Posted on 05/21/2011 4:46:26 AM PDT by marbren
Camping is a victim of replacement theology. IMHO the lie of replacement theology is almost as insidious as idolatry. The key to holistic understanding of Bible prophecy is to understand the role of Israel in it. God keeps his promises to Israel. This is a model to the rest of us that he will keep his promises to us as well.
A majority of the church going world has been victimized. I believed the lie for 35 years. During the past 20 I have been seeking the truth and only recently did I stop saying IMHO replacement theology is a lie and replaced it with: Replacement theology is a lie dropping the IMHO. For those that do not know, Replacement theology is the lie that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s plan.
The church was polluted by Replacement theology early on. Origen and Augustine, early Fathers of the church, were the first to muddy up the scriptures in this way when they arrogantly took on the mantle of Israel for themselves. Martin Luther apparently did not study it and this lead to his anti-Semitism and Hitler. In many ways IMHO it is like a reverse of the circumcision party that led to Acts 15.
This replacement theology lie has lead to the church we have today. Everyone is running around not knowing what is happening in these end times we are in. The truth is The Church, the Bride of Christ, has a role and Israel has a role. Think of men and women, children and parents, husbands and wives, angels and people, dogs and cats, sheep and goats, wheat and tares. All these have roles God invented.
So the solution: Open your Bible, drop your preconceived notions and open your mind, ask God to reveal the truth about all this Israel stuff written in the Bible. The Lord Jesus Christ is central in it all. Gods Grace and Mercy is incredible, He does all the work. Faith and hope and love permeate the entire Bible and the greatest of these is love.
BTW - how do you know you have the correct canon, if not by the tradition of the Catholic Church? no “sola scriptura” believer can answer that question, since the Bible does not contain an inspired table of contents. anyone brave soul want to take a crack at that one???
Who said there is only one Canon of Scripture?
There are plenty of Compilations out there. Heck, the Gideons have at least two, one they drop off in Hotel nightstands, and another with only the NT, Psalms and Proverbs that they used to distribute in the elementary schools.
Rome digs the Apocrypha while Luther wanted to remove James and Revelation for reasons he considered valid. Some folks add in the Gospel of Thomas and other gnostic writings including some ante-Nicene texts. The Canon is still being revised today based on standards and rulings that shift and move through the centuries.
It isn't like the Church had a DVD with thousands of titles to choose from. Where is the first letter that Paul wrote? 1 Corinthians is the second letter - the first was lost or not included in the Canon. The Syriac Pashita doesn't include 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude or Revelation. The pseudoepigraphical text of Paul to Corinth was included in that 1666 Oskan Armeneian Bible. The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible includes Enoch, Jubilees, 1-3 Meqabyan and the Paralipomena of Baruch. The Orthodox Church includes a couple Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, two additional Maccabees than Rome and an Odes.
To speak as if there is only one Canon is to speak in ignorance.
1 Peter 5:8-9 (New International Version)
8 Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
no, not spoken in ignorance. there is only one canon of scripture, God the Holy Spirit preserved the books He wanted in the Bible and inspired the Church to accept them as canonical. Rome doesn’t “dig” the apocrypha, it was in the Bible Jesus used and the Church from the beginning accepted it as Scripture. who cares what non-Catholics believe ( including Luther ), it is the Church that is the pillar of truth.
Sorry, my FRiend, but Camping follows SOLO scriptura. Big difference, HUGE difference.
i have listened to Camping many times and he does have a very good understanding that the OT is types and shadows and the NT is the fulfillment of the OT.
he does not accept sacred tradition for divine revelation and yes, he does hold to sola scriptura. these are just facts and anyone who has listened to his open forum show will agree.
oLofob wrote:
“... sola scriptura was never practiced by the Apostles ...”
You cut down that straw man without even breaking a sweat. I’m impressed. I sure don’t want to tangle with you, pardner. Ahhh’m sure not that brave, no sirree.
the fact that Satan was bound at the Cross, doesn’t mean he still hasn’t been around for 2,000 years. it means that he has no power to stop the spreading of the Gospel and God’s plan of salvation.
all in a day’s work, LOL!
Well, you sho’nuff kin lay yerself down t’night knowin’ ya done yerself right proud with this here’s day’s work.
There were many Early Church "Fathers" who would disagree with you about that. From http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html:
The Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture in the Early Church
It is in the mid–second century in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian that we encounter the first clear articulation of the concept of tradition. Prior to this, we find little use of the word by the earliest fathers, known as the Apostolic Fathers, and the apologists such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras. Rather, we find a constant appeal to the Old and New Testaments as authoritative sources of doctrine. These fathers held a very high view of the authority of the Scriptures because they believed them to be inspired by God. In his Epistle to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome wrote that the Scriptures are the oracles of God.7Â He made reference again and again to the authority of Scripture with the prefix, ‘it is written,’ and quotes both the Old and New Testaments as inspired by the Holy Spirit.8 In the same Epistle, he quotes from the New Testament book of Hebrews:
For it is thus written, ‘Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.’
