My Vow Concerning Doctrines

[Jethro Bodine]

That there is anti-Semetic sentiment within Christianity cannot be denied - but such is a far call from what the OP is advocating here.

If you want anti-Semeatic evidence then Matthew is good place to start.

Matthew was written at the time when the split with Judaism was taking place. In fact, it is argued, that Matthew wrote with the specific purpose of providing the nascent Church with a document that created separation with Judaism. While Matt 28: 11-15 may have been a later reaction, the pericope does indicate the degree of anti-Semetic feelings at that time.

Not that the 'split' can be historically pinpointed to some specific time and place. Rather, it happened over a period of time. Of significance is the face that the early church did not support the Jews when they fought the Romans in the two wars which led total destruction of the Temple.

Embarrassingly, we are reminded of some of the more belligerent aspects of Christianity but to suggest that these aspect form part of Christian 'doctrine' demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of what it means to be a Christian.

I'm not well studied on the church fathers and their doctrine, but I'm pretty sure I understand correctly that anti-semitic thinking was a very big part of church thought in the early centuries. It just isn't nearly as profound in our present time for us to appreciate how true that really was. Remember, we're talking about a lot of centuries here.

 

[wayseer]

I'm not well studied on the church fathers and their doctrine, but I'm pretty sure I understand correctly that anti-semitic thinking was a very big part of church thought in the early centuries. It just isn't nearly as profound in our present time for us to appreciate how true that really was. Remember, we're talking about a lot of centuries here.

You are right - but such ant-Semetic thinking did not advocate that the Jews should be exterminated - which is what the OP is stating.

 

[CalledToServe]

Some time before paragraph 2 you followed wrong doctrine. Buy your standards/doctrine you are the only one allowed to see your mistake and make a change.

No, the Holy Spirit decides for me what is the correct doctrine. John 16:13 says "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

That reference has nothing to do with Tertullian advocating that the Jews should be exterminated as you stated.

The use of this reference indicates that you cannot read text or you are misusing text to achieve you own ideological ends. Text torn out of if context is pretext.

Furthermore - what you are talking about has nothing to do with doctrine. Where does church doctrine advocate for the extermination of the Jews?

I'll tell you - nowhere - apart from the fantasy existing in your own mind.

So you are denying that the early church fathers made Jewish Christians to choose to either be Jewish or Christian and if they chose to be Jewish they were killed by Rome?

 

[reba]

Just what is anti-semetic in relation to this topic?

Is it anti-Hebrew
anti- Jew as in persons
anti- the Jewish religion
anti- anti-Christ

Some other?

 

[CalledToServe]

Just what is anti-semetic in relation to this topic?

Is it anti-Hebrew
anti- Jew as in persons
anti- the Jewish religion
anti- anti-Christ

Some other?

Denying the Jewishness of Christ and calling all Jews Christ-killers is anti-semitic.

 

[reba]

No, the Holy Spirit decides for me what is the correct doctrine. John 16:13 says "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

This passage was brought forth by the early RRC fathers. What we call the Bible God's Holy Word was 'put together' by the early RCC. I see contradiction in your doctrine.... but hey i aint 100% right about stuff my self....

 

[wayseer]

So you are denying that the early church fathers made Jewish Christians to choose to either be Jewish or Christian and if they chose to be Jewish they were killed by Rome?

What are you talking about?

 

[Elijah674]

Are some suggesting that the Jewish Old Testament Bible is Roman?? (with Isa. 5's Vineyard, and its O.T. doctrines)

--Elijah

 

[CalledToServe]

This passage was brought forth by the early RRC fathers. What we call the Bible God's Holy Word was 'put together' by the early RCC. I see contradiction in your doctrine.... but hey i aint 100% right about stuff my self....

I see no contradiction since the earliest form of canon was done during the first century. Every Bishop in the Gentile Christian community developed their own list of approved books that wasn't really set in stone until the Council of Trent to refute the heresy of the Reformation.

What are you talking about?

History of how Gentile Christians treated Jewish Christians. It says a lot that you do not know a lot about the history of the early churches after the Apostles died. Yet, you can defend these same converted pagans that brought pagan beliefs into Christianity as being the truth. Tertullian was a pagan believer many years before he converted to Christianity. He was also a philosopher of the Greek tradition, specifically Plato. Tell me do you go to Plato, a pagan believer, for insight into Jesus Christ and His teachings? No, you got to Jesus Christ and His Apostles for meaning on what Jesus taught.

EDIT: I would like to make it clear that my vow is for me only. No one else has to follow it nor even give it much thought.

