Why I am not a theological liberal.

[D-D-W]

Again, the Talmud teaches our Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ, is a false teacher, and a deceiver, and that He is in hell.

That does not answer my question.

Judaism teaches that Jesus is not the Messiah, nor the Son of God.

Which is why I said there must inevitably be a New Covenant Judaism.

I said you would not like my answer; and clearly that is true.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Scripture does not define God's essence.

I would argue that scripture does define God's essence to a degree. I think you agree that there is a partial definition.
God essence, to a degree cannot be understood and to a degree He does not define what we might be able to understand. I.E. He is eternal. This concept can only be partially understood.

Christ is either homoousios or homoiousios. Who is right? Arius?

Thank you Google for internet searches as I had no idea what these terms meant.
Candidly, on my own I would not have the ability to determine who is right based on scripture. By myself I would probably (99%) go homoiousios. I rely on people I respect as they have studied it and brought to my attention pertinent verses ... based on those verses and my respect for those experts (my bias?, social pressure?, the Spirit's leading?) I go with God and Christ being of the same substance. Aside: Even the experts says the complete understanding is not possible.

When, where and how did God answer this about Himself?

I could give pertinent verses that lead inconclusively to opinions. You probably know them. God does not answer the question directly. He has given us clues that men have used to come to a conclusion ... said conclusion not necessarily being true (precise). Aside: The definition we will ALWAYS struggle to understand a transcendent, infinite being.

So God decides but provides no answer, means or mechanism? That leaves you completely in the dark, in total chaos.

Agreed, save we are not completely in the dark. He provides clues for some questions. Deut. 29:29
The 'experts' say God's word gives us the information we need for salvation and obedience (sufficiency of scripture). Granted the experts could be wrong.
Aside: sure not much about Christ in the old testament.
Aside2: You can talk to for_his_glory about how people can be saved who never heard of Christ. Perhaps she can relate to you how people glean information from nature as to the essence of God (Aside: couldn't resist Ms. Glory)

Again, who gets to define what God's essence is? I am trying to stick to Arius, but if we fast forward 1200 years from Arius, we get to John Calvin, who also introduced a completely different teaching on the essence of God.

I'm not a Christian historian. I know you have IMO extensive knowledge of the subject and I postulate you use it as a partial foundation in R.C. theology. Aside: Calvin was not first with these ideas. Augustine had similar doctrine.
Obviously, we disagree as to the doctrine of the apostles in these matters.
Anyways, God define His essence. He does so incompletely. Deut. 29:29
Aside: Covering same ground here IMO. I gave my fallible opinion.

There must be a means or mechanism otherwise by saying "God just does" you are just repeating an empty platitude.

Re: by saying "God just does" you are just repeating an empty platitude .... agreed, though that doesn't mean I am wrong ... that there is an answer.
I think you postulate that their must be an answer and the only answer put forward by Christians is the R.C. answer of the church is the means or mechanism of determining God's 'this or that'.

Re: There must be a means or mechanism ... I don't agree with this premise and can prove it logically IMO

Premise 1: God is transcendent
Premise 2: God is infinite in wisdom, knowledge, etc.
Premise 3: Only God knows himself (there a verse for that... too lazy to search)
Conclusion: 1 Corinthians 13:12 Thus we conclude that there is no means or mechanism to know all things in regard to God's essence (or maybe any aspect of God completely unless it can be reduced to simplistic knowledge like God knows 1 + 1 = 2

I'm not interested in your opinion. You said God Himself determines what is or is not heresy. How, when and where did God declare Arianism a heresy?

God's does not directly claim Arianism is a heresy directly. There is scripture that people use to indirectly show Arianism is a heresy. People are fallible, thus their opinions are fallible.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Don't omit the revelation of God in creation. See Rom 1 (NIV).

LOL ... agreed. That's why I said "99% of what we know of God. (99% being a subjective estimate)"

Some here think one can be saved by the knowledge obtained by the 'revelation of God in creation'. Maybe I should lower my 99%

Also, there's the 'Spirit's leading.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I consider myself theologically conservative, in that I view the Bible as an authority, inspired by God, and tend to interpret it more conservatively than not. One difference is I'm not complementarian. I do believe some translations contain errors, but the original documents (which have been lost to time) were perfect.

