This conversation with a dear friend was probably motivated by his skepticism in our use of the post-Apostolic patristic writings of the church of the very first 300 to 400 years, all Ante-Nicene. The specific topic was Christian perfection and its necessity for full salvation. He poses a legitimate challenge which I was compelled to address. Regardless of whose side you are on, the discussion should be very informative and educational for serious students and expositors of the Word:
The contribution of the individual components in this dynamics is too tedious and cumbersome to calculate I guess. I sometimes wonder if there is a positive reward to do calculus to get the right answer. In the end, the components that we think are our contribution to the equation are something we just received from God. Pilate bragged about what he could contribute to the release or crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus agreed with him but only to cancel his contribution (John 19:10-11) “You would have no power over me at all unless it were given tbo you from above."
CrossCulture West Covina: Confusing for those who do not dig deep into the word using post-Apostolic tradition as the springboard for interpretation of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. I am finding out that John Wesley was quite sympathetic to Montanus (early pentecostal charismatic), Novatian (salvation once lost is lost forever, Hebrews 6), and Pelagius (man made in the image of God has the capacity for good works even without divine grace, OT saints prove this). All of these were condemned as heretics by the Reformed-Augustinian theologians. Based on the godly lives and testimony of these "heretics" vs. proud and arrogant Augustine, I firmly believe myself that they are closer to the kingdom than we imagine, YES closer to the kingdom than Augustine or even Martin Luther will ever be. Arminians (and Wesleyans for that matter), by the way, are really semi-Pelagians! SO, WILL THE REAL HERETICS (whose real lives do not demonstrate holy love "naturally") PLEASE SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!
I appreciate your digging deep into the perspectives of the early Church Fathers. They are very informative! I think I would cherish them as spiritual treasures if we do not have access to the Gospel. The real treasures are Jesus Words I believe and we can understand them clearly. Only do I consult the early saints for unclear teachings. If I depended on these early saints for spiritual guidance over Jesus clear Words, then I would find myself promoting idolatly of the saints. This is something I already denounced early in my Christian life. Since we are truly free, we should be free to express our ideas regardless of possible reaction. Nothing personal. I judge nobody! Sometimes the real treasures are just burried knee deep. Digging deeper is not always a productive hobby. No offense intended. But I don't judge people for their hobby. I have hobbies too that I am enjoying even if they are not productive.
CrossCulture West Covina: I fully understand your point. That was my initial attitude. But in retrospect, it was the post-Apostolic church that was the direct recipient of of the meaning and application of the Apostle's doctrine. They were very Koine Greek literate and did not have the disadvantage of a 2,000 year gap nor confusing translations to understand the NT correctly. Besides, they were even contemporaries of the apostles like Clement of Rome (mentioned in Philippians), Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna and Papias (disciples of St. John), Hermas (mentioned by Paul in Romans). What I denounce are the arrogance of the post-Nicene theologians in assuming that they have a better understanding than the primitive post-Apostolic writers, many of who do not even understand Greek. A legitimate question is who do you think understands the Apostle's doctrine once and for all delivered to the saints, the primitive pre-Nicene church or those that came after, like us???? What really sparked my keen interest were the wrong doctrine I learned from modern mentors. Penal substitution for example contradicts the nature of God squarely in the face, but we continue to teach such heretical viewpoint started by Ambrose, promoted by Augustine and further corrupted by John Calvin AND WE CELEBRATE THESE PEOPLE?????? Even our Soteriology today is a far cry from the soteriology of the Apostolic church which was 5% entering the kingdom of God BUT 95% making sure we do not lose our salvation! Our soteriology assumes we are saved in the aorist and there is nothing else to do! That is definitely NOT New Testament doctrine. Luther and Calvin, yes, but not Bible at all!
The biggest point here is what if we are assuming we are fully saved and we are not. Yes, we stand on the word of God BUT DO WE STAND ON A FEW ISOLATED VERSES OR THE PLENARY REVELATION OF THE WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT???? After 2,000 years, are we really preaching the right gospel? Do we preach the gospel of the kingdom or just a piece of it??? Very serious but very legit questions, the wrong answers which could cost us eternity!