 

[Elijah674]

Tertullian and other early church fathers wrote that the Jews should be exterminated. It later progressed to encompass anyone that was different then the church. If a person cannot keep God's commandments then they are a false teacher.

2 Peter 2:1-3 says this, "1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping."

Since these early church fathers taught that the Jews should be exterminated then later any group not like them then they are a false teacher according to the Apostle Peter. They have violated Jesus's teaching of the three greatest commandments.

Hi, this post is not my thing. But before I take leave, let me give NT James 3
[17] Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

+ Rom. 2:14-15
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
[15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

OK: Right or wrong, what more could any of these (or us) be accountable for?? Rom. 8:14 is the one that LEAD'S us in everything if we will be Led. The only requirement as 'i' see it is that we surrender to the Leading of God.

OK: With that being said, He will lead us into all truth, as He see's fit. The Rom. 2:14 'Gentile' ones most likely will see Christ for the first time in heaven, & wonder how their counter part (us) were so slow in maturing? You know, they were saved by beholding God in His Nature!

--Elijah

 

[CalledToServe]

Hi, this post is not my thing. But before I take leave, let me give NT James 3
[17] Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

+ Rom. 2:14-15
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
[15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

OK: Right or wrong, what more could any of these (or us) be accountable for?? Rom. 8:14 is the one that LEAD'S us in everything if we will be Led. The only requirement as 'i' see it is that we surrender to the Leading of God.

OK: With that being said, He will lead us into all truth, as He see's fit. The Rom. 2:14 'Gentile' ones most likely will see Christ for the first time in heaven, & wonder how their counter part (us) were so slow in maturing? You know, they were saved by beholding God in His Nature!

--Elijah

I give you several scriptures to think about.

1 Peter 1:18-19, "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:"

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces[a] of this world rather than on Christ.

Mark 7:6-8 6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.â€

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.†Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The loveless spirit of the Pharisee has always been alive and well in and among God's people...and probably will be right to the end. It looks good on the outside but it isn't motivated on the inside by the Spirit of God. It is recognized by whether or not it has embraced 'love your neighbor as yourself' as the epitome and foundation of the Christian life by which faith in Christ is measured.

There are lots of measuring sticks being used out there to gauge the presence of saving faith, and which people take false comfort in, but there is only one that can truly measure faith in the forgiveness of Christ in a person. In turn, all others things are measured by that. The true measuring rod, or compass, is what keeps us from being "tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching" (Ephesians 4:14 NIV)

 

[ivdavid]

While I do understand how this is meant in the OP, I do have some reservations against this approach to determining truth. Given that truth of a doctrine is absolute and independent of man's accepting and abiding by it or not, why hold a person's character as a measure for determining such absolute truth?

If a murderer, guilty of such transgression, walks up to me and says that "murdering is transgression of the law and ought not to be done", must I evaluate such teaching in light of Scripture and determine its truth independent of man or must I reject such teaching as false because the teacher himself has failed his own teaching?

I definitely think that the messenger must never be a basis of the truth of the message he carries. Of course, you could discern if the messenger/teacher is a hypocrite or not by his fruits - but this has no bearing on the truth of a doctrine, does it? Our basis should be Scripture alone, led by the Spirit alone, where we'd reject anything that fails to uphold Scripture as a whole or which detracts from the glory of God even in the least.

 

[CalledToServe]

While I do understand how this is meant in the OP, I do have some reservations against this approach to determining truth. Given that truth of a doctrine is absolute and independent of man's accepting and abiding by it or not, why hold a person's character as a measure for determining such absolute truth?

If a murderer, guilty of such transgression, walks up to me and says that "murdering is transgression of the law and ought not to be done", must I evaluate such teaching in light of Scripture and determine its truth independent of man or must I reject such teaching as false because the teacher himself has failed his own teaching?

I definitely think that the messenger must never be a basis of the truth of the message he carries. Of course, you could discern if the messenger/teacher is a hypocrite or not by his fruits - but this has no bearing on the truth of a doctrine, does it? Our basis should be Scripture alone, led by the Spirit alone, where we'd reject anything that fails to uphold Scripture as a whole or which detracts from the glory of God even in the least.

The messenger's character has everything to do with determining the truth concerning the doctrines of Jesus Christ. As a Christian we are called to be Christ-like in all things and failure to maintain those standards means that they are a false teacher. This is God's standard as put down in the Old and New Testaments.

The funny thing is that people will defend Tertullian and Origen today and their pagan philosophy in Christianity when these two were alive they were called heretics for their beliefs. Funny isn't it?

 

[dadof10]

No, the Holy Spirit decides for me what is the correct doctrine.

