Presenting the Gospel

[gord44]

I personally think the Reformation was something needed. I think Confessions were the key to the Reformation being successful. I think the lack of respect for the Confessions the reason why Protestant Christianity looks like it does today.

 

[AMR]

I personally think the Reformation was something needed. I think Confessions were the key to the Reformation being successful. I think the lack of respect for the Confessions the reason why Protestant Christianity looks like it does today.

Indeed. The Need for Creed.

 

[abacabb3]

We don't really know what scripture was floating around at the time and who had it and who didn't.

That's a Bart Erhman ultra-critical view. If we take that position, then technically we have no clue what anything Plato, Cicero, Dante, or anyone who wrote before the printing press actually wrote. From the manuscript record, we have zero evidence that the Scriptures we have now are not 95% percent the same in every single respect (including spelling differences, James White put the two most widely divergent traditions side by side and found that number.) That's huge.

The first real attempt at a 'canon' wasn't until nearly 100 years later and even that 'canon' was by Marcion, who was considered a heretic for his 'unorthodox' views on the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh.

Calling something by a name does not make it instantly exist. Clement quoted 60% of the NT or something like that in one letter written soon after the whole Bible was finsihed. It was already circulating and regarded as Scripture. The establishment of "Canon" was merely a rubber stamp.

Perhaps the Bible came to light and shone error on ancient ideas and lead to the Reformation?

I think your Bible history is a tad off The Bible was always the Bible, whether or not men recognize it is a different story.

 

[gord44]

That's a Bart Erhman ultra-critical view. If we take that position, then technically we have no clue what anything Plato, Cicero, Dante, or anyone who wrote before the printing press actually wrote. From the manuscript record, we have zero evidence that the Scriptures we have now are not 95% percent the same in every single respect (including spelling differences, James White put the two most widely divergent traditions side by side and found that number.) That's huge.

Fair enough. I don't read Bart Erhman just for the record.

I think your Bible history is a tad off The Bible was always the Bible, whether or not men recognize it is a different story.

Fair enough. This isn't the place to argue about that anyways.

 

[JM]

I re-read the warning I received recently. I'm not allowed to actively promote doctrines contra the EOC, even in the debate forum...at least that's the way The Gospel thread was perceived by the Mods. For me to answer the questions in the St. Justin's forum concerning sola scriptura, if the Mods are consistent, my posts would be viewed as actively promoting contrary doctrine.

I provided a link to the "Debate with a Calvin" forum and instructed them to ask their questions there.

In all honesty, they can't handle the questions about the history of icons, they just can't face the truth about them. Calvin provides clear historical evidence in his Institutes for how they came into use, his work agrees with other recent works yet, they slander John Calvin without a care. They were to quick call Reformed folks "heretical" and then tried to say one could hold to heretical doctrine and not be a heretic. They insist on attacking sola scriptura instead of dealing with the history I provided.

I'm knackered.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[abacabb3]

What do you think of how they defend "Tradition" as something "living and active" contrary to what the Church Fathers actually viewed Tradition?

God's still revealing new "Tradition" apparently!

 

[JM]

What do you think of how they defend "Tradition" as something "living and active" contrary to what the Church Fathers actually viewed Tradition?

God's still revealing new "Tradition" apparently!

Is there much difference between modern Pentecostal belief in tongues and RC or EO teaching of Apostolic gifts and authority? Both groups overrule the word of God for their own authority. You might find a useful polemic against "living tradition" and the idea of modern Apostles held by Pentecostals.

jm

 

[gord44]

Interestingly enough I just listened to an interesting interview by a non-Christian author who was trying to prove the point that Pentecostal/Charismatic beliefs is actually authentic Christianity and what the apostles and early Christians practiced. was an interesting listen.

sorry off topic, but kinda on topic to JM's last comment.

 

[JM]

Interestingly enough I just listened to an interesting interview by a non-Christian author who was trying to prove the point that Pentecostal/Charismatic beliefs is actually authentic Christianity and what the apostles and early Christians practiced. was an interesting listen.

sorry off topic, but kinda on topic to JM's last comment.

I don't think it's off topic. Here's a debate over the issue of modern Apostles.

“Have The New Testament Charismatic Gifts Ceased?” [Debate] Sam Waldron vs Michael Brown [Video] | The Confessing Baptist

Format:
1. Michael Brown (1) Opening – 15 min.
2. Sam Waldron (2) Opening 15 min.
3. 1) Rebuttal 10 min
4. (2) Rebuttal 10 min
5. Cross Examination (1) 15 min.
6. Cross Examination (2) 15 min.
7. Closing (1) 5 min.
8. Closing (2) 5 min.

 

[abacabb3]

Is there much difference between modern Pentecostal belief in tongues and RC or EO teaching of Apostolic gifts and authority? Both groups overrule the word of God for their own authority. You might find a useful polemic against "living tradition" and the idea of modern Apostles held by Pentecostals.

jm

At least they don't cloak themselves in "tradition" and "history." Modern EO and RCC is totally divorced from both.

 

[gord44]

I think one thing people must consider is that not everyone is the same. Some people like the mystery aspects of Eastern Orthodox theology. Others like the more rational/scholarly theology of the Reformed camp. I spent alot of time studying mysticism and the EO provides that, but it's not for everyone. I learned over several years and many experiences through many religious ideas, is that if you expect everyone to to believe what you do or appreciate arguments supporting what you think is right, you will be very disappointed as it's just not reality. Some folks don't need a systematic, by the book theology that others do. I find I am in the middle most of the time.

 

[gord44]

I don't think it's off topic. Here's a debate over the issue of modern Apostles.

“Have The New Testament Charismatic Gifts Ceased?” [Debate] Sam Waldron vs Michael Brown [Video] | The Confessing Baptist

Format:
1. Michael Brown (1) Opening – 15 min.
2. Sam Waldron (2) Opening 15 min.
3. 1) Rebuttal 10 min
4. (2) Rebuttal 10 min
5. Cross Examination (1) 15 min.
6. Cross Examination (2) 15 min.
7. Closing (1) 5 min.
8. Closing (2) 5 min.

Interesting. Thanks I will check it out.

This guys idea was Christianity started as a 'spirit' possession religion. Where being possessed by the Holy Spirit was the ideal goal. Of course you can see modern Pentecostalism and Charismatic churches having similar ideas where their goal is to 'experience' the Holy Spirit by being 'possessed' by it.