Posted on 01/12/2012 7:27:57 PM PST by rzman21
And Evangelical (something wrong with being evangelical?) Biblical (something wrong with being Biblical in approach?) hermeneutics:
o Normal interpretation is basic
o Literal interpretation being _normal_, with literal or figurative-literal language
o Only _one_ primary interpretation exists
o Every statement of Scripture having only one sense, which is the literal sense
This hermeneutic is pretty much which the article above employs -- so far
Donatism is/was a heresy.
Augustinian catholicity was heresy to the Donatists, who had excellent Scriptural NT foundation examples and Original Apostolic tradition. Pot and kettle. Still holds today.
"To the Augustinian catholic, the true church was within the visible, catholic institution. married to the Roman state by Constantine (after AD 313), entered into by infant baptism, and maintained by the implementation of the sacraments. To the Donatists, the true church was the assembly of immersed believers in a particular locale, maintaining their purity through strong preaching and church discipline." (Strouse, T. A., "Ye Are The Body Of Christ," Emmanuel Baptist Theological Journal - no date available, p. 71)
"In failing to use the historical-grammatical (dispensational) hermeneutic to interpret Scripture, the Patristics superimposed yhe sacral society concept upon the NT. They looked to the OT for the antiquity of church leadership and for the meaning and mode of baptism, The sacral society concept is the state religion in a certain region, headed up by one leader, entered into by one means for all inhabitants, and defended by exterminating all dissidents." (ibid. p. 72)
Also note that the Donatists were organized according to the first church, the Jerusalem church, and had the same polity. There was no invisible earthly church nor was one described. That was an invention of Cyprian and Augustine. And because they were local, not statist, they never needed to persecute, but instead were called heretics, and were persecuted.
(Just a statement of facts, not intended to start a flame war. The theme is on your article above. Let's stick to that.)
The earthly Church consists of both penitent and the reprobate.
That's a way of saying that one knows the visible church organization is not pure throughout, I suppose. Means you can lose and regain and lose and regain your salvation?
With grateful appreciation --
i do. (wafflehouse)
OK, explain Deut. 30:11-14.
i suppose i can take your answer for a 'NO' (wafflehouse)
Ah, not sure just what _your_ question is. What is it?
No, I will not do that. I am not going to let you make a trivial game of this. My time is important enough to me not to let you waste it.
please explain to me in SMALL WORDS how this is not contrary to scripture:
No. I will give you my thoughts on my terms. If it is not clear, you will have to go somewhere else. You can at least read instructions enough to write html in a chosen font face and color, so don't plead stupidity and poop on my effort to illuminate your sandbox.
God has nothing whatever to do with the “sacred violence” of the sacrificial system (statement from the article)
The author is correct, backed up by Holy Scripture.
The bottom line is THAT NOW The God's righteous demands have totally been met by our Savior and Redeemer, on our behalf, once and for all, throughout eternity. The God is no longer interested -- in fact rejects -- any further attempts to recreate any sacrificial system with any kind of "sacred violence." The one which He insisted on once, has happened, and is past. Now in effect is the Second Will, the First Will having been utterly removed (the one with blood of bulls and goats that could never take away Sin), and the Second Will (Testament) is established because of The Christ's submitting to and doing the Will of The Father. (Heb. 10:9)
Furthermore, by this Second (and Last) Will (Testament, Covenant) we (the regenerated believer-disciples) are sanctified (sainted, made holy, separated from Sin, Satan, and the World's culture) by the offering (since it is for sin, it must be a bloody, not a bloodless one, not a wafer) of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (ephax = emphatically once for all time, never to be repeated) (Heb. 10:10)
Finally, This (God)Man, after He had offered one sacrifice (a bloody one)(himself) for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of The God. Such sacrifice, again, is never to be repeated! Therefore to recreate this through instituting "sacraments" is doing exactly what the author of the article ought to condemn. This is what I spoke of before.
To reinvent the "sacral society" as a carrying forth of Israel's Law-based religion, with a water-tight division creating a clergy class and a separate "lay" class is the Niko-laitan error. And the recreation of "sacraments," especially as a supposed reappearance of Christ's actual body and blood, presents the problem of corruption/destructibleness of the elements, especially when digested, a paradox.
