arete
New Member
Posts: 49 
|
Post by arete on Sept 2, 2014 18:24:45 GMT
I thought I would include less than a full testimony and focus on now and a little history. Think of this as an intro to Arete thread
The name Arete comes from Philippians 4:8
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
Arete is excellence; moral virtue. This is not a claim to have attained it, but a desire to pursue it according to the desires of the ancient philosophers, but according to the Scriptures and not their pagan ways.
I am a missionary pastor in Alaska. Alaska is technically in the US, but most of us don't feel like it. I am very conservative in my politics and beliefs.
For the sake of the convenience of labels, I am a Reformed Baptist. The label used to be Particular Baptist. Think CH Spurgeon. Think London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 and the Cambridge Declaration of Confessing Evangelicals. I adhere to TULIP and the Solas because I believe the most accurately reflect biblical teaching. I was saved in an Assembly of God church years ago, but do not hold to a continuationist view. Neither am I a cessationist. I am a sufficientist. Sola Scriptura all the way.
I am a husband of 20 years and a father to 5, one of whom is already in the presence of God.
I am an EMT as well as a pastor.
The Most High God has saved me from my sin and to himself and his service and sovereignly superintended my position as pastor and missionary to declare the Gospel to the people here.
I post sermons on another forum. It is hosted by a UK believer as this forum is. It is multi-denominational, leaning to charismatic. Perhaps the sites can become sister forums at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Sept 3, 2014 19:35:49 GMT
Thanks Arete, appreciate that.
I have a friend arriving tomorrow who was himself called to pastor a church in Alaska - since I've not worked out whether private messaging is possible on this site, if you want to email me privately at allmen4jesus@gmail.com I should receive it and will ask him if he knows you.
Intrigued by your not being a cessationist nor a continuationist! (not heard that term before) There's clearly another position I'd not thought of, interested to hear it if you have time.
Happy for you to share the link to the other discussion site if you wish (and vice versa). Your description of multi-denominational leaning to charismatic is probably an apt description of how I see this site too.
There are so many things I want to see among men built up into in the Body and in so much of it I believe God works though our brothers (and sisters).
If you're OK Arete, I'm going to change the name of the thread to 'The Now - the thread where we introduce ourselves'. Are you happy for me to do that?
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Sept 4, 2014 20:36:03 GMT
Excellent. We can all get to know each other.
The label "sufficientist" is one that I first came across on the Pyromaniacs blog. The point being that often, those labeled as cessationists" were mischaracterized as not believing in anything miraculous anymore. The charge was made that we no longer believed in God healing in any sense, etc.
Non-charismatics is a group as large as charismatics. As such, generalizations are just that. Still, generally speaking, non-charismatics do believe in praying for healing and God's miraculous answers to prayers according to his sovereign will.
So, we do not believe the miraculous has ceased entirely and are thus not cessationists. Rather, we most often do not believe the sign gifts are normative. We reject any definition of prophecy that differentiates between OT and NT prophecy for purposes of the testing of the prophet (100% accuracy or the prophet is false). Likewise, we believe that the Scripture alone is sufficient (Sola Scriptura strongly stated) and that if someone wants to hear God speak audibly, then read the Bible aloud.
Pithily stated, a quote from a hymn, "What more can He say than to you he hath said?"
Sounds like it will be good "iron on iron" fellowship here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Sept 5, 2014 6:11:06 GMT
I agree, lots to discuss here, I'll clearly need my concordance for this discussion! (and apologies for the length of this post, good discussions in forums like this usually die if there are long posts).
I was with a very intelligent and deeply committed Christian this week who had been a day trader in London. They told me they had heard the audible voice of God, left their job and gone to Harvard and are now involved in international development. Highly intelligent trained mind (I know in one respect that counts for nothing) but nevertheless a person of sound character and as far as I could discern not misled or in any way 'flaky'. I will be having dinner tonight with an evangelist whose fruit is evident in many changed lives. As a previous heroine addict his life was transformed and he would again report having heard the audible voice of God. I know of many others of sound character over a long period whose lives are fruitful for God (as far as I can tell) who have no reason to lie or exalt themselves who tell me they have heard the audible voice of God. I have not heard the audible voice of God myself but I believe He still speaks in this way.