 

[evenifigoalone]

OK you asked for it. But I told you, you are not going to like it.

Romans 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

There you have it. It is up to JEWS to determine the proper interpretation of scripture. God entrusted that to THEM and THEM ONLY. Since Paul writes in chapter 11 of the same book that the "gifts and callings of God are irrevocable," that means HE has NOT TAKEN AWAY His entrusting the Scriptures to the circumcised.

But if you argue that no Jew has the right or the wherewithal to understand and interpret New Covenant Scriptures, then you need to see the necessity for a New Covenant Judaism.

I'll have to think on that one. But I would think we at least need to look to Judaism to understand scripture to at least some extent, seeing as it comes from their culture and an understanding of their culture is necessary to understand context of many verses.
I wouldn't say that just because a Jewish person says one thing, means that it's true. There are theologically liberal and theologically conservative Jews. Also, those who practice the Jewish faith do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Messianic Jews do exist, though. I used to attend a Bible study held by such a family.

 

[jaybo]

OK you asked for it. But I told you, you are not going to like it.

Romans 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

There you have it. It is up to JEWS to determine the proper interpretation of scripture. God entrusted that to THEM and THEM ONLY. Since Paul writes in chapter 11 of the same book that the "gifts and callings of God are irrevocable," that means HE has NOT TAKEN AWAY His entrusting the Scriptures to the circumcised.

But if you argue that no Jew has the right or the wherewithal to understand and interpret New Covenant Scriptures, then you need to see the necessity for a New Covenant Judaism.

You're aware, of course, that Luke, a Gentile, wrote two "books" of the New Testament.

Secondly, you wrote " It is up to JEWS to determine the proper interpretation of scripture.". Well, so much for Gentile involvement in the Church for the last 2,000 years! Will all those Gentiles who have been ordained -- never mind those who haven't -- please resign from the ministry immediately.,

BTW, D-D-W, are you a Jew? I am, but I don't consider my understanding to be perfect. Pretty good, yes, but not infallible.

 

[D-D-W]

I am not so sure that Luke was a gentile. His knowledge of the layout of Judea and Jerusalem seems to be one with personal knowledge, not just from study.

Yes I wrote and believe it is God's calling and gifting to the Jews. But Messianic Judaism is not yet ready to actually take that role on as of yet. And as for the 2000 (give or take) years of gentile church leadership, just look at how messed up and divided the overall church is. I don't think the gentiles did that great a job of it.

As to whether I am a jew or not is not really the issue here. I was not raised Jewish. But later in life I found out I had Jewish ancestors on both sides of my family.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I am not so sure that Luke was a gentile.

Agreed... there is evidence for both sides.
My guess is that he was a Jew.

 

[jasonc]

Agreed... there is evidence for both sides.
My guess is that he was a Jew.

a Reformed jew,lol.
and I mean the 5 point type,5 solas etc

 

[Walpole]

Your solution of 'one body' to determine what is true and Christian has never worked and will never work this side of the Second Coming.

It didn't work with Adam and Eve. It didn't work with Israel. It didn't work with the Church. No matter where the supposed true body is, there is satan also with 'yea hath God said'. And if there is only one body dictating what is true, then when it is infected by the 'yea hath God said', then all are affected.

And of course the Roman Church is the perfect example.

The Christian can examine the preachers teaching and compare it with Scripture. If he disagrees with the preacher then it remains for him to search it out further as he has the Bible and the Holy Spirit. He does so by his own study, and by seeking others older in the faith, either personally or by commentaries.

After a certain time the believer will come to a decision as to what he disagreed with concerning the pastors teaching. Whether the pastor was right or wrong in this area. If it is important enough to leave the Church, for example, if the pastor taught women should be allowed to preach in the assembly, then the Christian leaves.

And next time this believer hears a Bible teacher say women can preach in the assembly, then he already has done the study and knows immediately that that is wrong. He doesn't have to assume. He knows the Scripture concerning it. He now listens to see if any offer any new evidence in Scripture to support such teaching which would overturn what he already has determined.

Seeing no new Scripture has been presented that would change his mind, then he leaves and goes and find a fellowship of believers of like faith. The many denominations are a protection against heresy. They are not an impairment to the truth.

Quantrill

It has worked quite well actually, since in 2000 years there have only been two schisms.