The Lord's Supper, as conducted by the Lord himself (how could he eat his own body and drink his own blood, when as yet he was not even dead?) would be and is a Memorial meal, with bread and UNfermented (unleavened) blood of the cluster, as the tokens of His Passion. There would be recognition of the moments of His agony and love, conducted under the guidance of The Holy Ghost, with sincere preparation; and conclusion with a hymn.
This would be a Remembrance Supper occasion as ordained, not a Resacrifice.
But your thesis of Old Testament sacrifices being required by or pleasing to The God is not only forever done away with, but never was His desire. Read Psalm 40:6-8, Heb. 10:4-14, Is. 1:11,13, Hosea 6:6 -- these contradict your presuppositiob of the author being a Scripture rewriter and false teacher. You ought to be able to prove that a lot more substantively.
This author is quite correct, and your hypothesis is dead wrong, if you are trying to apply it at this time in history, which is the time frame the author refers to.
FOR THE RECORD, HERE IS A DETAILED SUMMARY:
From Tbe Creation until the cross-death of Jesus The Christ, God required blood sacrifices. He allowed animal sacrifices to be made in order to postpone the debt due Him by mankind for initiating and continuing to practice disobedience to His clear instructions. However, the end for each and every individual was physical death as the consequence for the slightest error. Their flesh bodies decayed, but their ever-lasting indestructible soul/spirits were transferred to a kind of holding pen, one outside of the time/mass/radiation/gravity sphere. There they were to be retained for final disposition.
This continued for several thousand years, and through several consecutive updatings (called Covenants) of the disclosed determinate Will by The God. The last in this series was The God's _written_ agreement with a group of especially selected Semites. The Law under the Mosaic Covenant is today known as Torah, to which further historical and explanatory additions were made by The God through men who put His revelations and instructions into writing. These writings plus Torah is called Tanakh in Semitic. In English, Tanakh is the first written Will (or Testament, or Covenant).
But to wind up this phase of His plan of dealing with mens' disobediences, The God sent Son (His title) to enter the world as a human, and be tested to see if such a human perfectly conceived, and occupied by Divinity, could fulfill The God's righteous demands for payment of the cumulative sin debt owed Him. In fact, this God-in-the-flesh man did, on behalf of all mankind, live in a manner perfectly most pleasing to The God, up to a point in time.
At that time, it was perfectly apparent that all the animal body/blood sacrifices, though postponing the day of payment, did not take away the accumulated debt, because The God had predetermined that it could only be paid in human blood.
But it could only be paid with human blood that would not decay -- that it would be far more durable than even silver or gold or platinum -- that it would never, ever in the least decay or change, thus proving perpetually that the transaction had taken place, and the consideration received.
It must be collected from the Earth, be moved into another sphere/dimension called Heaven, and forever remain in the Throne Room there, the Holiest Of All; and always be visible, to exhibit The God's most valuable Treasure -- the Blood from the human body of The Precious Son of His Love. It was also located there to cover and make inaccessible the contents of a sealed box that contained the hewed stone upon which His Law was written.
But going back to the moment of the fulfillment of the Law, culminating on the Cross, we see what was going on. Though this God-man Jesus had lived a perfect life and thus was eligible to immediately return to this sphere of The Heaven, His peculiar quality of compassion pervaded His further actions. He remained behind to give His life as the ransom for many, out of sovereign love for them.
Somewhen, He had arranged with His Father, The God, to receive not only the wrath of religious theocrats and petty officialdom for being Divinity in Person, but in the same plight to willingly receive and endure the immeasurable furious wrath of The God for being The Man of men! And under that contract, to bear within His body all the sins of all mankind -- to be declared Sin Personified, so that The Holy God's entire pent-up wrath would be spent in fully collecting the Blood-price from Him, down to the very last gamma globule in payment (and in advance) for the least imaginable disappointment to Him ever caused by mankind.
Now, this portion of the transaction all took place on the Savior's Cross, where under this duress Jesus hung, died, and was pierced to the pericardium and through! That is, his soul and human spirit left the body of flesh, and descended into that "holding pen" -- one portion of which was Paradise. But in fact, The God, unable to look on All Sin Personified, turned His back on The Crucified, thus inconceivably multiplying the fiery burning torment of this Abandoned One for an eternity-unmeasured time.