As for the view that OT prophets and NT prophets are the same I would want to challenge the premise here. If that thinking were correct then it would mean that all teachers (Paul listed teachers along with prophets in the Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 sections) should speak in a perfect 100% level of teaching accuracy as well, never getting it wrong since they are inspired by the same Spirit. If your argument stands for prophets the same standard must be applied for teachers and all the other gifted categories listed in these chapters. Paul talks about prophesying according to our faith and also about desiring that all would prophesy. The fact is that none of us is perfect at assessing our level of faith and therefore at times we will under-exercise our faith and at other times over-exercise it. All Christians can testify to having believed God was leading them a certain way only to discover later that they were probably wrong. This does not make them heretics, it is, as with the disciples, part of our learning process in discerning the will of God as part of living an obedient life. If all prophesied (although this could be taken as a wish rather than God's desire) that would mean, by your current view that the 'all' who prophesied would have to get it right 100% right 100% of the time. The cessationist view cuts the argument dead saying simply 'there is no prophecy today, the gifts have passed". However you say you are not a cessasionist. The thundering voices of holiness of the OT prophets were nation changing, this is not the tenor in which Paul is speaking about prophecy in the local church.
I understand the deep concerns you and others have about prophecy today (I share them myself) and spent many years early in my Christian life in an environment where such views were taught but, in keeping with how I understand scripture now (I respect you see things differently) I believe there is a difference between OT prophecy and NT prophecy. In the same way that Paul taught the gift of tongues can be authentic but misused/abused I believe the same is true of prophecy, teaching, evangelism etc.
I do understand that prophecy has been hugely abused (but so have evangelism and teaching) but for me, it's important not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I like your stance that everything must be in accordance with scripture and look forward to debating some of these issues from a scriptural standpoint. While unlike you I have not had any theological training, I do look forward to iron sharpening iron!
Bless you my brother.
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Sept 5, 2014 18:24:19 GMT
Thoughts in response, quickly as I have some work that needs doing Is God's blessing on a life or ministry proof that the person has heard audibly? Does God not shower grace upon sinner and saint alike at times? Could God have sovereignly willed to bless them even if they did not hear? Could their need for ecstatic charismatic response caused them to "hear" their own holy desire to serve and they filled in the gaps as made sense to them? Also, using Paul's combo of teaching/preaching is a break with the Law of First Mention. This is an hermeneutical principle that puts the weight of meaning on the earliest and earlier uses of the term. Hence, OT definitions drive meaning, not the other way around. Prophecy is also singled out specifically in the Scripture as requiring 100% accuracy. Nowhere is this rubric applied to teaching - although each teacher should remember the Scriptural admonition that they will be judged more harshly, tremble at the thought, and strive for perfect doctrine. The primary difference is that prophecy is God speaking through a man in a revelatory manner. God never makes mistakes, therefore to be a prophetic utterance it must necessarily be 100% accurate or it makes God a liar, or makes him errant, or impotent to carry it through. The teacher is a man speaking and instructing others through his own study, with a fallible mind, illuminated by the Spirit, but he is not quoting God, except where he quotes Scripture. Also, the throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a common expression to be almost cliche now among charismatics. All error must be exposed and disposed of and not kept around in the hope of not doing away with truth. truth should not be discarded, but every lie, heresy, or simple untruth must be exposed and removed. IMHO of course Read this article in the course of catching up with the news. Thought I'd add it to my post: theaquilareport.com/seeking-wisdom-gods-program-of-guidance/ |
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Sept 12, 2014 7:51:43 GMT
The fact that an expression is common doesn't make it wrong (I think there's a long Greek word about that kind of false logic that I can't remember!)
The truth is Jesus, a person, not a cold set of systematic facts (that was the trap the Pharisees fell into, they understood the technicalities of the law and systematics but didn't recognise the living Spirit of the law when it stood in front of them as a person).
Sorry, (I have to go to work now and leave it here - hope to continue this conversation later!)
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Sept 12, 2014 18:17:21 GMT
It is not the commonness of the expression, but the idea of it at all within biblical veritology. The assumption first is that there is a baby in the bathwater at all. But even more, how much falseness is required to move something from truth to falsehood.
