Hello all. I'm back. It's good to be part of the discussions again!

Dr.ER, I agree with you wholeheartedly. We can not truly understand the Trinity. I think I can answer the criticisms against you, because they are kind of unfair. Not understanding the Doctrine of the Trinity completely usually refers to not understanding the how, not the actual what of it. The Bible states that God is a Triune Being with three distinct natures, personalities, and what not, that are all still one God, one Being. If a Doctrinal point contradicts this, then it can not be correct Scripturally. This is obvious common sense people. I don't think a million disclaimers need be stated, when common sense should make it unnecessary.

TBG, thank you for your explanation of how the "body, soul, spirit" analogy is wrong. I have always disliked it for those reasons, but never put them that well in to words.

I'm off for now. God bless all.

I bid you all adieu.

Man's tripartite nature is body, soul, and spirit. See 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

It would seem (to me) that hermaneutically, you have the same justification for making a quadrapartite nature, since mind is distinct from body, spirit, and soul--oh wait, could spirit, soul, and mind be used as synonyms or as different aspects of the same thing in the Bible? I've never quite bought the whole trichotomy thing as a) it does seem to contradict much of what we know about the mind b) in Hebrew literature, parallelism was common, so reading these things as different things is not necessarily warranted by the text.

TBG

That is indeed the same Peter. As with most figures in history, he is a round rather than flat character, about whom much can be said. The way history is taught these days. . . wrong thread, I guess.

I don't recall anyone mentioning Bede, but that is another fascinating person in church history. Notker of Saint Gall apparently wrote of him, "God, the orderer of natures, who raised the Sun from the East on the fourth day of Creation, in the sixth day of the world has made Bede rise from the West as a new Sun to illuminate the whole Earth." I believe it is Bede who records the fascinating story of the reign of Saint Edwin, among many others.

In a medieval history class I took this last semester, we discussed how Emperor Theodosius diluted the Christian faith by making it the state religion, as everyone, whatever they thought of Christ, was now a convert. Any thoughts on that?

Yes, Bede's pre-William-the-Conqueror story of the English church and people is a good read. And the later course of that particular history shows only too clearly how the Emperor Theodosius did indeed dilute the Christian faith by making it the State Religion, because all too often both rulers and clergy ended up paying lip service to what they allegedly believed, in order to grab power.

On the other hand, if you read Eusebius, it is impossible to miss how grateful he was that Constantine the Great had earlier stopped the persecutions the Christian Church had had to endure. And I agree it made good sense for Theodosius to make the change. Not only did St Paul advise his flock to pray for those in charge, that they might use wisdom, but emperors who considered themselves the appointees of God, were in a long way better position to rule, when they had a popular Church on their side, than those early emperors who were ill-advised enough to think that they really were Gods themselves.

I've also been listening to a presentation about the 1066 Battle of Fulford, where Edwin and Morcar were defeated by Harald Hardrada, and by doing so, exposed Harold Godwinson, the then King of England to defeat at the hands of William the Conqueror at Hastings, in 1066. William the Conqueror used the Pope's imprimature to establish his claim to the English throne, but it was Harold who had been appointed King by the Wittengamot, the governing body in England at the time, regardless of how William thought he had a claim to rule England.

But that was not the only eventual consequence of Theodosius' decision, now was it? Basically, a pure religion which represented the downtrodden suddenly became also representative of the ruling classes, many of whom were more interested in maintaining their own power and positions, whatever they thought of Christ.

Now all these Bible verses were written as part of God's word, but obviously we should think things through first! I think you may have taken wagga's response as failing to show respect for Scripture, whereas I think wagga was pointing out wrong use of Scripture.

Thank you, TOM. Wrong use of Scripture is exactly what I did mean. I've seen that joke you mentioned, though it is a while since I last read any of the Anne of Green Gables books. More seriously, the long history of pogroms and persecutions, some of them launched by half-educated priests of the Christian Church, culminating eventually in last Century's WW2 Holocaust, demonstrates a shameful and wrong use of Scripture, which also runs contrary to Jesus' command to 'love your enemies'.

Now, if works alone could save us, we wouldn't need Christ. If faith alone saves us, why the constant Scriptural emphasis that true faith produces works? James tells us that "faith without works is dead." But even when our faith produces works, we could never produce enough works to repay our debt to Christ. It will never be enough. So a starting-point question to resolve these positions might be, does faith make our works "count" in any way? Do we hear the words, "well done, thou good and faithful servant" because of faith, or faith-inspired works, or both, or other?

