Blog Archive

Saint Moses the Black

Saint Moses the Black
Saint Moses the Black

Popular Posts

There was an error in this gadget

Labels

Saint John the Theologian

Saint John the Theologian
Saint John the Theologian

Followers

Total Pageviews

Follow by Email

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Jin...From battle rapper to Christian rapper?!

Jin, shares his thoughts.




The Song in question: (Welcome to the Light Club)








My thoughts about the issue as seen from Holyculture.net (I only said what I said because the person I responded to is very vocal about theological heavy calvinistic rap, and he doesn't like christian rappers that are almost secular / light on theology, and so, this is the context of my response)
Quote:
" Quote:
Originally Posted by jeyjey34 View  Post
If he's really a christian, then wouldn't it be better for him to put the mic down for a while and get discipled?

Maybe this will be different than guys like DMX and LL Cool J. Only time will tell...

My Response:
Who in the real world ever put the mic down when they first changed gears? So why do you expect him to?

And even if he did, that wouldn't mean you would like him, for if he went to the wrong church, and was tought under the wrong doctrines, then you wouldn't want him to be discipled(by his church that you may or may not like or agree with).

So it's all subjective really. I say let him be himself, and express what he wants to express........right or wrong. In my eyes, it's gonna be wrong somewhere.......on some topic regardless, just like most christian rap is.

I theologically dissagree with alot of it. So let dude be true to what he is right now, on the journy he is on right now.

For I won't feel it, if he ain't real to what he is right now.......flaws and all.


If you guys turn him into just another carbon copy Calvinistic rapper, then it's just gonna be another boring album that will eventually collect dust after a few spins.

Because it ain't real to what he is right now, and he will try hard to be like someone else instead of being true to himself. His stuff will sound all forced and boring. So I say, let dude be dude and let him be true to what he is right now.

If you change him, you will only change him from one error to another error.........in my book."



ICXC NIKA




Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeyjey34 View  Post
I was just asking the question of whether he should put it down or not to see what you guys thought. It's true that others haven't done that which is why we have the famous examples that I mentioned... guys who just can't step away from the sinful lyrics they're known for.

And I didn't say anything about being a Calvinistic rapper. Whether I like him as an artist or not has nothing to do with me wanting him to not make the same mistakes as others have made. The rapping stuff should be secondary while finding out who he is in Christ should be first.

I found it interesting that you want him to be himself whether right or wrong. That sounds like you don't even care about the dude and how he lives his life...


My Response:
It's not that I don't care. I do, It's just that as an Orthodox Christian I know that if he tries to spit high doctrine on the mic or get real theological with it, then he's going to be in error somewhere.....regardless. This is one of the reasons why I like listenning to alot of possitive theological light protestant christian rappers. And protestant christian rappers that talk about their actual experiences with God in their everyday life. I like that way more than TULIP Rap.

So it's not that. I want him to be himself, because I really want to hear his personal experiences with God from how he is able to interprete things right now.

You see, in Orthodoxy, True Knowledge.....epistemology comes from actual experience, and not just mere classroom book stuff.

If you want to learn about a Lion, you don't sit in a class lecture and read books about one. No, what you do is lock yourself in a cage with one. That's how you learn. For True knowledge is not with the tongue or mind alone. True knowledge is of the whole man....for the whole man must learn what it means to both fear and love God. Our hands must know it, our feet must know it, our legs must know....the whole man.

So when it comes to Theology and the art of studying God.....Eastern Christianity says:

Prayer = Studying God

Living the Christian life = Studying God

Actual experience with God = Studying God

Along with hearing about God from His Holy Word. So it's all the above.....we need it all if we really want to know God for ourselves.

And this is why I want to hear his own experience from his own lips, in the way he knows how to express it. I want to know how he really thinks and feels before people get to him, and mess him all up. But if he is a truth seeker, then hopefully he will eventually find what he is looking for. It should be obvious what I would like him to be, but it's not about me, and what I want......I can't control him nor his environment. The onlything I can do is pray for dude.










ICXC NIKA
Monday, February 22, 2010

The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom by Father Tom Pistolis

This is from Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Greenville, SC:

Part 1



Part 2:

Divine Litrugy - Liturgy of the Catacume...
11:18
minutes long


Part 3:

Divine Liturgy - Liturgy of the Catacume...
15:37
minutes long





ICXC NIKA

Orthodox Prayer: A Lecture series by Father Aris Metrakos from the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in Columbia South Carolina

Part 1:
3:40 minutes long


Part 2:
Watch video here
Hide video
14:21 minutes long



Part 3:

Orthodox Prayer - Living in the Present
21:00 minutes long


Part 4:
12:27 minutes long


Part 5:
07:53 minutes long


Part 6:

Orthodox Prayer - How to Pray
32:55 minutes long


Part 7:

Orthodox Prayer - Three Fold Way
14:10 minutes long


Part 8:

Orthodox Prayer - Questions
17:47 minutes long







ICXC NIKA

More Orthodox Resources

This is from Saint Louis University's Library
The link:
http://libguides.slu.edu/content.php?pid=36399&sid=267985




The Orthodox World
The Link:
http://www.orthodoxworld.ru/en/index.htm




Silouan Library
The Link:
http://silouanthompson.net/library/




Byzantine Icons website index
The Link:
http://www.iconsexplained.com/iec/iec_idb1w.htm











ICXC NIKA

Porn, Neurology, and Monkish Wisdom

This is from the prespyterian blog Poiesis Theou:

Quote:

""Romans 12:2 says “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” A book I read recently revealed how physically this renewing of the mind needs to take place. And I think wisdom from a different, more ancient book can teach us a lot about that physical renewal.