Polycarp quoted the writings of Paul, calling them Scripture and including them under the general title of sacred Scriptures. Justin Martyr likewise affirmed the inspiration of the Old Testament prophets by the Holy Spirit. Athenagoras gave one of the strongest statements of all the Apostolic Fathers and apologists on the inspired nature of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament:
If we satisfied ourselves with advancing such considerations as these, our doctrines might by some be looked upon as human. But, since the voices of the prophets confirm our arguments—for I think that you also, with your great zeal for knowledge, and your great attainments in learning, cannot be ignorant of the writings either of Moses or of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the other prophets, who, lifted in ecstasy above the natural operations of their minds by the impulses of the Divine Spirit, uttered the things with which they were inspired, the Spirit making use of them as a flute–player breathes into a flute.
There is no appeal in these writings to the concept of tradition as that embraced by the Roman Catholic Church today. They are full of direct quotations from the Old Testament and paraphrases or direct allusions to the New. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers literally breathe the New Testament. With the exception of 3 John and Jude, every book of the New Testament is either cited or alluded to in these early writings. There is no appeal to an oral tradition. The word tradition, when used in its verb form, refers to the handing over of the faith, the means employed being the Scriptures, either the Old or New Testaments. Ellen Flesseman–van Leer makes these observations about the Apologists’ writings:
The only formal authority the Apologists call upon...is Scripture. Aristedes gives first a summary of the main points of the Christian creed and then an exposition of Christian morality, i.e., of the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ. The source of knowledge of this Christian faith is the Scriptures of the Christians.
The Antignostic Fathers
It is with the antignostic fathers of the mid to late second century, in particular Irenaeus and Tertullian, that we see the emergence of the twin concepts of Scripture and tradition. These fathers made reference to a tradition handed down from the apostles which carries inherent authority because, as they contended, it was apostolic in nature. They referred to this teaching repeatedly as the rule of faith or the canon of truth. The question is, What relationship did this apostolic tradition have to Scripture? Was it a body of doctrine different from Scripture in content, oral in nature and therefore a second vehicle of revelation? Or was it a teaching, the content of which is derived from Scripture and therefore subordinate to Scripture in authority? Let us look in detail at the teaching of these two fathers.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus is considered one of the most important of the early Church fathers. He was born around 140 A.D. in Asia Minor and in his early years was acquainted with Polycarp, the martyr from Smyrna, who was a disciple of the apostle John. He later became a bishop of Lyons and was highly respected as a Church leader and theologian. He is principally known for his refutation of the Gnostic heresies and defense of orthodoxy.
Irenaeus’ View of Scripture
Irenaeus leaves his readers in no doubt as to his view of Scripture. He referred to them over and over again as perfect and inspired, divine, the scriptures of the Lord, sacred, and authoritative. The Scriptures embody the fullness of truth handed down to the Church from the apostles, and being inspired, are fully authoritative for proof for the doctrinal teaching of the Church. He states:
Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.
Irenaeus’ criticism of the Gnostic system was the lack of proof for their teaching:
Moreover, they possess no proof of their system, which has but recently been invented by them...Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...
It is clear that what Irenaeus meant by proof was documentation from Scripture. This lack of it proved to him that Gnostic teaching was not apostolic. In fact, Irenaeus goes on to say that if a doctrine cannot be proven from Scripture it is purely speculative and cannot be known. He made it clear that revelation comes only through Scripture, so if Scripture is silent on a subject one cannot pretend to know what it does not reveal. He rejected the legitimacy of speculation on any matter not revealed in Scripture. The importance of this principle is apparent when applied to the subject of tradition. Irenaeus believed that true apostolic tradition cannot be purely oral in nature—it must be verified from the writings of the apostles. This was the point of contention between Irenaeus and his Gnostic opponents. The Gnostics claimed to possess an oral tradition from the apostles which was supplemental to Scripture and immune to the Scriptural proofs demanded by Irenaeus. We will look at this in more detail in a moment. According to Irenaeus, in order for tradition to be demonstrated as truly apostolic it must be documented from Scripture.
He further buttresses his case by stating that Scripture is the medium by which the true apostolic teaching has been handed down to the Church. He acknowledged that the apostles initially preached orally, but goes on to say that their teaching was then committed to writing, and it is that writing—the New Testament—that is the medium by which the apostolic tradition or teaching is handed down to the Church. It is those writings which have become the ground and pillar of the faith of the Church:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
The phrase ‘handed down’ is the verb form of the word ‘tradition.’ What he is saying, then, is that the transmission of apostolic teaching is traditioned by means of Scripture. He writes further that the apostles committed to the Church the fullness of God’s revelation, and therefore, all things pertaining to the truth:
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.
It is clear that Irenaeus taught that Scripture is the pillar and ground of the faith. His reference to the apostles lodging the fullness of truth in the hands of the Church is primarily a reference to Scripture. He does assert that the Church possesses the truth which anyone can ascertain by listening to her preaching, and emphasizing that to embrace the teaching of the Church is to embrace the tradition of the truth:
Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
Irenaeus proposes here a hypothetical situation. The Churches have received the tradition of the truth from the apostles. What, he asks, if they had not left us any writings? Then it would be necessary to follow the teaching, the tradition, of those Churches which have had direct contact with the apostles. The operative phrase here is, ‘what if the apostles had not left us their writings.’ But in point of fact they have left us their writings. And the point he makes is that while the Church does preach and teach orally, the doctrinal content of that preaching and teaching is directly verifiable from the written Scriptures. Irenaeus is not affirming the existence of oral tradition. He is simply presenting a hypothetical situation as a way of combating the Gnostic heretics.