And this hardline stance on truth is not Pharisaical. They knew the truth, but made exceptions and loopholes to avoid keeping the Law the way it was written. They held others to a standard they did not hold themselves.
It is because Jesus said he is the way, the truth and the life that people like myself take such a hardline stance on truth. Because to give on truth is to move off the sure foundation of the One who is the Truth.
Systematics are not necessarily cold by definition. But let's say they are cold. How much falsehood should we allow in order to feel warm?
Speaking logically, there is the law of non-contradiction. Something cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense. Truth is true in all its parts. That some may hold the truth with a cold demeanor may say something about their demeanor but it does not make the truth non-truth.
That is the whole point of a Berean like attitude. If its true, the Scriptures will plainly teach it. What Scripture plainly teaches about prophets is that the words they claim come from God must be 100% true and accurate or the prophet is false. Any "prophet" who presumes to speak for God who is not 100% accurate is speaking for themselves and should be exposed for their falsehood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Sept 15, 2014 8:36:16 GMT
Appreciate what you're saying Arete, truth is truth and should not be avoided. Error should be exposed and lies brought to light. I think we've got two threads going within this one at the moment and am wondering how to separate them.
1. Should NT prophets be stoned when they get it wrong like OT prophets?
2. Can a focus on systematics get to the point where concern with truth becomes pharisaical i.e. there's 'technical truth' but the spirit of it is completely lacking.
Re the first I agree that one of the worst things that can happen in the church is there being false prophets. To have the calling of a prophet one should speak for God, period. My point is that in the NT God was not producing OT prophets (rare, distinct, particular message etc) but calling ordinary men and women who had become Christians to prophesy (and move in the other gifts). Purity in the church is terribly important in teaching and in all things but the grace that God shows us means that without being any the less discerning, we should understand that in learning to move in the gifts of the spirit there will be errors, just as there were with the early disciples and Jesus did not stone them although they had heard the words of Jesus directly. My point is that discipleship is a learning process and all learning involves making 'honest' mistakes.
Laying a profound theological (and 100% accurate) grid on people who are learning smacks to my mind (in spirit) of the Pharisees laying impossible burdens on people that discourage God's gifts from operating and people from learning how to move in them.
I have close friends who have prophesied and been completely wrong. I am not going to stone them. I have other people who have prophesied things into my life that have borne fruit and been confirmed again and again over the years as corresponding with a holy way of living and been very helpful. Discernment and wisdom are extremely important.
I accept that if one takes the view there is no baby then it cannot be thrown out with the bath water, by definition.
I also accept that much that passes for prophecy is not and is erroneous, damaging and sometimes downright evil. That does not mean we should stone all who get things wrong though. Would you?
I value your position Arete and thank God for people like you who protect theological truths in the way you do. The injunction to 'speak the truth in love' in such discussions can often degenerate (it hasn't in the one we're having) to a loveless and self righteous "just speak the truth'. As we know 1 Corinthians 13 is the teaching that whatever we do needs to be done in love bearing in mind the love being spoken of is the love of God and not some misty eyed human sentimentality.
Sometimes love too though can degenerate into a theological technical definition of it when at its heart, love is the highest form of life known or that can be experienced in the universe.
God is love.