By contrast, it is sola Scriptura which does not work. The result is thousands and thousands of different denominations, all with competing and often contradictory beliefs (see my previous post with the example of baptism). We know from history that when Protestantism first started, they rapidly began dividing because sola Scriptura is not able to resolve any doctrinal disagreements. By the end of the 16th century alone, there were already nearly 300 different sects. Because Protestantism does not have a living authority to resolve exegetical disagreements, the fruit of this doctrine has been the continual division with the ultimate authority resting not in the Scriptures alone to decide what is or is not the faith, but rather in the subjective interpretation of the Scriptures by each individual adherent.

 

[Walpole]

Wal,

It's not a comparison with your subjective knowledge but a comparison of your preacher's content with what the Scriptures state. Every person has the responsibility of checking out the content of the preacher's preaching.

Oz

But then who decides if the preacher is right or if I'm right? Again, it renders Christianity entirely subjective. The Christian faith becomes whatever I say it is.

 

[Walpole]

Wal,

How do you know Arius was a heretic? What did he teach that was contrary to Scripture?

Oz

You just made my point. Who gets to declare what Arius taught is heretical? Who gets to declare Arianism is not Christianity?

Also, Arius himself was a Scripture scholar and used the Scriptures to argue his position.

 

[Walpole]

The Holy Spirit.


I promise you, the day will come when we stand before God, and He judges us according to our deeds; according to what we have done.


Those who promoted heresy will not inherit the kingdom of God.


Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21



Those who promote heresies will go to the same place as murderers, adulterers, fornicators, drunkerds.



Do you understand what the term “not inherit the kingdom of God” means?






JLB

Thank you again for the random Scripture verses, but you are still not answering my question.

Let's try it this way...

The Holy Spirit decides what is or is not a heresy by ______________ ( fill in the black with the mechanism / means by which He does so.)

 

[Walpole]

OK you asked for it. But I told you, you are not going to like it.

Romans 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

There you have it. It is up to JEWS to determine the proper interpretation of scripture. God entrusted that to THEM and THEM ONLY. Since Paul writes in chapter 11 of the same book that the "gifts and callings of God are irrevocable," that means HE has NOT TAKEN AWAY His entrusting the Scriptures to the circumcised.

But if you argue that no Jew has the right or the wherewithal to understand and interpret New Covenant Scriptures, then you need to see the necessity for a New Covenant Judaism.

So God decides what is or is not heresy based on what Jews say?

You might want to brush up on what Jews believe. (Hint: They reject Jesus Christ.) Why would Jews determine for Christians what is a Christian heresy? That's like saying Christians decide for Muslims who is an infidel in Islam.

I am trying to be charitable here but it's getting hard to take what you post seriously.

 

[OzSpen]

Actually, our Lord's DOCTRINE fell neatly between the 2 major schools of pharasaism, School of Shammai and School of Hillel.

What they could not swallow was that He claimed to be Divine. That is a statement of identity, not doctrine.

DDW,

It's a statement of identity AND doctrine. I learned that in basic Christology in Bible College.

Oz

 

[Walpole]

I would argue that scripture does define God's essence to a degree. I think you agree that there is a partial definition.
God essence, to a degree cannot be understood and to a degree He does not define what we might be able to understand. I.E. He is eternal. This concept can only be partially understood.

The teaching on the essence of the God of Christianity developed over time and across several centuries. It was not done by simply pointing to a verse(s) from Scripture and saying "Voilà! See here Arius? See here Nestorius?"

Thank you Google for internet searches as I had no idea what these terms meant.
Candidly, on my own I would not have the ability to determine who is right based on scripture. By myself I would probably (99%) go homoiousios. I rely on people I respect as they have studied it and brought to my attention pertinent verses ... based on those verses and my respect for those experts (my bias?, social pressure?, the Spirit's leading?) I go with God and Christ being of the same substance. Aside: Even the experts says the complete understanding is not possible.

Well you just made my case. If the Scriptures are clear about the essence of God, and based on the clarity of the Scriptures to address this, by you saying Christ is homiousios, you are in Arius' camp.

Arius was a homoiousian. He similarly believed the Scriptures were clear.

I could give pertinent verses that lead inconclusively to opinions. You probably know them. God does not answer the question directly. He has given us clues that men have used to come to a conclusion ... said conclusion not necessarily being true (precise). Aside: The definition we will ALWAYS struggle to understand a transcendent, infinite being.