C.S.Lewis told one of his correspondents in his 'Letters to Children' that faith in Christ and in his forgiveness meant that he no longer wanted to do wrong things. He preferred to do right things, that he knew Jesus would approve of. Jesus forgave the woman taken in adultery, but he did say to her 'Go and sin no more'. I agree that faith whilst continuing to do sinful things means nothing. That would be like 'Faith without works', wouldn't it?

About the Lost Ark of the Covenant:

1. The Jewish people hid it so well that no invader ever found it -- but they haven't found it yet either.

The most likely explanation. Apparently Josiah the King had ordered the Ark to be returned to Solomon's temple. Jeremiah the prophet allegedly took it away again when he left Jerusalem.

2. The Babylonians took it and eventually lost it.

No, because the Babylonians if they had taken it would have said so.

3. The Knights Templar took it and are hiding it in Scotland to this day.

Aha! That would be Dan Brown's version of events.

4. The Ethiopian followers of Solomon rescued it and are hiding it in Africa to this day.

This is the theory that Tudor Parfitt was following up on.

I believe in Sola Scriptura, meaning that Scripture is the only final authority, not Solo Scriptura where Scripture is the only authority.

For anyone interested, this website has an interesting discussion regarding sola scriptura and solo scriptura.

FYI, Mathison is a fan of Calvin and an adherant of sola scriptura NOT solo scriptura. Of course I am not a fan of either position.

TBG, it's a long read and I'm fairly certain you won't agree with the conclusions drawn by it's author (although you never know if/when you may be convinced) , but I thought I'd submit the link for anyone looking for additional food for thought.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/1 ... authority/

The Bible itself simply does not teach “solo” Scriptura. Christ established his church with a structure of authority and gives to his church those who are specially appointed to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2-4). When disputes arose, the apostles did not instruct each individual believer to go home and decide by himself and for himself who was right. They met in a council (Acts 15:6-29).32

Scripture itself indicates that the Scriptures are the possession of the Church and that the interpretation of the Scriptures belongs to the Church as a whole, as a community. In particular it has been entrusted to specially gifted men. … The fundamental point is that Christ established His Church with a structure of authority that is to be obeyed (Heb. 13:7). … The modern Evangelical doctrine of Scripture essentially destroys the real authority of ministers of the Word and the Church as a whole.33

Merry Christmas to all!

I'm familiar with Mathison, actually, as a faithful reader of Tabletalk for the past couple of years (great devotional magazine, BTW, for those who need late Christmas gift ideas).

And no, I don't agree with the conclusions because I define apostolic succession in terms of faithfulness to apostolic teachings: ie the Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone by the work of Christ alone. I can interpret scripture so long as I hold my interpretation in light of the whole counsel of the Church--including the Protestant Church.

TBG

I will agree that there are teachers who have the gift of teaching God's word. But unfortunatly there are two man-made problems.
First is that the gift of a Pastore is just that, a gift from God given by Him according to His will Hebrews 2:4. Too many people, whether motivated by greed, or just overenthusiasm cause much harm in false teaching.

Second is our human nature is sinfully lazy. We find it much easier to sit back, listen to a "gifted preacher", then sit and do nothing. We forget that the Bible is there for us to use, not collect dust. Even if we are ment at times to ask a pastor, "Did you really mean that?, or, Did the Lord really say that?"

And no, I don't agree with the conclusions because I define apostolic succession in terms of faithfulness to apostolic teachings: ie the Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone by the work of Christ alone. I can interpret scripture so long as I hold my interpretation in light of the whole counsel of the Church--including the Protestant Church.

I agree with you on following apostolic teachings: i.e. the Gospel of salvation by Grace alone, through Christ alone, but I can not accept the non-Scriptural notion of faith alone particularly since it is explicitly rejected in Scripture. I also reject the notion of using Scripture alone particularly since Scripture itself does not condone it.

Nonetheless, we can certianly learn a great deal from Protestant Christians throughout Christian history and I pray that all Christians may indeed be one as Christ intended.

Hooh boy. I'm not getting into sola fide again, but I do want to know, Sty, what you mean when you say that scripture does not condone "using scripture alone?"

Note: when I say scripture alone I mean scripture as the final authority; not as the only recognized source of truth, just the only infallibly truthful and reliable source of truth. Tradition and experience are invaluable tools, but they are employed by imperfect humans. How can an imperfect human produce perfect truth? We can't interpret scripture perfectly either, I know, but at least we know that it's truth we're starting with.

If scripture does not explicitly call itself the only source of inerrant truth (and I'm not sure that it doesn't) it does at least tell us very clearly that human wisdom is screwy. Furthermore, there is no example anywhere in scripture of anyone so sanctified that they received God's wisdom entirely, or entirely conquered their own sinful natures. Consequently, there are no instances of anyone being a fit vessel for pure, undiluted and consistent truth. So it would seem that God has revealed perfect truth only in his Word. Why should anything else be our standard?