Genuine salvation is faith based on what is stated in God's Word, not on presumption based on something else. If God's Word says you are saved after fulfilling the stated requirement, then you are. To believe otherwise is plain disbelief.
I was about to go to bed but am tempted to meet your challenge. So context first, John was the last gospel ever written and towards the end of John's life and the Apostolic age 90's AD. Hence instead of taking the UN-interesting narrative approach to Jesus ministry, John instead wanted to encapsulate and recap the gospel and practice of the Apostolic churches of the first century. Since the book of James was among the first epistles written c.35-45 BC. John had intimate knowledge of the interplay between faith and works. With this contextual background let us focus on the text. In verse 24, the verb for pisteuo is a present participle, ie., a continuous mood or tense basically referring not to a static "easy believism" but an enduringly active faith and trust. The results therefore of passing from death into life is conditional on enduring continuous faith. Forget the other metaphors for now and proceed to verse 29 which is the crux of New Testament theology....those who have done evil OR good are not non-Christians and Christians as commonly interpreted. John actually meant believers doing good works (based on the book of James) will rise to eternal life while believers doing evil will still end up in lower Hades where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Obviously this verse is CONDITIONAL ASSURANCE and not absolute salvation based on a static aorist belief.. That is ante-Nicene teaching and I fully believe it.
almost ALL pisteuo in the gospel of John is present participle (continuous enduring faith) even John 3:16!! We have unwittingly subscribed to the gnostic Lutheran and Reformed view that easy believism is once and for all. BZZZZZZ! wrong interpretation!. Ephesians 5:3-6 condemns believers who are not content with what they already have (greed, covetousness)... "But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. " The early church leaders were admonished to watch and guard the flock for the real possibility of losing salvation was always present when the sheep strays too far from the shepherd. Even Paul himself realized that after preaching the gospel to the whole world he was still in danger of being "disqualified from the kingdom" 1 Cor. 9:24-27. We just ignore this key passage instead of exegeting and applying it seriously and correctly to ourselves. Separation from the world is the prevailing theme of the New Testament, but do we listen or do we mostly compromise? The kingdom of God is the enemy of the kingdom of the world yet we have much of our preoccupations and passions in worldly temporal things? So are we exegeting and applying seriously these things to life or we assume they are not that serious and go about our merry way as believers but soaking in the world??? We grew up serving two masters, God and what money can buy (Mammon) and because of prevailing culture we do not realize how dangerous that is to our spiritual lives so we still serve two masters and we think that is OK because we are serving God anyway....is that correct application???? we casually covet the latest fashion, the latest iPad/iPhone even if we already have the means to do exactly the same utility. Is that contentment? Nay, that is covetousness which is idolatry and those who do such things cannot inherit the kingdom of Christ and God according to St. Paul himself!
My most passionate concern is that there are too many evangelicals in our western Christianity world who may falsely assume that they are saved and will go into the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth because they believed in "innovative interpretations" instead of the pure milk of the word. Just because we understand Greek does not mean we can explain it to those who need it. Christ said in John 3:5 "unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God". I have heard so many interpretations but the early church was UNANIMOUS in understanding that "born of water" is physical water baptism, THEIR ONLY MEANS OF ENTERING THE KINGDOM OF GOD. This is literal but CORRECT interpretation, yet almost none of us present Christians ever understood it that way! So just us and our Bible is not enough to interpret Apostle's doctrine. We MUST refer to their direct disciples who spoke their language and lived in their context. That is why John Wesley and Albert Outler included TRADITION (pre-Nicene) as a key interpretive tool for good New Testament hermeneutics
What we market as easy salvation full and free is not easy nor is it full nor even free...It costs us our WHOLE life! We exchange our mortal life with the eternal life Christ offered, It is a trade which when not fully consummated results in false salvation..."he who love his life will lose it, he who loses his life for My sake and the gospel will gain it and eternal life as well. No man can serve two masters" All the gospels declare this truth, even twice in Matthew and twice in Luke. Even the Great commandment is not in all four but this one great truth is. But do we preach it for salvation or do we wait for carnality before we actually relay it to our disciples??? Knowing Bible Greek is NOT enough to know the whole counsel of the NT. We should rely heavily on post-Apostolic primitive Christianity for correct interpretation and application.