Yet, the The God's wrath being assuaged, the Sin-bearing body, purified but bereft of soul and spirit, died. That body, dismounted from the wood and laid in the Tomb, received perfect pure rest until just before dawn on the First day of the week. Then somehow, He that raised up Christ from the dead ones rejoined Jesus' soul, spirit, and glorified but wounded body. After briefly greeting Mary of Magdala, Jesus The Christ ascended to The Heaven with His Holy, Precious Blood.
There, beginning his tenure as the Eternal High Priest of Us, He placed The Incorruptible Treasure upon the Golden Mercy Seat, for the final affirmation of His Work, and final purchase of the reconciliation of The Most Reverent, Holy, Loving God and Father of Mankind to whom the undeserving but deeply grateful children, having been desperate and defiant former enemies, and now eternal subjects, became His glorious Kingdom forever. There you have it -- why The God is no longer interested in efforts to earn one's way to heaven through personal good deeds or sacraments. What he is interested, though, is forever Remembrance of His Son's Passion, unfeigned love in sharing His love of the brethren, recruitment and oversight of personally supervised believer-disciple servants, reverence toward and familiarity with His Holy Word, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name, doing beneficial good, communication through fellowship in the Gospel, and contending for The Faith.
With sincere and felicitous regards, and seeking the certain deliverance of your never-dying soul -- CFS
Have you ever pondered the beauty of a sunset or a particularly interesting cloud? what do you think would happen if you asked 10 other people to describe it? do you think you would get 10 identical answers? (wafflehouse)
If I was going t ask someone for an ambulance to transport a deathly ill person to the hospital, I don't think I would take a shot of a beautiful flower with my cell-phone and send it to an emergency room to try to communicate what their response out to be, ne?
In the above, if you are trying to relate the way God might communicate with humans, you are not talking about Biblical communication. You might be talking about natural or general revelation (Rom. 1:18-20) but you are not talking about deriving a meaning from written language. If you want to know about His purpose for the Bible, look up supernatural or special revelation, written down, with no doubt about what the message says. Though a Bible sentence may not be understood, it will not be a jumble of non-sensical words without any logical relationship -- even for Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. That does not have a dozen meanings. It has one, and they had to get someone to interpret it. But it could be done. Quit toying.
PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. Thinking otherwise is the same mistake tyrants have made since the dawn of time. Why then, would God mean for everyone to get the same message? Why cannot the all powerful God have a message for everyone, that speaks directly to their own heart? The Jewish people have argued over the Law since it was entrusted to them, and now (relatively) suddenly some priest has all the answers? I cannot see how that is a logical conclusion.
Here your example of the OT Jews is obscured by the fact that the NT is in the OT concealed; the OT is in the NT revealed. Or, the NT is in the OT contained, the OT is in the NT explained. Why they argued is exactly that God had not finished writing His Bible, and they did not understand much of what God had caused to be written down. Daniel wrote stuff down exactly without understanding it. Check Daniel 12:9 in its context. But that does not meant that his sentences were not readable to anyone who could read. They may not at that time apply it, but we can now. And the meanings are exact and not containing dozens of inscrutable thoughts.
But even now, Jewish scholars are not likely to see the clear communication for the Tanach, because they are not looking at it from a deep understanding of the revelation of OT passages in the NT.
Interpretation (hermeneutics) is both an art and a science. But it is not just a bunch of jumbled allegories. It is language. With words. With grammar. With rules. With a culture. If I said "Give me a Susan B. Anthony dollar." that would be clear to most Americans today, but not to Susdan B, Anthony, who was well educated and would have known exactly what was said.
You might consider, if you have not, to get some knowledge of Biblical hermeneutics, which the author of the article in focus has as his very intent to provide you with some tools and a method. If you can't or won't analyze what he is saying without prejudice, you are wasting time pestering others in criticizing the author or the work.
