos or revealed truth of God that divides men, as much as it is our scarred thinking which has been misshaped from the world about us, our proclivity to sin in the old man, and temptation to substitute our thinking for His Way."
But that is my exact point. It isn't the Bible itself that divides men. Men divide one from the other by their interpretation. Sola scriptura is 100% dependent upon personal interpretation isn't it? So won't it naturally divide men and not resolve issues?
"Whereever two believers are both in fellowship with Him, there is no divergent interpretation on the issues which matter to Him and which He has revealed to man. There is a myriad of scarred thinking processes though which complicate things."
But this father and son are both, according to you I assume, in fellowship with Him, yet they disagree.
"One of those scarred thinking processes is when we fail to submit to Him through faith in Christ in anything we perform or think. For example, there are many degenerate believers who have degenerated in morality and slip into false doctrine. Such believers are frequently found as Christian activists and moral do-gooders. They have a tendancy to become legalists or to bounce back to emotionalism as a counterfeit search for happiness or distraction away from fellowship with Him."
I agree, but isn't that all the more reason to hold sola scriptura suspect? After all, it would seem to be prone to misuse, abuse and endless conflict. Not the scriptures, but sola scriptura.
"Such paths lead to many divergent expressions of doctrine and again some faulty thinking which is attributed to simply 'divergent interpretations'."
Again, I agree, but you don't seem to realize the role of the philosophical framework of sola scriptura which allows people to make these errors in the first place.
""The Pastor" makes an outstanding note, in that one way to reconcile between believers is to simply first to return to God on His grounds and protocol, then love our fellow man as we would love ourselves, and much of those contrived issues tend to lessen in intensity."
But who decides what is a contrived issue? I know many Protestants who think baptism is a contrived issue. Strange view when Jesus linked it to salvation and told His Apostles to teach and baptize the world. And how does sola scriptura even work if you don't know what books are supposed to be in the Bible? Where is the inspired table of contents? How do you know, via sola scriptura, that Matthew's gospel is inspired? Where do you even find sola scriptura in the Bible? If it isn't there then isn't your proposition for sola scriptura self-refuting?
The father: "Every year I believe this could be the year. We're one year closer than we were."
The son: "To use [the Book of Revelation] for prognostication, to me, is just ridiculous…. I knew of a guy who was racking up debt because he just assumed he was going to get raptured and wouldn't have to pay for it."
And how many more lives and testimonies must dispensationalism wreck before we discard it?
I see.
So after you wrote this: "I notice that although you quote certain things, you only comment on segments ignoring those that do not support your position."
And I posted examples of you doing what you falsely accused me of doing (as in your above statement) you are now bowing out.
Thanks for proving my point again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.