I agree. But unfortunately, it's not about the Greek we study at seminary although that helps. We still need the understanding of the first disciples of the Apostles since they were directly mentored and even martyred. The present perfect which we tout so adamantly is just that on the surface. But check the rest of the New Testament and their disciples, the present perfect NEVER implied uncondtional permanence. The early church were Greek but not seminary Greek. Their greek is like our Taglish. We say tapos na but is it really tapos? We simply mean tapos na for now most of the time. Same is true with those idiomatic and street uses of the Koine Greek in their context. So it is not all about Greek and we can be our own pope and interpret for ourselves arrogantly assuming we have the right interpretation. We have to refer to those who understood it best cuz theirs is living and dying proof in their understanding and application. Today, all we argue about has only academic value at best. The disciples were not that sophisticated in their common Greek, so we shouldn't be John Calvin's and Luther's either being our own pope with "sola scriptura" an invention of the Reformed view and not practiced by the pristine primitive church. In summary, WE CANNOT TRICK GOD WITH OUR SOPHISTICATED SEMINARY GREEK. They are useless when not consistent with the primitive church. We could simply end up fooling ourselves with academic scholarship (the Apostles were UNEDUCATED! With the exception of Paul, they could not even read Hebrew properly so they used the LXX as the inspired Word.)
John and Paul agree in the soteriology. 1Jn. 5:11-13; Rom 8:1; Rom. 6:2, etc. Are they not more authoritative than the early church fathers? Seminary Greeks are based on the NT writers' Greek. I care so little about what John Calvin, Luther and NT Scholars and commentators are are saying. We have direct access to the NT writings. We are not anti education. The NT entreats us to study to show ourselves approved as a workman who should not be ashamed (2 Tim 2:15). Why should John Wesley be more authoritative than John and Paul? Just twondering out loud. I think I am a Berean.
Berean is good, so am I and still am even with these new discoveries of primitive faith. I am NOT pointing out authority other than those of the early church. The 18th century Anglican restorationists of which Wesley was one made the following remarks: "Can any who spends several years in those seats of learning, be excused, if they do not add to that of the languages and sciences the knowledge of the Fathers? THE MOST AUTHENTIC COMMENTATORS on Scripture, as being both nearest the fountain and eminently endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given. It will be easily perceived, I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the Council of Nice. But who would not likewise desire to have some acquaintance with those that followed them? With St. Chrysostom, Basil, Jerome, Austin and, above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraim Syrus?" I am simply highlighting TRADITION, i.e., the understanding of the primitive church as Primary basis for interpretation, NOT reason or our knowledge of Greek or Hebrew which is mostly NOT even in their context. The point is we can never really interpret the New Testament correctly if we ignore primitive church tradition and with 30,000 Protestant denominations existing, conclusive DISAGREEMENT and confused SCHOLARSHIP. Why? Because protestants traditionally ignore tradition as primary basis for interpretation. Tradition is the living church organism practicing what they understood, practicing and believing THE SAME basic theology for 300 years! Only the Gnostics were splinter groups. The Montanists, the Novatians, the Pelagians were not even censured as heretics until after Nicea! So no major division for 300 years! The church divided due to Rome in 1000's AD BUT THE WORST DIVISIONS WERE BROUGHT ABOUT BY SOLA SCRIPTURA OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION! I used to celebrate the Reformation but no longer, it is a curse to the church making each man an individual pope at interpretation MISLEADING BOTH THE TEACHER AND THE FLOCK!
Give me any passage in the Bible where it actually says that righteousness is imputed. I researched this thoroughly and only sin is imputed in Scripture! I cannot protect this reformation doctrine. Righteousness that is not imparted (practical) is NEVER imputed. Imputation of righteousness is Reformation doctrine and hence a modern invention, not primitive. It is patent western theology, the Greek Orthodox rejects this doctrine. I do too, emphatically, there is absolutely no practical merit to it. It just gives a false assurance of something that may not even exist in a believer. This is one example of Sola Scriptura misleading both the teacher and the flock. Who do you think loses in the end?