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Sept 15, 2014 23:43:12 GMT
God is love. God is also just and holy, etc. He is all of these things 100% all the time and they in no way conflict with one another. Love then is not the highest trait of the Most High. He is all of his traits all of the time and all of them find their highest expression in him. I simply cannot agree that God changed concerning prophets and prophecy. If someone presumes to speak for God and they are anything less than 100% accurate, they are a false prophet. While I would not be inclined to throw rocks at them until dead (the Government bears the sword and must answer to God for its use or lack of use), I would call them a false prophet. If they did not fall on their face in repentance for having presumed to speak for the Most High, and substituted their wisdom for his as evidenced by the "prophecy" failing, I would consider them at best an unhealthy/immature believer that must be disciplined, or a wolf wrapped in wool. Also, a believer who thinks themselves mature enough to prophesy, is not the same as a new believer. One claims not only to eat meat, but proclaim it. The other is milk bound. Discipline is required for each when they stray from the truth. But this discipline may look as different for an immature/mature situation as that for a toddler versus a teen in my home. I will not allow my toddler to sin any more than my teen. When they sin, both are disciplined and in a manner fit for each according to their maturity. The standard is immovable. Something is true or false. It is sin or righteousness. And I am not the one who lays it upon anyone. God lays it upon all. And it is impossible. Paul was clear about that. That is where grace fills our gaps. But Paul was also clear that we should not sin more so that grace may abound more. If someone "prophesies" and it is not true, then they may be repentant and receive grace from God and be forgiven. But when they cling to their sin - and let's be honest, to presume to speak for God when you don't is sinful. To speak a lie or falsehood and attribute it to God is iniquity - when they cling to this sin and dwell in it and perpetuate it and convince others to do the same, they are spreading iniquity and attributing it to God. How much must we hate someone to watch them sin against God, but withhold discipline (and sin ourselves since God expects us to discipline one another) and let them steep in their sin and reap a harvest from that sin - and do it all and excuse ourselves by calling it "love"? I would not hate my children this way. I would strive to help them sow righteousness and reap righteousness. If I allowed my children to grow wild and live according to what was right in their own eyes, apart from God's Word, even though I called it "love" it would be so very wrong. This does not mean that the first time an immature believer steps wrong we discipline with a firing squad. We do not need to leap to the most extreme method of holding one another accountable at every turn. But we must not sin against one another by permitting lawlessness by calling it "love". - Like you, I know that this conversation is mostly theoretical. I do not believe that you approve of lawlessness any more than you believe that I am a Pharisee/legalist. Verbal exercises like these I find very beneficial as I work through the theology of all things - as I work on my systematics  - |
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Sept 30, 2014 18:05:15 GMT
Really appreciate the back and forth on this one Arete.
I guess because we (I) have a picture of the thundering pronouncements by OT prophets (or have I watched too many Hollywood epics made around bible characters?) it's difficult for me to believe the use of prophecy, even when it was used in a way we both agree on in the early church, was delivered in that OT (thundering) way.
What is more important about our discussion for me is the question of how God communicates to us today and the extent to which, if I understand you correctly, you believe God has now limited Himself to only speaking to us through scripture?
If that's what you're saying I confess to struggling with that because it curtails so many of the ways God dealt with people in bible times e.g.
- "the word of the LORD came to them" (does it no longer come in the way it did then?)
- visions and dreams, the language of the Holy Spirit so much used in bible times - has God stopped giving these?
- speaking through people as Nathan spoke to David and Peter spoke to Jesus - has God stopped speaking this way now?
- through miracles - has God stopped doing these?
- through circumstances - God spoke through thunder, plagues, Jesus' works - have all these means of God speaking to us ceased?
For me, Jesus is God (always has been and always will be as I believe He is for you) and never changes. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. We both believe that's true of His moral character and His love but is it not also true of the way He interacts with us?
We are people in Covenant and there are huge amounts of scripture that can be taken as 'standing orders' (we don't need to hear the voice of the Lord telling us each day to love our wives, that goes without saying and is simple obedience) but in the specific directions of life there are times to do things and not do things. Only the Spirit of God at such times can actively show us which path to take since two equal doctrines can be found to argue two opposite causes of action (God telling Israel to go to war and defend their families when attacked vs the command not to resist evil). Surely it is only seeking God's guidance as Jesus did that we can know the way to go. Jesus said He did nothing apart from what the Father showed Him and Paul exhorts us to follow Christ and become like Him.
I'm probably misunderstanding some of what you're saying but the focus of my question, I think, is "Do you think God only speaks these days through the written words in the Bible?"
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Oct 8, 2014 23:49:38 GMT
Add up the number of years the Bible covers. Add up the number of years the prophets were active. Compare the two. You will find that God has withheld the prophetic, dreams, and miraculous for the majority of Scripture.
How he communicates is eternal, through words. His words are eternal by necessity because he is eternal. Every word that comes from him is timeless in its scope and its authority. So every prophetic word is eternal and binds every believer.
As far as "only"...
Do I think God "only" speaks through the written word...
he isn't obligated to speak to sinful creatures like us at all. That he has done so and placed it in written form so we need not rely on memory alone, so that we can parse each jot and tittle to be certain we are on righteous ground, so that we need never wonder, "did God say?" is an amazingly gracious gift and so very miraculous.