So it would seem that God has revealed perfect truth only in his Word. Why should anything else be our standard?

Hope this helps.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching,rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroghly equipped for every good work.

On the other hand, if you read Eusebius, it is impossible to miss how grateful he was that Constantine the Great had earlier stopped the persecutions the Christian Church had had to endure. And I agree it made good sense for Theodosius to make the change. Not only did St Paul advise his flock to pray for those in charge, that they might use wisdom, but emperors who considered themselves the appointees of God, were in a long way better position to rule, when they had a popular Church on their side, than those early emperors who were ill-advised enough to think that they really were Gods themselves.

What I find one of the most fascinating aspects of Christian history is the way that the bad tends to dramatically shift to good and then gradually decline. Ancient civilization in general tended to work the opposite way: gradual rise and sudden decline. But it makes a lot of sense. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church," as Tertullian observed. When people are forced to come to grips with their faith, and decide finally whether or not they are for or against Christ, the Church will be populated not only by real Christians but by Christians who have no choice but to grow in their faith, facing trials for the sake of Our Lord.

The Edict of Milan was a glorious triumph, but also one of the major factors in the decline of the Church Visible. And yet it was the Edict of Milan that would later lead to the crushing of heresies such as Arianism (at the Council of Nicaea and others) and the survival of the Christian faith beyond the fall of Roman civilization. The story goes on in the hearts and pens of the monks who preserved the Bible and Classical learning; so Christianity shines brightest in the darkest of hours. Of course, you probably know all this well, but I like to repeat it. It gives me confidence in Jehovah Jireh. Another reason I love to study history.

I'd talk on, but I need to go to bed. Merry Christmas!

Jumping in here...

Re: the Trinity--I once heard a very convincing proof for the existence (and also for the nature as three distinct persons) of the Trinity in the statement "God is love." I think everyone will agree that love needs an object. However, what kind of love could there be before Creation? I think everyone will also agree that God's nature is unchanging--the "object" of that divine love was/is none other than the Persons of the Trinity. An interesting conclusion from that simple verse, I thought.

Re: solo/sola scriptura-- being a Protestant of the Reformed persuasion, I believe the Scriptures are the only infallible source of truth and authority. Once humans come to it, however, the possibility of distortion is huge--if an individual can wrong in his/her interpretation, how is a whole church government exempt? Also, traditions and such of the church should be considered norma normata, rules that are ruled (by Scripture). Hence we can put faith in the veracity of things like the Westminster Confession of Faith, that historic council's opinion on what books of the Bible are inspired and which aren't, etc., by viewing those things in light of what we already see in Scripture. However, I would never say my pastor, my church, or any human has an absolute corner on the Truth in their interpretation of Scripture. This is not to be relativistic and say anyone's guess is legitimate, but rather an opposite idea, that anyone's guess has room for error, and that the Truth will not really be grasped until the time when Scripture is no longer necessary for our lives, because we will be face-to-face with God.

Also, it bears mentioning that adherents of sola scriptura can run into the trap of venerating Scripture entirely too much...it's important we worship the God of the Word, not the Word of God, as in the words of Jesus: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39-40)

@ kotwcs about solo/sola scriptura: Before you get to far in saying that scripture is the only place to look for truth, I want you consider what it would have been like for Paul and Peter who didn't have the scripture (New Testament). Instead, they helped to write it. How could they have written it if the only truth that could be found was derived in what they wrote? That makes no sense at all. No, I tell you, God is the only 'thing' that truth comes from. Whether he shows you the truth in the HOLY Bible or shows you the truth in the latest movie you watched makes little difference from the fact that it is truth. I also derive proof from what you said yourself that there are many wrong interpretations of the Bible. How is it even POSSIBLE for there to be a wrong interpretation of the Bible, never mind allot of them? Well, simply put, there's Gods interpretation of the Bible, and then there is hundreds of philosophers different interpretations of the Bible. The key, therefore, is not the BIBLE! The key is GOD! What interpretation is HE giving you about the Bible?

Well there is a very famous wrong interpretation of the Bible. Each of the Four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John contain a version of the crucifixion of Christ, though their accounts differ in what is included and what is left out. How many Gospels talk of Pontius Pilate offering the rabble the choice between Christ and Barabbas? And who are the rabble so addressed? Yes they are called Jews, but in one version, I forget which, these people were also called 'the supporters of Barabbas'. No surprises there. Of course there would be friends of the popular figure, Barabbas, hanging around to get him off at any price so that he could commit more mayhem, especially if it was anti-Roman mayhem.