We are called to be holy, We are NOT DECLARED to be holy. How can God call us to holiness if it is truly imputed,ie.e, if we already are holy? Is God playing with words or just fooling himself? This is not even Sola Scriptura, this is exegesis based on Reformed doctrine, not Scripture. Man has nothing of righteousness other than that which he voluntarily yields to the Holy Spirit for transformation. Nothing here is imputed, there is some striving, some "work" to be done. No automatic imputation at all. "WORK OUT YOUR SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING". Now, that is literal Scripture which needs no sophisticated interpretation other than common sense AND THE REST OF THE BIBLE IS CONSISTENT WITH IT!
Logizetai is a reckoning. It is a mental assumption. Righteousness is "credited" to us, NOT imputed. It does not make us inherently righteous. We are simply reckoned as righteous for believing with the right faith. So this is most definitely NOT imputation. Then the rest of Romans tells you the WHOLE story that righteousness is IMPARTED by our willingness to be subject to it, NOT imputed automatically sans free will. The worst caveat of Reformed doctrine is the "automatic" stuff. It ignores free will like it does not exist after salvation. Nothing can be farther from the truth.
Without the benefit of primitive tradition, we think we are exegeting Scripture properly when all we are really doing is just mimicking reformed doctrine, a doctrine which ironically if we are not seminary educated would NOT even cross our mind as a viable Bible concept. The even bigger irony is we are trying to twist Scripture to defend such doctrine! So what you are saying is NOT really Bible, it is the interpretation by Reformed doctrine that you are really pointing out. I would always prefer the interpretation of those "closest to the fountain of truth". Whether we admit it or not ALL our interpretation has an authority other than the Bible. We are just not conscious of it. The safest authority is from the pristine primitive church. Imputation of righteousness is historically an invention of Reformed doctrine. The early church never subscribed to this. They considered this Gnostic teaching in fact and therefore clearly condemned it. Even the New Testament condemns it!
I had to deliberately and consciously reject Reformed doctrine in its entirety to clear my mind of the garbage of past Christian education. I believe that empties me enough to receive the "pure milk of the word", unedited, unadulterated by doctrinal inventions after Nicea and interpreted almost literally by plain common sense. Even the english alone is sufficient for this common sense understanding. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." So using early church tradition is a biblical approach to proper exegesis according to Paul. "traditions either by spoken word or by letter". Biblically, if you choose to ignore the primitive church, it is a Biblical path to self destruction.
Whatever λογίζομαι means, it is clear that Paul contrasted it with practical holiness. It's God's action in response to our faith in Jesus. I don't really care what the reformed believe. We can hear them but just like the Bereans, we have to go back to the Scriptures. We have direct access to them. It's not bad to hear the early church fathers, but they are not infallible. We have to filter what they said based on the Scriptures. Let's be Bereans. This is the safest position I believe. We shouldn't be protestant haters. It doesn't hurt us if they believe they are saved. Isn't faith believing what Jesus said? Would Jesus be offended if a sincere believer believes he is saved? Did He not pay the price for that with His blood? Because we believe we are saved, we are expected to behave like one. Status precedes behavior. Experience tells us that behavior does not produce status. Acting like a prince does not make one a prince. A status has to be confirmed upon him. Monkeys can act like humans, but they remain monkeys. Jesus has to λογίζομαι us before we have reasons to behave like His disciples.
Yes, I agree only with that part, yet that is not the whole of Soteriology in Romans and I think it is so obvious it requires no further discussion. Oh, sorry, I disagree that it is opposed to practical since that would ignore the rest of the book of Romans. Instead I see it as the early church sees it, as one part of the the whole and that is the problem with protestants. That is why the Orthodox church says that protestant salvation is not complete nor full and due to Reformed doctrine, they are spot on in their criticism. The book of Romans was written long after the epistle of James where the dynamics of works AFTER salvation is clearly emphasized. I assume that Paul had knowledge of this famous epistle before he wrote to the Romans and the principle is clearly embedded in his discussion of sanctification and deliverance from our bondage to our sin nature.