The Bible is the means by which the traditio (tradition), or teaching of the apostles is transmitted from generation to generation and by which true apostolic teaching can be verified and error refuted. Irenaeus actually uses a form of the word ‘tradition’ to convey this idea. The importance of Scripture to Irenaeus as a doctrinal norm can be seen from the fact that, as Ellen Flesseman—van Leer put it:
The entire book of Adversus Haereses is broadly speaking but a demonstration from Scripture that the Church doctrine is right and the gnostic doctrine false...If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is the apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is.
do you even know who St Irenaeus was? He was a Catholic who believed in baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, apostolic succession, only One Holy Catholic Church, the sacrifice of the Mass, Mary as the second Eve.......
still want to try and use St Irenaeus as proof of “sola scriptura”? why not quote any Baptists from the second century? oh yeah, that’s right, there weren’t any, my mistake.
...Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour...
Um,thanks.
But I don't get your point. The very same Peter who wrote this passage also wrote that Satan is bound in chains of darkness. (2 Peter 2:4) Are you demanding literal interpretation and thus trying to invent a contradiction or are you saying one text supersedes another, because if so, then the 2nd letter trumps the first letter.
I beg you to dump the Futurist blinders and read the texts. Both Jude and Peter say Satan and his minions are bound in chains of darkness. (Jude 6) Chains of darkness make a heck of a whole lot more sense than physical metalic chains used to restrain physical beings.
Furthermore, in Revelation, "no longer deceive the nations" is the extent and scope of the binding. "Darkness" is a technical term in Scripture to mean "deceived" or lacking the light of Truth which essentially results in the same thing. That is why the Word of God is also called the Light of the World, it is in stark contrast to the Darkness of the fallen world.
Another tidbit of goodness about this passage: The word for "devour" used in this passage is "καταπίνω" which literally means to "drink or gulp entirely down", which is kind of cool beauty being in proximity to Peter's warning to be "sober", as in if you gulp down booze then the devil will gulp you down. The word sober is "neepsate" from "nee", not, and "piein" to drink while "devour" is "katapiee" which is kata, "down". This should be a banner verse for MADD in that it says quite literally that Liquor is not only the way to the Devil, but the Devil's way into you.
not all non-catholics are sola scriptura, the Mormons invented new books so they are sola scriptura plus new books. plenty joined his fantasy, but even if you didn’t join in on this fantasy, you join in on rejecting baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence. this i know from previous posts of yours. so once you reject the Church’s 2,000 year teaching, the list of fantasies is as wide and long as 30,000 “churches” can make up.
why not quote any Baptists from the second century? oh yeah, that’s right, there weren’t any, my mistake.
Because the Catholics weren't a threat to Nero and to Rome at that time, but the Christians were and they were thus driven underground - those who weren't were martyred.
So Catholics began in 33AD, huh. John the Baptist was in ministry before Jesus Christ.
Beat that.
Did you know Jack van Impe loves the catechism book. He went nuts over it. He loved it so much in the 1990’s he recommended it to every one. People thought he went RCIA and became Catholic. He is truly respectful of the church. He was bragging about what the Pope said once I almost fell off the chair. Not kidding.
Being warned about reliance on anything other than the written word is absurd since most of the early church had only parts of the present bible until the 5th century and relied on other sources than the written word. But then you know that.
Most of your rant is self serving non biblical sourced which appears to be denying the word of God
As one who believes in only one second coming, I agree with your opposition to the plural comings of the pretribs. But why the repeated denials on this thread of the use of the word “rapture?”
While I am opposed to the pretrib’s use of the word - they use it to distinguish their pretribulational coming from the one after the trib, never mind the fact that nowhere in scripture do we find the word “rapture” to distinguish this alleged pretrib event - yet, and despite the pretrib’s misapplication of the word, it is still Biblical. I’m sure you are aware that is the Latin for the Greek “harpazo,” the “caught up” of 1 Thess. 4:17.
It sounds as if you are denying the “caught up” of 1 Thess. 4:17, you are not are you? It is the pretrib “caught up” I am opposed to, I am not opposed to the use of the word when applied correctly as happening at the post-trib event.
ummm, did these second century non-Catholic Christians have any names?
i see posts like yours all the time, but no names are ever provided. surely these “Christians” who weren’t Catholics wrote letters or apologies that we can examine, no??
if they didn’t, how do you know they existed? or is it just too hard to believe that at one point all Christians held to the Catholic Faith?
Did you know Jack van Impe loves the catechism book. He went nuts over it.
You do realize that on December 21, 2012, we are going to have a thread very similar to this one but instead of having Camping's name on it, we will have Jack van Impe's name.
Same idiocy, different idiot.
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.