PatrickM said:
If we are to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, the faith must be once-for-all in its influence. Peter says God has given us *all* things pertaining to life and godliness. This was 2,000 years ago, yet it states we have all things pertaining to life, implying we need nothing more than Gods word in regards to living life according to Gods will. This same Word, according to 2 Timothy, makes the man of God complete, thoroughly equipped for *every good work*. We need nothing else, no cultural influence to live godly lives.
Not sure what you mean by not "needing" cultural influence. It's not a "need", it's an "is."
In the light of these statements, I cannot see how Christians should allow their culture to influence them. Romans admonishes us not to be conformed to this world, but to be transformed, be different than the culture around us, my the renewing of our mind.
Yes, of course we're to be transformed, and those who are in Christ are being transformed. But that transformation isn't complete until our sanctification is complete, and that doesn't happen in this lifetime.
The reality is, there is a great deal of disagreement and debate among true regenerate believers as to the correct way in which we're to live out "the great commission" in the world in which we live. I don't claim to know all the answers, and frankly, if you're implying that they're self-evident for a Bible-believing Christian, then I don't believe you've given the matter sufficient thought.
If you are implying Calvin may have been blinded to whats right, I can agree with you on this. This is not to say the man did not make tremendous contributions to the faith. Merely that he was human, and such, perhaps we give too much attention to his teachings rather than Gods teachings. And please to do respond with they were one in the same, as there is only one Word of God, we need no more. I like your signature quote regarding this.
LOL I just changed my signature, but not because I've changed my mind about its validity or anything. It's vitally important that we prayerfully read and study Scripture ourselves if we've been so blessed as to have the ability to do so. And it's absolutely true that the Scriptures stand in a separate class from the writings of later theologians. And I certainly reject the idea that William Whitaker (the author of my previous signature quote) was rejecting--that the Scriptures aren't perspicuous (i.e., that they weren't written to be understood without some further special inspiration or additional revelation.) But that doesn't mean that God has in mind that each individual Christian is supposed to approach his study of Scripture as an individual--operating separately from the rest of the body of Christ. God says that some within the body are specially gifted as teachers, but we know that godly theologians/teachers are both teachers
and students, themselves, of the rest of the body. We all learn from one another.
I realize you said you are not advocating cultural relativism, but that is exactly what you are saying here. If not, please define what cultural relativism is?
Cultural relativism is the idea that there really is no objective standard by which any given cultural norm can be judged. A cultural relativist, for example, cannot say that forced slavery, for example, is wrong. He can only say that he finds it personally distasteful. I, on the other hand, can judge by the standards God has revealed in Scripture and in the human conscience, that forced slavery is wrong. What I can't do, though, is to presume that if I lived within an entirely different cultural context, I'd necessary recognize certain things as wrong that I can recognize while living in the culture I'm in. And what I also can't do is to presume that some of the things that I accept as acceptable or even good aren't necessarily really sinful.
When King Asa brought reform to Israel, he failed to remove the "high places"--places that were set apart to worship idols, but that God had never sanctioned as proper for worshipping Him. King Asa was culturally blinded, but he was still praised by God, (although not for this failure).
We need not emulate *any* previous historical culture, as, I said above, we have Gods Word to emulate. Paul said be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
Indeed, but we, as the church of Jesus Christ, work together to carry out the great commission, and we don't have perfect vision as to the correct way to do that. So we pray for guidance, and we mess up a whole lot, while God's strength continues to be made manifest through our weakness, and all the glory goes to Him alone.
I think this is too broad of a statement. There was as much diversity in the 16th century as there is today, hence all the wars, no?
In addition, its the miracle of the universality of the gospel that makes missionary work possible. We can take the same gospel to any culture in the world and it works, as it is in truth, not mans words, but God, the creators words.
Amen! But if you've been to different parts of the world and visited various churches, you'll see variations in cultural norms.
Through this thread, numerous texts, even in response to one of your previous questions, am not opposed to capital punishment per se, but it must fit crime, biblically, as the example given by God (prior to the law, I might add), Gen 9:6, Whoever sheds mans blood, by man his blood shall be shed. I dont see any crime other than murder as an appropriate crime justifying capital punishment. And I cannot see any example in Gods word where execution is an acceptable punishment for teaching contrary to Gods word.
What about the punishment for false prophets in the Old Testament?
The apostles lived during a time when the church was under persecution--there was no Christian civil authority. In the sixteenth century, the church and the state were united. Now, again, I'm not justifying the execution of heretics, but I can understand the thinking of those who felt it was.