I agree completely with your whole point here. I am just not sure if you get my point that it is not complete soteriology of Romans. I agree but it is NOT the whole, it is only a component albeit the beginning component of full salvation. Reckoning is only the start, not the whole because after you start with a clean slate by water baptism, you can still lose that salvation. BTW, the way to salvation of the NT and early church was by water baptism alone based on what Christ declared that unless one is "born of water" and the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God. The reformation radically changed the ritual from baptism to "prayer to receive Christ" and it is still the prevailing practice today but ONLY by protestants. Quite unfortunately, the prayer to receive DOES NOT convey the necessary element of being united with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection where each event is pre-requisite to the next one. Hence, one cannot experience the resurrection life without the self first dying and being buried with Christ. Protestants have all but lost this necessary concept in salvation due to the short cut prayer to receive
Receiving Christ not protestant invention. It's Jesus' personal teaching. Read John 1:12,13.
Yes, Christians are instructed to be baptized. but it is Biblically preposterous to imagine diving into the water saves a person. It's the Saviour that Saves. Baptism just provides the symbol of how we are saved by Jesus. If Baptism saves, Jesus would do it Himself to everyone He encountered since He was sent to save His people from sin. Fact is Jesus baptized nobody. The thief on the cross was clearly saved, but Jesus did not even think about baptizing him. I would not be surprised to see a lot of baptized people in Hell. Titus 3:5 articulates how not and how a person is saved.
Western Christianity at its best (or worst). Everything is relegated to symbol. Baptism is a symbol? Eucharist is a symbol? The journey into symbolism has actually removed the substance out of each sacred act. Even the verse you cited in Titus 3:5, the early church mentored by the apostles saw that "washing of regeneration" clearly meant literal water baptism! Only modern protestants refuse to digest this. Again, up to the present, ONLY protestants think that entering the kingdom is by a simple prayer of faith, the Orthodox, the Anabaptists, the Anglicans, the traditional Methodists, etc ALL know that "you cannot enter the kingdom of God unless you are "born of water" and that is literal, not symbolic. So is a ritual that significant? YES, because "prayer of faith" is a ritual in itself and the NT mentions it only in James for PHYSICAL healing! Who gave us authority to substitute the ritual of prayer of faith for the Biblical and literal water baptism of the New Testament. True, it is not an ontological requirement as shown by the thief on the cross but even the early church knows that baptism is not required of those who are about to die. Regardless, they still imposed it on every convert who expects to physically be alive after indicating their desire to become believers. What is wrong with that practice? What is unbiblical about it? Only our western roots where everything has to be logical otherwise it is legalistic and ritualistic misses the whole point. Gone is the mystical union with the body of Christ. Everything is now symbolic. I believe that is why we see carnality galore in our churches with almost no conviction about sin except the gross ones like murder. Everyone can hate because they think that when the Master states that hatred is murder...."Ahhh that is symbolic!" and therefore they blatantly disobey the clear word of God, and I have observed, without any conscience nor conviction of sin at all !! Such is the result of that "Sola Scriptura".
So does your belief mean that you can celebrate the Eucharist with water and kamote???? My goodness, what has become of us? Small popes tryng to determine what is Biblical and what is not! So arrogant and we believe God is impressed just because we are sincere. Well Adolf Hitler was very sincere and committed, he just happened to be dead wrong. But he did his very best, shouldn't that give him some credit? OK, I don't really mean all that, I just use exaggeration to drive home a point. Thx.
BTW, I am not a protestant hater although I admit I bash many of their beliefs and practices. But in fact, I am burdened heavily to save the lost, especially those who think that they are saved but their lives are the opposite. The New Testament is clear and dead serious about the looming possibility of losing salvation and it made the bishops and presbyters more serious about their work of protecting the flock. Today, many pastors function like hirelings, just trying to maintain the numbers....the root - the Reformation and all the Sola Scriptura beliefs that were invented by it, what else?