Common sense tells the reader of the Gospels that all the Jews in Judea at the time could not have been in Jerusalem, or even in its outskirts, on the eve of that particular Passover, let alone in the courtyard of the hated Fortress of Antonia where Pontius Pilate made his offer. And everyone knows that in a largeish city, how easy it is to assemble hangers on, and those with nothing better to do, to stage a demonstration when those in authority want them to do so. So if it is impossible to misinterpret the Scriptures, how is it that for centuries this particular incident could form a convenient basis for the many pogroms and persecutions directed against the Jews? Because the clear message of all of the Gospels is to seek no vengeance, love thy neighbour and even your enemy as well, turning the other cheek.

To his great honour, Pope John-Paul II apologised for these atrocities, and the shameful misinterpretations of Scripture used to justify those atrocities over the centuries. But that is not the only misinterpretation of Scripture which has ever happened. Christ, himself, criticized the Pharisees for their too literal interpretations of Scripture, which they used to try to get at Him. Remember when He said 'The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath', when the Apostles picked grain to eat on the Sabbath?

Some years ago, I came across a copy of Early Christian Writings, in the foyer of one of Sydney's more notable churches. This Penguin Classic includes the Epistle of Barnabas which, according to its introduction on page 156, claims that Christianity has a pristine status, whose adherents have been renewed by baptism, so that they are not obliged to follow Jewish restrictions in diet, for example, something Peter also claimed in Acts. Barnabas, who may or may not have been the companion of Paul, seemed to think that that up to that point in time, the Old Testament, which he considered also Christian Scriptures, had always been misinterpreted by Judaism.

There is much else in this volume, also, such as epistles written by Ignatius, Bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp, an account of his martyrdom, Clement and other works as well. But these early writings are not considered Gospel, interesting for their history, and educational though they might be.

Anyway, I hope you all had a Merry Christmas.

Ah, fun times.

Gladius wrote:

If scripture does not explicitly call itself the only source of inerrant truth (and I'm not sure that it doesn't) it does at least tell us very clearly that human wisdom is screwy. Furthermore, there is no example anywhere in scripture of anyone so sanctified that they received God's wisdom entirely, or entirely conquered their own sinful natures. Consequently, there are no instances of anyone being a fit vessel for pure, undiluted and consistent truth. So it would seem that God has revealed perfect truth only in his Word. Why should anything else be our standard?

...

kotwcs wrote:

Re: solo/sola scriptura-- being a Protestant of the Reformed persuasion, I believe the Scriptures are the only infallible source of truth and authority. Once humans come to it, however, the possibility of distortion is huge--if an individual can wrong in his/her interpretation, how is a whole church government exempt? Also, traditions and such of the church should be considered norma normata, rules that are ruled (by Scripture). Hence we can put faith in the veracity of things like the Westminster Confession of Faith, that historic council's opinion on what books of the Bible are inspired and which aren't, etc., by viewing those things in light of what we already see in Scripture. However, I would never say my pastor, my church, or any human has an absolute corner on the Truth in their interpretation of Scripture. This is not to be relativistic and say anyone's guess is legitimate, but rather an opposite idea, that anyone's guess has room for error, and that the Truth will not really be grasped until the time when Scripture is no longer necessary for our lives, because we will be face-to-face with God.

Also, it bears mentioning that adherents of sola scriptura can run into the trap of venerating Scripture entirely too much...it's important we worship the God of the Word, not the Word of God.

Heard in the basement:

When people argue about Scripture, all too often what they are really arguing about is, "What good is an infallible book without infallible readers?" Which means themselves and not you, or you would have agreed with them.

Not that people do that around here but it does happen.

Hope everyone had a happy Christmas!

@ WWW: Drat, I failed to explain myself clearly AGAIN! I actually wasn't saying that it is impossible to misinterpret the Bible. In reality, I was trying to say plainly, "the Bible ISN'T truth; God is truth."

"I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life. john 14:6

Sound familiar? You may notice that Jesus didn't say, "THIS BOOK is the way, the truth, and the life." Nope, he said, "I AM the way, the truth, and the life."

What does it mean for God to be truth instead of the Bible. It means that the Bible by itself is just a book and if we as people try to interpret it, most likely we WILL come up with a wrong interpretation. So, the Bible is only good if God shows us what it means. Otherwise, the Bible is as boring to read as a convoluted 180 page essay! However, if God reveals HIS truths to us in the Bible, then, all of a sudden, the Bible becomes alive because God is just jumping out of the page at us! The Bible ISN'T truth! God is truth because he said so himself!