Agreed, save we are not completely in the dark. He provides clues for some questions. Deut. 29:29
The 'experts' say God's word gives us the information we need for salvation and obedience (sufficiency of scripture). Granted the experts could be wrong.
Aside: sure not much about Christ in the old testament.
Aside2: You can talk to for_his_glory about how people can be saved who never heard of Christ. Perhaps she can relate to you how people glean information from nature as to the essence of God (Aside: couldn't resist Ms. Glory)



I'm not a Christian historian. I know you have IMO extensive knowledge of the subject and I postulate you use it as a partial foundation in R.C. theology. Aside: Calvin was not first with these ideas. Augustine had similar doctrine.
Obviously, we disagree as to the doctrine of the apostles in these matters.
Anyways, God define His essence. He does so incompletely. Deut. 29:29
Aside: Covering same ground here IMO. I gave my fallible opinion.





Re: by saying "God just does" you are just repeating an empty platitude .... agreed, though that doesn't mean I am wrong ... that there is an answer.
I think you postulate that their must be an answer and the only answer put forward by Christians is the R.C. answer of the church is the means or mechanism of determining God's 'this or that'.

Re: There must be a means or mechanism ... I don't agree with this premise and can prove it logically IMO

Premise 1: God is transcendent
Premise 2: God is infinite in wisdom, knowledge, etc.
Premise 3: Only God knows himself (there a verse for that... too lazy to search)
Conclusion: 1 Corinthians 13:12 Thus we conclude that there is no means or mechanism to know all things in regard to God's essence (or maybe any aspect of God completely unless it can be reduced to simplistic knowledge like God knows 1 + 1 = 2






God's does not directly claim Arianism is a heresy directly. There is scripture that people use to indirectly show Arianism is a heresy. People are fallible, thus their opinions are fallible.

So how then can you claim "God does" when I ask who decides what is or is not heresy? You have just demonstrated, in near real time, that if in fact "God does", He left no way for you to know His answer.

This means you have no actual way of knowing what is or is not the Christian faith. (For example, you embraced Arianism in this very post.)

 

[Fastfredy0]

So how then can you claim "God does" when I ask who decides what is or is not heresy?

I think you are misapplying what I have said or my communication skills are lacking. I state the God is all knowing. If this be true then God is the one the determines what is and is not heresy. I do not state He always reveals what is and is not heresy on everything.
Example: I know there is but one God as God has revealed this in scripture.
I don't know if Christ slept on His back or His side or His chest the most. If I claim Christ slept on His back more than any other position and that is not true it would be a heresy (belief or opinion contrary to religious truth) if my statement was not true. I believe that scripture is the only infallible source of truth but not all truth ... for example, it doesn't tell me what position Christ took most often while sleeping.

(For example, you embraced Arianism in this very post.)

I said hypothetically, left to my own abilities alone to interpret scripture, I guess I would embrace Arianism. I do not embrace Arianism. I do not rely exclusively on my reading of scripture; rather, I read what other people I respect have said and that influences me. That influence in this specific case has caused me to not embrace Arianism.

This means you have no actual way of knowing what is or is not the Christian faith.

I have a way. It is scripture alone. Do I infallibly interpret scripture ... the answer is NO. No one can save God and thus God alone infallibly determines what is and is not heresy. Since scripture is written by God, it is an infallible source of the determination of heresy, though not ALL heresies. (Deut. 29:29) There is not other infallible source that can determine what is and is not a heresy, though there are those that claim this to be an incorrect statement.

Aside: I think we are miscommunicating/misunderstanding.

 

[Walpole]

I think you are misapplying what I have said or my communication skills are lacking. I state the God is all knowing. If this be true then God is the one the determines what is and is not heresy. I do not state He always reveals what is and is not heresy on everything.
Example: I know there is but one God as God has revealed this in scripture.
I don't know if Christ slept on His back or His side or His chest the most. If I claim Christ slept on His back more than any other position and that is not true it would be a heresy (belief or opinion contrary to religious truth) if my statement was not true. I believe that scripture is the only infallible source of truth but not all truth ... for example, it doesn't tell me what position Christ took most often while sleeping.