CrossCulture West Covina you are talking to me as if I am a protestant. I am a believer of Jesus. It's His teachings as quoted and explained by Paul and the NT writers that I followed. I have no business judging the church fathers, protestants and other bible commentators. I hear what they have to say about Jesus teachings. But I have access to my Master's Words in the original language as quoted by the NT writers. Unlike you I idolize no fathers, church founders or commentators. Let alone anyone who explain away my master's Clear Teachings. To me Arrogance means explaining away Jesus' words. We dont interpret Jesus Words on the bases of the church fathers theology. It should be other way around if indeed His Words abide in us
Your analogy on cash or check and insurance policy is SPOT ON! I fully agree. Can I use that for our Bible studies? Perfect illustration in fact! You just summed up the book of Romans by analogy!
would hesitate to say that what Jesus did on the cross was just a partial payment of our salvation. Theologically, only He is qualified to pay for our sins. The payor should be debt free for the payment to be credited to a beneficiary. Since all have sinned, all can only die (perish in hell) for own sin. I think the seal or earnest which is the Holy Spirit can be taken as the guarrantee of the genuineness of the policy rathan than a downpayment or a partial payment.
A word study of the seal will help enlighten our understanding. I think seal is equated with stamp as in signet ring rather than downpayment
You already know I do not respect word study that much anymore. But your word study contradicts what you said, arrabon, is literally a DOWN PAYMENT. see your lexicon on 2 Cor 1:22; 2Cor 5:5; Ephesians 1:14; Now, who is using Reformed doctrine to interpret Scripture, me or you?
Although like I said I do not have much respect for word study anymore. I reject the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration proven by history of variant manuscripts but having the SAME message
I still support plenary inspiration. I read the LXX because Paul said it is inspired. In 2 Tim 3:16 it is clear that it is NOT the VERY WORDS that are inspired but it is the message.
So arrabon is mentioned 3X by Paul. How many times did he mention "seal"? Majority wins?
I can see the myopia of those who say "All graphe is God-breathed". They twist graphe to mean words!!! when it literally means "writings" NOT rhema nor logos.
And that is how word study misleads and creates cults and conflicting denominations instead of uniting the body of Christ to the faith ONCE AND FOR ALL delivered to the FIRST saints
Sola Scriptura: Instead of using this to enhance the message of God, we actually employ this tool to defy or contradict the very meaning expounded to us by the Apostles and the primitve pristine church. That is not progress. That is not even digress. It borders on apostasy, plain and simple. It gave protestants license for eisegesis, that of protecting doctrine by twisting the original meaning and intent of Scripture! Everything in Scripture becomes symbolic instead of literal, everything now is mental instead of physical, everything becomes theoretical instead of real and practical. Impartation of righteousness is now just plain imputation. Scripture twisting indeed - thanks to Sola Scriptura which gave us that boldness without the license. Verbal inspiration is a protestant myth with no practical value. It is the MESSAGE that is inspired NOT the very words. Words can mean different things to different people in different contexts but the message of the Apostles and patristic fathers NEVER CHANGE. Tradition created Scripture and NOT the other way around as protestants erroneously assume. Without primitive tradition, the church, the body of Christ is lost! What better proof than the 30,000 disagreeing denominations of current protestantism! Whatever happened to "ONE body"???? All this reformation scholarship has made us unbiblical not only in our understanding but on the actual application (of wrong doctrine) itself!
I agree, but have you read the patristic writings? Then two things. 1. Point out to me what is NOT biblical in their statements and traditions. 2. If they are indeed biblical, why are most of our modern interpretations different? I do not assume at all that we have better scholarship. I already told you that the disciples had absolutely no scholarship. Only Paul had but why do we interpret Paul in such a way that it is not consisitent with the words of Christ? E.g., Christ mentions at least two ways to salvation. 1. He who loves his life will lose it, he who gives up his life for me and the gospel with gain it and eternal life (mentioned 6X in the gospels). Before the good Samaritan story, a lawyer asked Christ how to inherit eternal life. The Great Commandment was the key and Christ commented, "You have ANSWERED CORRECTLY, do this and YOU WILL LIVE!" Luke 10:28. At that point, the cross was not even necessary! Now, I hear Paul but I do not hear such messages as clearly and as literally as our Lord, who says what he means and means what he says, declares. Our soteriology is too Pauline, not that it is bad but it is very incomplete in the big scheme of the NT. Have you ever asked that in the book of Acts and those early years before Paul wrote his first epistle, how were Christians saved???? By water baptism is the unanimous answer and practice. Why do we differ today with new inventions instead of sticking to the faith once and for all delivered to the saintS? SOLA SCRIPTURA IS THE CULPRIT! The modern "small popes" declared that we do not have to follow their tradition regardless of how right and bibilical they were, as if God was impressed by our interpretations (or re-interpretations?).