God has one message to deliver. It is simple, but has a lot of history and structure, not very pliant in bending obvious non-negotiable meanings that He wants you to get. Here's the skinnay:
o The theme of the Bible, throughout every book is:
The Coming of The Messiah, The King, and His Kingdom
of Righteousness and Peace
o The purpose of the Bible, throughout every book is
To Teach The God's Plan of Redemption
There is no Catholic way, or Presbyterian way, or Orthodox way, or Copt way, Or "People of the Way" way, or Billy Graham way. There is only God's way, and it is in the Masoretic Hebrew Text for the OT, and the Received Text of the Koine Greek of the NT: get a faithful literal equivalency translation of those, in whatever language you choose. Then settle down to do your own interpretation. If you do it correctly, it will be pretty much the same as anyone else's. If not, you didn't get it right.
The Bible is not a Dick-Jane-Spot reader or a Three Bears and Goldilocks parable. It is reasonably difficult, but the plan of salvation from sin, judgment, and the Lake of Fire is not. It is plain and it is graphic, because The God wants it to be understandable. You might need a dictionary, though, and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance will be a great help (for a KJV Bible). It is not a self-contradictory mystery trip of allegories and prophecies that never came true, like the Kama Sutra, the Vedic, the Koran, or the Book of Mormon. Its deeper meanings are not found without spiritual maturity from being discipled by one who has himself been discipled, who has overcome the "Wicked One" (Satan). Quien sabe?
Regards
You will encounter grave opposition from the Scriptural primitives who believe that Scripture speaks to them plainly whether over breakfast or else in the evening after a case of beer.
You will encounter grave opposition from the Scriptural primitives who believe that Scripture speaks to them plainly whether over breakfast or else in the evening after a case of beer.
Well, that's likely so! But I think the way to find the passage is to close your eyes, open the Bible, put your finger on the page, then open your eyes, and -- voila! -- you have the verse God wants to show you today! /sarc
You will encounter grave opposition from the Scriptural primitives who believe that Scripture speaks to them plainly whether over breakfast or else in the evening after a case of beer.
Well, that's likely so! But I think the way to find the passage is to close your eyes, open the Bible, put your finger on the page, then open your eyes, and -- voila! -- you have the verse God wants to show you today! /sarc
The same folks who make fun of the selection of the replacement of Judas practice the blindfolded dart throwing art of selecting Scripture relevant to the moment.
Well, not necessarily. Have you ever followed Peter's history, chronologically, throughout the Gospels? It would be extremely difficult to show that his instigation of the seating of Matthias was promoted by The Holy Ghost, especially that no move in that specific direction by The Lord Jesus Christ was even hinted during his 40-day perambulations amongst over 500 brethren, teaching, preaching, firecting. One would think some mention would have been made in Scripture if Jesus had authorized that. Actually by its absence the negative is suggested. Reading the account leads one to surmise that Christ had His own plan, and the time was not yet ripe for Him to have shared what that was.
Remember that in the 9-10 day interval they had the promise of God in the Spirit, but He had not yet arrived. They had neither the direct counsel of the Risen Christ nor of the Holy Ghost. Nowhere is it suggested that they had any other supernatural prodding to do anything but to wait for the direction of the promised Paraclete, another Comforter and Didaskalos of the same kind as The Christ.
It is almost impossible to suppress the notion that Peter really ran true to known character, taking the bit in his teeth, jumping to claim the yearned-for but as-not-yet-granted role of dominance, engaging in the kind of actions whose impetuousness almost undid the whole plan of the Godhead for the salvation of mankind, precisely at a critical moment.
Note that in this interval, not one follower was yet regenerated. Furthermore, Peter's interpretation and application of the particular scripture, combined with an unapproved selection process, showed a deviation from Biblical hermeneutics. It is without question that the whole human-invented uninvited meddling was not overseen by Holy Spirit guidance. Did they ask the Lord as to whether or not they were to be engaging in this enterprise? No. Did they obey Christ's command to wait for the arrival Director of Operations? No. Had they not presumptuously already been pushed into this in the most delicate formative stage, without any heavenly direction? Yes. Did they leave the Godhead out of the preliminary selection process? Yes. They only sought God's participation, and then only to take the blame for the choice limited to only one of the two they had already preselected. Was any of their desperate enemies like, say Saul of Tarsus, even remotely considered for their selectiion pool? No.