And for why he should limit himself... can you think of any situation, real or hypothetical, that is a matter of righteousness and holiness, that the Bible does not already provide an absolute principle to guide the believer in matters of right and wrong?
I don't think you can. Not because you are not intelligent enough, but because God has spoken to every matter of a life of faith and its practice. He didn't miss anything. He doesn't tell you which kind of car to buy because that's not a matter of righteousness, but he does provide principles for using money in godly ways.
Furthermore, there is no place where Scripture contradicts itself so that you must choose which verse to follow. If someone is twisting Scripture to argue to mutually exclusive points and prooftexting Scripture to make it seem as if this is possible, then they have ripped that verse out of the surrounding passage and left it bleeding.
I think that those who feel the need for further and extra-biblical revelation need to turn their eyes fully upon the wholly sufficient Scripture alone and that when they do they will find they need nothing else because nothing is missing from the eternal Word of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Oct 12, 2014 21:59:17 GMT
I agree about what scripture has provided with one exception - Jesus operated as a man as well as God and as a man He operated as our perfect example. He did what he did moment by moment by both His infinite comprehension of scripture but also at the Spirit's prompting and revelation moment by moment - as the perfect example of how we are to live.
No one is saying that further revelation of doctrine is being given, what I am saying is that the moment by moment sensitivity to the Holy Spirit (as Jesus was) is our model. To limit God and imply that we do not need to do what Jesus did (rely totally on seeing what the Father showed Him by the Spirit) is to reduce our relationship to a different one to that which He had Himself, one based on 'doctrinal alignment' only.
Jesus came to give us His relationship with His Father did He not, or would you take issue with that view as only being true on legal grounds?
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Oct 13, 2014 20:50:58 GMT
We cannot do what Jesus did. He had two natures that worked in complete harmony and while he has a human nature, he never ceased being divine. He is more than an example. He is the restoration of the imago dei. He lived perfectly. We never will. He is the example in the sense that we should never compare our lives to one another and be puffed up. But we should compare ourselves to Christ and be driven to repentance. As for limiting God...God is limited in some ways. God cannot lie. That's a limit. And have I ever condoned man limiting God in any way that Scripture does not clearly place a limit - such as lying? The argument that cessationists limit God is not a good argument. How does the view that God's word lacks nothing become a limitation? Its only a limitation if it is lacking. After all, what more could he say if his word is lacking nothing? Jesus came in part to reconcile us, but he came predominately to glorify the Father. And remember, I believe the idea that religion and relationship are not at odds with one another. For instance, every relationship has a set of ground rules that are either plainly listed or vaguely held. Example: if one violates his marriage relationship by committing adultery, should he argue that his wife is being legalistic? I use that example because God uses marital adultery to illustrate spiritual adultery. I never say that Christianity is not a relationship. But I do never say that it is not a religion or that it has no doctrine, or Law. Christ restoring our relationship occurs on legal grounds. The terms Paul uses are legal terms. Christ is even called our Advocate which means defense attorney. Satan's name is a legal term meaning accuser. Love of doctrine does not make one a legalist or Pharisee. The Pharisees added their pet burdens to the Law. The legalist thinks he earns God's favor by accruing points for obedience. The mature Christian loves the Law (Ps 119) and obeys out of love and gratitude, empowered by the Spirit not to earn grace, but because of grace. On a more pleasant note, Calvinists believe that the Spirit illumines, but does not inspire men today. Inspiration is prophecy and Scripture. Illumination is the Spirit applying to the heart and mind the truth of God's word as it applies to their current life. Wow...what a series of discussions on the thread where I introduced myself |
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Oct 18, 2014 22:46:19 GMT
Some excellent points there but do Calvinists believe Christ dwells (actually) within the believer Arête?