Exactly, if we differ with the patristics, we do not have common ground for any reasonable interpretation nor debate.
What do you mean by patristics?
You will say this is how you understand the Greek. The patristics most probably interpret it differently based on your answers to some of my key questions. It is a legitimate question to ask, whose opinion would you trust more? To the point of staking your life on it.
Patristic teaching are the writings of the direct disciples that he Apostle's personally mentored and the next generations all the way to Constantine. Constantine Christianity is the start of corruption and apostasy.
So by "tradition", we mean the patristic fathers ONLY and not those after Nicea. There are exceptions, of course, like the Cappadocian fathers, John Chrysostom, all Greek patristics, no Latin at all. All Greek Eastern, no western fathers
Tertullian was the first Latin writer but he was fluent in Greek. Augustine ironically was Greek illiterate, hence his terrible theologies on predestination and elect. Obviously, he would have a Greek lexicon close by but history shows it did not help once he deviated from the early patristic writers.
CrossCulture West Covina Jesus said if you abide in me and my words abide in you. His Words are clear to me. Why would I listen to anyone who would say that Jesus' words means something else because they do not agree with the teachings of the church patriarchs. Did not Paul say " if we preach another gospel other than what we already preached to you, then curse us."
Now I see. As the saying goes "Too many hands will spoil the dough." I want the plain dough with no hands on it, becausr we have the dough.
Yes, I want the "original hands" alone then I can study from there knowing that I am close to the original faith.
It is an exercise of futility to distill Scripture that is not consistent with the Patristic writings. Patristic writings are the first interpretations of the New Testament but they are ""closest to the fountain of truth" as Wesley expressed.
who then will evaluate the truthfulness of the patristic interpretation?
If the faith was once and for all delivered to the saints at the close of the first century, then what do we call these new inventions that deviate from such interpretations?? No matter how scholarly, if they are different, they may border on heresy, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Alternative interpretations were very RARE in the early church. Oh, and they all condemned salvation by any other means than water baptism....go figure! They also adamantly condemned celebrating the Eucharist with other than wine (mixed with water) and the unleavened bread because they said it mocks Christ and his very clear command and we have to do it the way Christ did it! These two sacraments were NEVER treated as symbols. On the other hand, they were mystical (real) experiences of the presence of Christ and our being united with his body. Ritual maybe, but during the time there was no New Testament so the ritual WAS the gospel proclaimed and practiced so it was carefully protected including the nature of the elements involved. This means that if we change the ritual (from their viewpoint) then we are preaching a "different" gospel and are anathema to them. It does make sense, you change the ritual, you effectively change the message!
Being like God is different from becoming God. Created in the image of God is not becoming God.
Semantics my brother. We too have to understand what the patristics really meant. Some of them were brilliant like Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria but most of them simply used common sense. Your western thinking again tends to dissect the words instead of the message. Did you know that word study is the main source of cults and cultic interpretations? That is why verbal inspiration is a myth. I already explained this.
Why are there different manuscript copies of either the OT or the NT???? This is proof AGAINST verbal inspiration because the same message can be conveyed by different story tellers using different words. Paul and the Apostles BELIEVED that the LXX was the inspired word of God! 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was addressed to Timothy who read ONLY the LXX because he was Hebrew ILLITERATE! So the message is inspired, NOT the "very words" like all Reformed people ERRONEOUSLY claim. What further proof do I need, history is on my side of the debate. So start looking at the message, brother instead of just the words. And the very first step will be the message from the patristic fathers. They are NOT cannon but they are a VERY RELIABLE, TRUSTWORTHY guide to understanding Scripture, without which we border on heresy.
The patristics are still the BEST COMMENTARIES on Scripture bar none! Yes, it harms your freedom as an independent thinker and expositor. But what value is freedom if our understanding and interpretation is wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment