Many rhetorical moves here hang on circular reasoning - that the creeds are the correct and complete interpretation of Scripture.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Many rhetorical moves here hang on circular reasoning - that the creeds are the correct and complete interpretation of Scripture.
If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt 18:17, NRSV)
Sins against church members are to be settled by the voice of the entire assembly, how much more should sin against the cardinal doctrines of Scripture be judged by the ecumenical witness of the church universal as held through time?
We have the example of the church in assembly meeting to decide a dispute over doctrine, and it was not left to a single apostle or elder to have the authority to determine church doctrine.
The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter…. The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles. (Acts 15:6,12, NRSV)
Yes, everyone expresses their opinions on CC threads, but I do not understand yours.
What church and what faith do you think is being ignored?
Do you value the post-NT creeds and confessions as much as Scripture?
What do you claim to be true?
If we are honest, we all have filters for what sounds right. These can be called beliefs, dogmas or creeds. We have a fixed perspective of what is true and that usually comes from our church experiences and families providing us with their closely held perspectives of what is true and false. We even read the bible this way. i.e. to confirm what we already believe. "False teaching" are perspectives that fall outside of our acceptable range. There are about 4,000 Christians competing Christian churches each with their own unique set of beliefs, dogmas and creeds. Each has their own tests for what is "true."
What we sometimes miss in the category of false teaching, are those teachings of Jesus that are left out, avoided or simply ignored. On the other hand, we can pretty much all agree that Jesus is our only hope for salvation both in this life and the one to follow. We can all generally agree that access to the saving grace of Jesus is via an active faith in His grace.
If we look back on the history of Christianity, we realize from the very earliest days of the church there were controversies, disagreements, misunderstandings and clashing personalities. What we lack today is that in the earliest days these were just differences and not tests of faith and brotherhood. We are not saved by our personal understanding of what is "true." Our faith and hope are in Jesus. Christianity is not based on a religion but on an example. The more tightly we walk where Jesus walked, love like Jesus loved, heal like Jesus healed and brought reconciliation like Jesus did we can find unity. In Jeus example of the Good Samaritan, we can find unity in loving service to others. Paul told us that without love our claim of faith is just noise. Perhaps the most important Christian truth is what we do with the love of God. Do we bathe in it, or do we bathe others in it? In some important way, what is true is how we live instead of just what you claim to believe.
More fallacious reasoning - overextending procedures for personal disputes and apostolic council examples. Sounds like classic Reformed-style logic for labeling heretics, not unlike Rome’s historical tradition. Good luck
If we are honest, we all have filters for what sounds right. These can be called beliefs, dogmas or creeds. We have a fixed perspective of what is true and that usually comes from our church experiences and families providing us with their closely held perspectives of what is true and false. We even read the bible this way. i.e. to confirm what we already believe. "False teaching" are perspectives that fall outside of our acceptable range. There are about 4,000 kinds of Christian competing churches each with their own unique set of beliefs, dogmas and creeds. Each has their own tests for what is "true."
What we sometimes miss in the category of false teaching, are those teachings of Jesus that are left out, avoided or simply ignored. On the other hand, we can pretty much all agree that Jesus is our only hope for salvation both in this life and the one to follow. We can all generally agree that access to the saving grace of Jesus is via an active faith in His grace.
If we look back on the history of Christianity, we realize from the very earliest days of the church there were controversies, disagreements, misunderstandings and clashing personalities. What we lack today, is that in the earliest days these were just differences and not tests of faith and brotherhood. We are not saved by our personal understanding of what is "true." Our faith and hope are in Jesus. Christianity is not based on a religion but on an example.
The more tightly we walk where Jesus walked, love like Jesus loved, heal like Jesus healed and bring reconciliation like Jesus did we can better understand what is true. In Jeus example of the Good Samaritan, we can find unity in loving service to others. Paul told us that without love our claim of faith is just noise. Perhaps the most important Christian truth is what we do with the love of God. Do we bathe in it, or do we bathe others in it? In some important way, what is true is how we live instead of just what you claim to believe. We can be Jesus's bright light that attracts praise for Jesus, or we can be Paul's noisy clanging symbol. Perhaps we are more defined by what our faith calls us to do and to be than for what "truth" we hold in our mind. Jesus's truth might come with dirty hands, skinned knees and sweat stained clothing doing His will. Perhaps that is a kind of truth Jesus always intended for us to have.
What we sometimes miss in the category of false teaching, are those teachings of Jesus that are left out, avoided or simply ignored. On the other hand, we can pretty much all agree that Jesus is our only hope for salvation both in this life and the one to follow. We can all generally agree that access to the saving grace of Jesus is via an active faith in His grace.
If we look back on the history of Christianity, we realize from the very earliest days of the church there were controversies, disagreements, misunderstandings and clashing personalities. What we lack today, is that in the earliest days these were just differences and not tests of faith and brotherhood. We are not saved by our personal understanding of what is "true." Our faith and hope are in Jesus. Christianity is not based on a religion but on an example.
The more tightly we walk where Jesus walked, love like Jesus loved, heal like Jesus healed and bring reconciliation like Jesus did we can better understand what is true. In Jeus example of the Good Samaritan, we can find unity in loving service to others. Paul told us that without love our claim of faith is just noise. Perhaps the most important Christian truth is what we do with the love of God. Do we bathe in it, or do we bathe others in it? In some important way, what is true is how we live instead of just what you claim to believe. We can be Jesus's bright light that attracts praise for Jesus, or we can be Paul's noisy clanging symbol. Perhaps we are more defined by what our faith calls us to do and to be than for what "truth" we hold in our mind. Jesus's truth might come with dirty hands, skinned knees and sweat stained clothing doing His will. Perhaps that is a kind of truth Jesus always intended for us to have.
It is unreasonable to apply the instruction for dealing with a personal sin or an interpersonal conflict in the local assembly to assessing a matter of theology or ecclesiology at the level of the Church historical and universal.
Only when the two parties can’t resolve a matter privately should the rest of the local church be involved. Also, it is impossible to sin against a doctrine. One sins against a person or against God.
Assertions and claims can be assessed against a doctrine, but that is not the same thing.
MARTIN LUTHER Preface To The First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians 1545
(This fits many of the Christian Forums found online in our day.)
In this Epistle, St. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to be one in faith and love and be careful to learn the chief thing, at which all reason and wisdom stumbles; namely, that Christ is our salvation.
In our day, when the Gospel has come to light, there are many mad saints, — called spirits of sedition, fanatics, and heretics, who have become wise and learned all too quickly, and, because of their great knowledge and wisdom, cannot live in harmony with anybody. One wants to go this way, another that way; as though it would be a great shame, if everyone were not to try something of his own and to put forth his own wisdom. No one can make them see their folly, for, at bottom, they neither know nor understand anything about the really important matters, even though they jabber much about them with their mouths.
So it was with St. Paul, too. He had taught his Corinthians the Christian faith and freedom from the law; but the mad saints came along, and the unripe wise men; they split the unity of the doctrine and made a division among the believers. One would be a Paulist, another an Appollist, another a Petrist, another a Christist; one wanted circumcision, another not; one wanted marriage, another not; one wanted to eat meat sacrificed to idols, another not; some wanted to be free from slavery; some of the women wanted to go with uncovered hair, and so on. They carried it so far that one man abused his liberty and married his stepmother; some did not believe in the resurrection of the dead; some thought lightly of the Sacrament.
Things got so wild and disorderly that everyone wanted to be master and to teach, and make what he pleased of the Gospel, the Sacrament and faith. Meanwhile, they let the main thing go, as though it were long since worn out; — namely, that Christ is our salvation, our righteousness, our redemption. This truth can never hold the road, when people begin to be knowing and wise.
That is just what is now happening to us. Now that we, by God’s grace have opened the Gospel to the Germans, everyone wants to be the best master and have the Holy Ghost all to himself, as though the Gospel had been preached in order that we should show our cleverness and reason, and seek for reputation. These Corinthians may well be an example for our people in these days, for they, too, need such an epistle. But this is the way things have to go with the Gospel; mad saints and unripe wise-men have to start disturbances and offenses, so that the “approved,” as St. Paul says, may be manifest.
Therefore St. Paul rebukes and condemns this dangerous wisdom most severely and makes fools of these saucy saints. He says outright that they know nothing of Christ, or of the spirit and gifts of God, given to us in Christ, and that they should begin to learn. There must be spiritual folk who understand it. The desire to be wise and the pretense of cleverness in the Gospel are the things that really give offense and hinder the knowledge of Christ and God, and start disturbances and contentions. This clever wisdom and reason can well serve to make mad saints and wild Christians; but they can never, never know our Lord Christ, unless they first become fools again, and humbly let themselves be taught and led by the simple Word of God. This is what he deals with in the first four chapters.
Much of Martin Luther's Commentary can be found online:
Luther's Commentary on Selected Bible Passages
(This fits many of the Christian Forums found online in our day.)
In this Epistle, St. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to be one in faith and love and be careful to learn the chief thing, at which all reason and wisdom stumbles; namely, that Christ is our salvation.
In our day, when the Gospel has come to light, there are many mad saints, — called spirits of sedition, fanatics, and heretics, who have become wise and learned all too quickly, and, because of their great knowledge and wisdom, cannot live in harmony with anybody. One wants to go this way, another that way; as though it would be a great shame, if everyone were not to try something of his own and to put forth his own wisdom. No one can make them see their folly, for, at bottom, they neither know nor understand anything about the really important matters, even though they jabber much about them with their mouths.
So it was with St. Paul, too. He had taught his Corinthians the Christian faith and freedom from the law; but the mad saints came along, and the unripe wise men; they split the unity of the doctrine and made a division among the believers. One would be a Paulist, another an Appollist, another a Petrist, another a Christist; one wanted circumcision, another not; one wanted marriage, another not; one wanted to eat meat sacrificed to idols, another not; some wanted to be free from slavery; some of the women wanted to go with uncovered hair, and so on. They carried it so far that one man abused his liberty and married his stepmother; some did not believe in the resurrection of the dead; some thought lightly of the Sacrament.
Things got so wild and disorderly that everyone wanted to be master and to teach, and make what he pleased of the Gospel, the Sacrament and faith. Meanwhile, they let the main thing go, as though it were long since worn out; — namely, that Christ is our salvation, our righteousness, our redemption. This truth can never hold the road, when people begin to be knowing and wise.
That is just what is now happening to us. Now that we, by God’s grace have opened the Gospel to the Germans, everyone wants to be the best master and have the Holy Ghost all to himself, as though the Gospel had been preached in order that we should show our cleverness and reason, and seek for reputation. These Corinthians may well be an example for our people in these days, for they, too, need such an epistle. But this is the way things have to go with the Gospel; mad saints and unripe wise-men have to start disturbances and offenses, so that the “approved,” as St. Paul says, may be manifest.
Therefore St. Paul rebukes and condemns this dangerous wisdom most severely and makes fools of these saucy saints. He says outright that they know nothing of Christ, or of the spirit and gifts of God, given to us in Christ, and that they should begin to learn. There must be spiritual folk who understand it. The desire to be wise and the pretense of cleverness in the Gospel are the things that really give offense and hinder the knowledge of Christ and God, and start disturbances and contentions. This clever wisdom and reason can well serve to make mad saints and wild Christians; but they can never, never know our Lord Christ, unless they first become fools again, and humbly let themselves be taught and led by the simple Word of God. This is what he deals with in the first four chapters.
Much of Martin Luther's Commentary can be found online:
Luther's Commentary on Selected Bible Passages
I agree with your analysis and would point out that if our perspective is "fixed" we need to fix it ASAP before it becomes a hard heart.
I also agree that Jesus advocated faith that loves/works/produces good fruit.
As for what we all agree on, I suggest the following creed as an elaboration of the normative way of stating
God's requirement for salvation, “Accept Christ/Messiah Jesus as Lord” (Acts 16:31, 2Cor. 4:5 & Col. 2:6):
- There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or Creator God (Deut. 6:4, John 3:16, 2Thes. 1:6), who is both able (2Tim. 1:12) and willing (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
- Human beings are selfish or sinful (Rom. 3:23, 2Tim. 3:2-4, Col. 3:5), miserable (Gal. 5:19-21), and hopeless (Eph. 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (Matt. 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (John 3:18, Rom. 2:5-11).
- Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (John 3:16, Acts 16:30-31, Phil. 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (Rom. 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1Cor. 15:14-28).
- Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s grace or justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), at which moment God’s loving Holy Spirit of Christ indwells/baptizes the believer into the church (Rev. 3:20, Rom. 5:5, 1Cor. 12:13).
- Loving Christ Jesus as Lord (Luke 2:11), God the Son (Matt. 16:16) or God in the human dimension (Col. 2:9) means reflecting divine love as empowered by the Holy Spirit, thereby obeying His command to love one another (Matt. 7:21, 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2), which will eventually achieve spiritual maturity on earth and heaven after Christ returns at God’s resurrection (John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Phil. 3:12-16, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4).
When God the Holy Spirit teaches through the books of the New Covenant, and man contradicts what God the Holy Spirit taught, that is indeed a sin against God. How can you reject the words of God and say they are false, but not be sinning against God? If personal sin of one member against another needs ultimate church decision, how much more sinning against God?
So Luther took us to Scripture, and you take us to human creeds as the authority over Scripture and the resolution for human division?
You said sinning against a doctrine. Disagreeing with someone else’s idea of what a correct doctrine is does not constitute ‘sin’. If you believe in a pretribulation rapture and I don’t, is one of us committing a sin? No.
Personal sin does not always need church involvement.
I have great respect for the man Martin Luther. I realize what is must have been like to feel that one must perfect his life in penance and prayer to be acceptable to God. As he and we recognize, that is impossible. That is his starting point as a priest/monk and phd professor. We all know from experience that some of our "greatest" insights can get away from us as Luther came to understand. Near the center of his theology was that anyone could read a bible and come to the same conclusions as he did. He died before he saw the failure of that core tenant of his faith. It soon became a capital offense to have a bible.
In my opinion, were Luther failed was to grasp that faith + piety was not a good plan for the future of "Reformed" and later "Protestant" theology. Luther determined that the application of faith based theology was antithetical to human behavior in service to God. In my opinion, Luther's salvation by grace through faith alone left his followers de-linking Christian theology with Christian commitment to the service of any kind. He wrote against Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.
Since 1517 Protestant Christianity has struggled to accept Jesus as Savior, which was the only attribute of the early reformation movement. Jesus as Lord with a call on our behavior, our lives and our mission of loving service was then and is now "controversial" to the creeds and beliefs of many Protestant and non-denominational churches today.
Sound doctrine is indeed taught by the Holy Spirit. But not everyone learns their doctrine from the Holy Spirit. This is indeed the root of our problem.
Of course Romans 14 covers such things as the questions over personal liberty. You mention a pretribulation rapture, and I reject the modern idea of a rapture totally, pre- mid- or -post. Indeed at the resurrection on the last day, those alive at the time will be caught up and away to be with Christ. There has always been the premillennial, amillennial and postmillennial views held in the church and that is not a point breaking fellowship. John Gill is my favorite theologian, yet he is historic premillennial and I'm more postmillennial, but that does not deter me from studying his Body of Divinity, because what he teaches as the Spiritual Reign of Christ is how I describe my view of the millennium. But, I take the old Baptist approach to this matter. The 1646 First London Confession of Faith I embrace as best describing my faith, on eschatology is limited to a very simple statement:
LII.
There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust, and everyone shall give an account of himself to God, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Acts 24:15; 1 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:12. [Matt. 25; Rev. 22:11,12,13,14,15.]