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Oct 21, 2014 19:25:18 GMT
I would not want to venture to speak for all too often. I should always clarify that I speak from my belief of Calvinism as a biblical doctrine and not as if I may speak ex cathedra for us all Jesus has a physical body. He said he was going where we could not yet go to provide a place for us. He sits at the right hand of the Father. He is our High Priest and intercedes on our behalf to the Father. I believe the Holy Spirit indwells all believers and that he proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son. He convicts our hearts of sin, baptizes us into God's family, seals us to God, illumines our minds to understand the Word he superintended and comforts, encourages and exhorts us. He is the Power behind our meager efforts in sanctification. And of course there is more. The interesting thing is that all of these answers are possible because of doctrine, a word used with much respect in the Scripture. These answers are from systematic study of the inspired Word of God. The answers are drawn from Christology and pneumatology while the Calvinist angle is based predominately in Theology Proper, soteriology and bibliology. I wish I knew why doctrine and systematics ever fell out of favor among the People of the Book. I wish I could undo it. And I definitely wish the terms legalist and Pharisee were not seen as synonyms to each other and definitely never synonyms for a theologian. |
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Oct 21, 2014 19:32:26 GMT
Found this just now:
The spirit of the Pharisee is to look for loopholes. He looks at God’s law and sees it as something that will make his life less good. If you ask, what’s the minimum I can do and keep God’s pleasure, you might be flirting with Pharisaism. Rev. David W. Hall
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Oct 26, 2014 19:20:15 GMT
OK, good scriptural logic, but let me slightly rephrase the question Arête, do you believe from Paul's "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col 1.27) that Christ dwells in you?
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Oct 27, 2014 5:10:42 GMT
Ok, good...but
interesting contrast in that little conjunction.
I like to take into account the surrounding text since the a text without a context is a pretext. The whole paragraph for context purposes is:
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.
(Colossians 1:24-29 ESV) emphasis added to relate back
Perhaps if you could clarify your targeted goal that could help. The line of examination is somewhat vague.
Do I think we can cut open a believer and see Jesus "in their heart" as so many misguided so-called evangelicals teach erroneously about salvation? No.
I do believe in the Spirit of Christ, another name for The Spirit. I believe the same Spirit that quickened and raised Christ from the dead dwells in us. I do believe Christ works in us as verse 29 indicates and that his salvation which is the glory of the mystery that Paul proclaims.
But are you asking if we are indwelt by Christ the way the Scripture explicitly teaches we are indwelt by the Spirit?
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Oct 28, 2014 20:25:03 GMT
I think there is some significant worldview caused miscommunication. I think this in part because an essentially Arminian/semi-Pelagian and charismatic worldview has different terminologies and teachings and leanings than my essentially Calvinistic and sufficientist worldview. Add to that two separate nations, one speaking English and the other American then perhaps I can offer a clearer statement from a far better teacher than myself. Even more, perhaps I have misspoke as I have often pounded out a fast response. So then: an article "Union with Christ: A Matter of Spiritual Life and Death" by Philip Ryken does a much better job in discussing the theological meaning of "in Christ" from my perspective. www.ligonier.org/blog/union-christ-matter-spiritual-life-and-death/Pertaining to the awe in which we should approach the Word as sufficient: info.alliancenet.org/placefortruth/column/sine-qua-non/the-holy-spirit-and-the-word-of-godAdding to that, a seasonal reminder of Reformation Day (Oct 31, 1517)and why the reformer's belief in the sufficiency of Scripture is the reason we even have Protestant denominations thecripplegate.com/what-caused-the-reformation/ |
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2014 18:40:46 GMT
Again, hope to get to read these soon and will try to do so Arete, and as ever, appreciate your probing.
In the meantime, I would simply make the point that in Matthew 25 the division between sheep and goats is on the basis of the life lived and not the doctrines believed. Please don't hear me saying that doctrine is unimportant, it really is. However, Jesus placed the emphasis of His judgement of us on something else.
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Nov 3, 2014 19:55:38 GMT
Orthodoxy precedes orthopraxy. This has been the orthodox view of faith always. You can't live right without knowing the right way to live.
If an unbeliever does a "good" deed, it does not eternally benefit him because he is lost. He may reap temporal benefit from accidentally living according to God's will, but not eternal benefit. That is because all that he does is done as a rebel who does not submit to his Creator. (See Romans 1:18ff).
Jesus' ultimate judgment is based on whether or not we believe the Gospel - which is itself a doctrine - a teaching of the Scriptures. The goats are those who are not regenerate. The sheep are the elect.
One cannot say doctrine is important while treating it as secondary.
My point is that there are countless people who believe the way they want, live reasonable good lives, but because they did not believe the truth of Scripture, which is presented propositionally, then they were professors of faith without being regenerate.
|
|
-