In the end, the only other primary apostle directly chosen, inducted, and personally discipled by Christ was Saul. And what everybody has missed is that both Matthias and Barsabas, though having companied with the primary disciples, had already been deselected by The Christ for the closest innermost group of trainees. If either had been satisfactory for Judas' replacements, why did not Christ choose them in his 40-day contact with them? It seems to be very certain that neither were yet destined for that honor, ne?
Is this just blindfolded dart-throwing? No -- but I think the eleven were playing this role, whilst they were not trusting in the Lord with all their hearts, but leaning on their own understanding, and not acknowledging the Lord in this matter, nor allowing Him to take the initiative. They were being wise in their own eyes, and insensibly falling into error. Furthermore, after this other, wiser, more Scripturally prudent were chosen as ruling elders in the Jerusalem church.
However! Think what Holy Ghost power came upon those assembled believer-disciples on that first Pentecost-church day! Especially how the headstrong, presumptuous, disloyal, imprudent Simon The Petros (little rock) mightily proclaimed the resounding foundational massive rock-ledge (Petra) Truth, personified in Jesus: "Thou art the Christ, Son of The Living God!"
What a transformation! And the apostles, all having the capability of binding or loosing, saw Satan bound and 3,000 believer-disciple souls immersed and let into the local church that day!
Sorry, not “firecting”; meant _directing_
Well, not necessarily. Have you ever followed Peter's history, chronologically, throughout the Gospels? It would be extremely difficult to show that his instigation of the seating of Matthias was promoted by The Holy Ghost, especially that no move in that specific direction by The Lord Jesus Christ was even hinted during his 40-day perambulations amongst over 500 brethren, teaching, preaching, firecting. One would think some mention would have been made in Scripture if Jesus had authorized that. Actually by its absence the negative is suggested. Reading the account leads one to surmise that Christ had His own plan, and the time was not yet ripe for Him to have shared what that was.
That does not follow from the effort that Jesus made to create His Church and the painstaking teaching over and over of the 12 and the disciples. If you read Acts 2, you will see the effect that the Holy Spirit had upon Peter and his newfound leadership.
However! Think what Holy Ghost power came upon those assembled believer-disciples on that first Pentecost-church day! Especially how the headstrong, presumptuous, disloyal, imprudent Simon The Petros (little rock) mightily proclaimed the resounding foundational massive rock-ledge (Petra) Truth, personified in Jesus: "Thou art the Christ, Son of The Living God!"
The Protestants we fence with have the opinion that Peter was a stumbling, bumbling fool and to a certain extent, they are correct. The Peter that we see in Acts and in his Epistles are a testimonial to the effect of the Holy Spirit upon a fallible man.
There you go again! Well, nobody can say you aren't persistent. And you gotta hand it to those desert fathers, knowing about evolution eighteen hundred years before Darwin. (I guess they must have seen it in a vision.)
You know, rzman, you once said that the Catholic/Orthodox churches are "agnostics" in the creation/evolution debate. Yet every time you post something it doesn't seem to endorse "agnosticism." It endorses evolution. Why else attack "naive literalism?" What is there about "naive literalism" that is so deadly to the ancient liturgical churches? I mean, it's not as if they are never literal . . . you and I both know they are. But never about Genesis 1-11.
Why are the ancient churches so afraid of Genesis 1-11? What does that portion of the Bible say that is so poisonous to them? Please, enlighten me.
No wonder I was asked to leave the Catholic Church (and thank G-d that I did so). Why aren't potential converts told at the very beginning that they're going to have to give up their "naive literalism" and embrace evolution and higher criticism? Why not add them to the Creed and the cathechisms so people will know what they are getting into before finding out too late?
Sheesh, why not require new converts to take an oath stating that they reject the literal historical truth of Genesis 1-11 and young earth six day creationism? Because this idea of not doing so and then waging unceasing, unrelenting war against YEC and Genesis 1-11 simply doesn't make any sense.
NB: The "British Orthodox Church" is (if I am not mistaken) a Non-Chalcaedonian church under the authority of the Coptic Church of Egypt . . . the same church for which the hearts of western chrstians bleed so much. You can see what they think of so many western chrstians! Perhaps they should turn to the atheists in academia for sympathy?
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.