And if the Holy Spirit decides for someone else a "correct" doctrine that's contrary to yours, which "Holy Spirit" is right, and how do you tell?

 

[dadof10]

The funny thing is that people will defend Tertullian and Origen today and their pagan philosophy in Christianity when these two were alive they were called heretics for their beliefs. Funny isn't it?

Not for all their beliefs. Justin Martyr, St. John Chrysostom,and St Augustine, who you also quoted as "anti-semitic" were never called heretics. This is the reason we need an authoritative Church, to sort through all the doctrinal views and decide which ones are True.

 

[dadof10]

While I do understand how this is meant in the OP, I do have some reservations against this approach to determining truth. Given that truth of a doctrine is absolute and independent of man's accepting and abiding by it or not, why hold a person's character as a measure for determining such absolute truth?

If a murderer, guilty of such transgression, walks up to me and says that "murdering is transgression of the law and ought not to be done", must I evaluate such teaching in light of Scripture and determine its truth independent of man or must I reject such teaching as false because the teacher himself has failed his own teaching?

I definitely think that the messenger must never be a basis of the truth of the message he carries. Of course, you could discern if the messenger/teacher is a hypocrite or not by his fruits - but this has no bearing on the truth of a doctrine, does it?

 

[jasoncran]

Denying the Jewishness of Christ and calling all Jews Christ-killers is anti-semitic.

ah while i dont agree with your idea of the ecf being that way, but you must know that the rcc and also the protestants have in general deviated from the idea of the jewish culture and its views on the meanings of the torah from the sages.

i dont listen to the modern rabbis and a jew-christian who attends both the temple and church couldnt be more confused. one would have to in part split given in the days of the temple when it wasnt razed the feasts that involved animal sacrifices for sins would be commanded to the jews and the messianic jews cant repent that as christ clearly said that isnt the way any more. paul also said that the hebrews in the book of hebrews. the pharisees when they taught the torah then would surely deny the lord!

 

[jasoncran]

i wonder.. how much you do know of judaism and the torah and also the sages. i as a jew have embraced all that im in christ. but I KNOW that the jews ie the consertive and orthodox are off and will not follow them.

surely you know that im wondering as well since the kaballah was around then in infancy what then of the jerusalem talmud?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Given that truth of a doctrine is absolute and independent of man's accepting and abiding by it or not, why hold a person's character as a measure for determining such absolute truth?

I suggest it's more about using a person's character to know if they are a legitimate vessel of absolute truth or not. Even the worst of false teachers knows some absolute truth. Character helps us know if they have the potential to lead us astray. It goes back to the scriptural analogy of being tossed to and fro that I shared. When the two greatest commands are the bedrock of your Christian experience you can not be easily led astray and tossed to and fro by the winds of doctrine, if at all.

I guess this makes the most sense when you consider how many in the church take comfort in what they know instead of who they are...and there are plenty of false teachers to help them stay deceived that way, and, like the teachers themselves, will find themselves pleading with Christ on the Day of Judgment to let them into the kingdom but who Christ will turn away and call 'lawless'. The false teachers having been unable to save either themselves or their hearers because they did not lead them into the will of God but only into so called 'knowledge'.

In speaking of these false prophets (who we know by the fruit they bear), Christ says...
22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:22-23 NIV)

If a murderer, guilty of such transgression, walks up to me and says that "murdering is transgression of the law and ought not to be done", must I evaluate such teaching in light of Scripture and determine its truth independent of man or must I reject such teaching as false because the teacher himself has failed his own teaching?

No, you reject the teacher. And then realize you are not to seek knowledge or wisdom from such a person, or trust anything he says that you don't already know. He is not from God. He is not leading toward God. It follows in the line of Deuteronomy 13...

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘ Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut. 13:1-3 NIV italics mine)

I definitely think that the messenger must never be a basis of the truth of the message he carries. Of course, you could discern if the messenger/teacher is a hypocrite or not by his fruits - but this has no bearing on the truth of a doctrine, does it?

No bearing at all? Why does Christ call such people 'false teachers', and that we should beware of them?

15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-16 NIV)

I suggest it's because somewhere along the line their 'doctrine' is leading away from Christ, not to him. You can use his character to know whether that be the case or not.

Our basis should be Scripture alone, led by the Spirit alone, where we'd reject anything that fails to uphold Scripture as a whole or which detracts from the glory of God even in the least.

...that 'anything' should include anyone who seems to be spiritually knowledgeable but who knows nothing, lives nothing, and teaches nothing about Christ-like character and depends on doctrines and knowledge, even the ministry itself, to validate their status as a 'teacher'. Beware of them.