I said hypothetically, left to my own abilities alone to interpret scripture, I guess I would embrace Arianism. I do not embrace Arianism. I do not rely exclusively on my reading of scripture; rather, I read what other people I respect have said and that influences me. That influence in this specific case has caused me to not embrace Arianism.


I have a way. It is scripture alone. Do I infallibly interpret scripture ... the answer is NO. No one can save God and thus God alone infallibly determines what is and is not heresy. Since scripture is written by God, it is an infallible source of the determination of heresy, though not ALL heresies. (Deut. 29:29) There is not other infallible source that can determine what is and is not a heresy, though there are those that claim this to be an incorrect statement.

Aside: I think we are miscommunicating/misunderstanding.

A thing cannot both be and not be (principle of non-contradiction).

Assertion 1: The reason you reject Arianism ---> "I do not rely exclusively on my reading of scripture; rather, I read what other people I respect have said and that influences me. That influence in this specific case has caused me to not embrace Arianism."

Assertion 2: Your rule ---> "I have a way. It is scripture alone."


Assertion 1 violates Assertion 2. In Assertion 1, you do not use scripture alone. Rather, you use what other people have said to determine what it is you believe. Ergo, you violate your own principle.


This is quite common. When pressed, I find people who claim sola Scriptura don't actually believe it. It's never Scripture alone, but always Scripture + _________ ( <--- fill in the blank with whatever you need to fit your theology).

 

[Fastfredy0]

A thing cannot both be and not be (principle of non-contradiction).

Assertion 1: The reason you reject Arianism ---> "I do not rely exclusively on my reading of scripture; rather, I read what other people I respect have said and that influences me. That influence in this specific case has caused me to not embrace Arianism."

Assertion 2: Your rule ---> "I have a way. It is scripture alone."


Assertion 1 violates Assertion 2. In Assertion 1, you do not use scripture alone. Rather, you use what other people have said to determine what it is you believe. Ergo, you violate your own principle.

Again, we have a misunderstanding. I can see how I could have misrepresented myself given my perceived understanding of what you are trying to ascertain.

I will restate my position for clarification.
I rely on scripture alone to be the infallible source of information about God. Some things about what scripture says are difficult to comprehend for a multitude of reasons. I use my skills and the skills of others to interpret what the infallible source of God's word means. I and commentators are fallible.

This is quite common. When pressed, I find people who claim sola Scriptura don't actually believe it. It's never Scripture alone, but always Scripture + _________ ( <--- fill in the blank with whatever you need to fit your theology).

You conflate two different ideas and assume they are one. This is the source of your invalid conclusion.

1. One idea is the source of information about God. I state the only infallible source is scripture alone. This is the sola scriptura aspect of your question.
2. Second idea is how do I understand scripture. I state I read it and read commentaries of others and come to a conclusion or probability of correctness. I recognize that I and commentators are fallible. This is the Arianism aspect of your question with you conflate with "scripture alone". When I answer this second question you apply it to be my statement on "scripture alone" and then say the answers are not the same ... ask one question at a time and hoping the conflict will go away.

1. Idea 1: Sola Scriptura is that scripture alone (66 books of Bible) are the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13)—truthful, uniquely authoritative, and without error. (maybe the root of the problem is your definition varies from mine)
2. Idea 2: How do you apply 'scripture alone' to determine God's will with respect to whatever (you used Arianism)

Thus, your question about my understanding of Arianism is a invalid conflation of "my understanding of Arianism" and my belief in "sola scripturu" IMO.

In other words, if you want an opinion about sola scriptura you should ask for a definition of the term and then use agreed to definition to determine possible contradictions. If you want to know my opinion of a particular doctrine I will use "scripture alone" (see definition) as an infallible source and other fallible sources ... thus my doctrine is fallible.

Again, "scripture alone" does not mean "scripture alone" is the only source of determining God's will. It is the only infallible source. Scripture tells us to use those He has given the gift of teaching as an aid, but "scripture alone" reminds us that those teachers are fallible.

Aside: Maybe your definition of "scripture alone" is the only source of understanding is Scripture. That might explain your misinterpretation of what I am saying (or maybe I can't communicate well enough .. .or whatever).

 

[JLB]

Which is why I said there must inevitably be a New Covenant Judaism.

Which of course, there is not.

There is the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, or the world.


New Covenant Judaism is a man made religion with its own man made doctrine.



JLB