It may seem that I reject "soul liberty", but I do not. In fact, I go so far as to placing the question of 2 males in a faithful, monogamous, enduring relationship under Romans 14 because nowhere in Scripture do I find that condemned, even though it is a blazing red flag to most evangelicals. The conclusion of the 1646 Confession reads:
"Thus we desire to give unto Christ that which is His; and unto all lawful authority that which is their due; and to owe nothing to any man but love; to live quietly and peaceably, as it becometh saints, endeavoring in all things to keep a good conscience, and to do unto every man (of what judgment soever) as we would they should do unto us, that as our practice is, so it may prove us to be a conscionable [viz., reasonable], quiet, and harmless people (no ways dangerous or troublesome to human society) and to labor and work with our hands that we may not be chargeable to any, but to give to him that needeth, both friends and enemies, accounting it more excellent to give than to receive. Also we confess, that we know but in part, and that we are ignorant of many things which we desire and seek to know; and if any shall do us that friendly part to show us from the word of God that which we see not, we shall have cause to be thankful to God and them; but if any man shall impose upon us anything that we see not to be commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ, we should in His strength rather embrace all reproaches and tortures of men, to be stripped of all outward comforts, and if it were possible, to die a thousand deaths, rather than to do anything against the least tittle of the truth of God or against the light of our own consciences. And if any shall call what we have said heresy, then do we with the Apostle acknowledge, that after the way they call heresy, worship we the God of our fathers, disclaiming all heresies (rightly so called) because they are against Christ, and to be stedfast and unmoveable, always abounding in obedience to Christ, as knowing our labor shall not be in vain in the Lord."
First London Confession of 1646 | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind
John, I’d like to describe how “knowing Scripture” came to be the bottom line for me, even though I value the Creeds and Confessions. I grew up in a semi-Arminian, dispensationalist, independent church. I had that pounded into my brain for many years and I was up into my twenties before I encountered Scripture that flat out contradicted what I believed. It is not an easy thing to keep from being led astray by this teaching or that.
Since I saw how wrong I had been in belief on a couple of major points, I surely had no confidence in my independent, DIY approach to Bible based doctrines. I chose to approach it in this manner. America was certainly blessed to be founded by men who honored the Christian faith, and at our founding and even in 1776 there were not that many denominations. The Methodist were not an official denomination in 1776. I decided to peruse the Bible bookstores to find the Creeds and Confessions of the major churches. This began in the 1960s, long before the Internet. I purchased Luther’s Small Catechism, the Westminster Confession of Faith, several Baptist books by men such as Charles H. Spurgeon and began to compare. I was amazed at how similar the documents were on the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. Even in recent years, I’ve worshipped in Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Baptist churches I did not feel as if I were in an apostate church. Admittedly, these were the conservative churches, not the mainline apostate churches.
I admit, I developed almost an obsession over the true biblical faith and how to learn the various points of disagreement, such as over baptism, free or bound will, regeneration, justification, sanctification, etc. In my study, I purchased the book “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination”, by Loraine Boettner. On election or predestination, itself, I was surprised to find it in the old Baptist Confessions, Luther’s Bondage of the Will, even Article 17 of the 39 Articles of the Anglican Churches as well as in the Reformed churches.
It is certainly true that a person being drawn by the Holy Spirit who has only a Gospel of John booklet can be saved, but then how do you grow in the faith without being taught?
Yes. I think that's why God gave us teachers (Eph. 4:11). Even though none of them get everything right all the time (neither do I), they can be very helpful.
I also discovered by reading the Bible for myself that my Baptist upbringing had taught me wrong regarding the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" and had not taught me doctrines beyond the Gospel that would answer questions asked by atheists.
Since you also learned contradictions by encountering Scripture, I do not know why you lack confidence in being able to continue the DYI approach, although certainly it can help to have pastor-teachers and others provide helpful insights. I share mine on a website called <truthseekersfellowship.com> and the threads I sponsor on CC utilize it as a resource. If you peruse it and have any comments or questions, please feel free to let me know.