InterVarsity Press recently released a new book by William Struthers called Wired for Intimacy: How Pornography Hijacks the Male Brain. It describes in scientific detail the neurological processes involved in at least one pattern of sin: lust. And the most surprising – and for some, terrifying – insight of the book is that theses processes are dynamic. Viewing pornography actually shapes men’s brains, creating neural pathways designed to speed the brian’s processing of sexual images. Male brains are already programmed to respond to erotic imagery, but this is about nurture on top of nature: ”Like a path is created in the woods with each successive hiker, so do the neural paths set the course for the next time an erotic image is viewed. Over time these neural paths become wider as they are repeatedly traveled with each exposure to pornography. . . . Repeated exposure to pornography creates a one-way neurological superhighway where a man’s mental life is over-sexualized and narrowed” (p. 85).

Obviously porn is a tremendous issue: it’s a growing multi-billion dollar business in the US, thanks in part to its addictive character. Internet access only increases the likelihood of people viewing porn “privately” where there’s little fear of getting caught. (I’m curious how many more hits than usual this post will get, simply because it contains words like porn.) Regardless of the lies the entertainment industry produces about it, the truth is that porn is demeaning and violent toward both women and men, it’s destructive to relationships, and – as this book shows – it even rots the brain.""



To read the rest, please visit Poiesis Theou





ICXC NIKA

Books by Academic scholars that I either have or will get

They all have different biases because of their different backgrounds. But most of them are Scholars in the field of Church History.


Peter Robert Lamont Brown

Jaroslav Jan Pelikan

John Norman Davidson Kelly

Alister Edgar McGrath

David Bentley Hart

Robert Louis Wilken

Aziz Atiya

Kenneth_Cragg

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware

John_Meyendorff

Samuel Hugh Moffett

Williston Walker







ICXC NIKA

Wheaton's Center for Early Christian Studies

As seen from HCR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCordero View  Post
Today my pastor Dr. Ryken, announced today after Church that he will be leaving Tenth Presb to become the president of Wheaten College. Ryken has served faithfully for ten years at Tenth Presb since Dr. Boice left to be with the Lord....

My Response:
I wonder how this will affect the new Patristics program at Wheaten? I know that some Reformed are very hostile to classical christianity. I don't know Dr.Ryken, and so I really don't know what he will do in regards to that program. I know a Prespyterian from the PCUSA who is very into Patristics. But the PCUSA is seen as being too liberal as compared to other Prespyterian denominations.

And so I wonder what will happen to the new Patristics program at Wheaten? Will he gut it or will he keep it?






ICXC NIKA
Saturday, February 20, 2010

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job?

A going back and forth between me, Shaun(Eternal) a church of God pastor, and Jason Bradfield(KingNeb) a full-preterist.

This comes from the HolyCultureRadio Forums.





Quote: (Kingneb)
"The Apostles Did A Lousy Job

I post the following here as a response to accusations from Seal, Rick, and others that if preterism is true, this would somehow make the apostles incompetent teachers. I wrote this almost two years ago. Keep in mind that in this article, i am articulating scripturalism as taught by men like Gordon Clark and a late Augustine. Roderick has already made known his incompetency with Clark's material, something even Rick saw but for a blink of the eye, that is, until it came time to bash the preterists:

Recently I had visited a site created by he whom we shall not name and I stumbled across this comment regarding Preterists*:
“If what full preterism says is true, then they have to also be saying that the apostles did a lousy job at relating the truth that was revealed to them...since by the full preterist premise either the Church quickly corrupted or quickly forgot what the apostles taught. So much for the gates of hades not prevailing against Christ's Church eh? -- So yes, full preterism is ARROGANT by nature & design.”
When I first started looking into Preterism, I had a reform “friend” offer up this objection as well. It was weak then; it is a weak argument now.


1. I find it interesting that “reform” Christians would employ this argument because it fails to acknowledge the reality that ULTIMATELY God is in charge of the whole teaching/learning business. There’s an interesting statement in Hebrews 6 to demonstrate my point:
“Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits.” – Hebrews 6.1-3
And this we will do if God permits….wait a second. Paul, you mean God may not permit us to “do” “this”? God may not permit us to “leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity”?

Yes.

Therefore, God controls the learning/maturity process of believers and a lack of learning/maturity may not necessarily reflect the capabilities of our earthly “teacher”.
“Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.” Matthew 23.10
Jesus here is obviously making an epistemological statement. The Bible itself gives us examples of “instructors” and “teachers” and “fathers” (v. 9) Therefore, Jesus was not saying, “don’t call your dad ‘father’ because you only have one father. And don’t call your pastor “instructor” because you only have one instructor.” Instead, He’s pointing us to the ULTIMATE instructor, the Christ.

Ultimately, God is the one who does the teaching. Ultimately, earthly instructors do not teach but merely call our attention to what Christ is teaching our minds. This is what Jesus is driving at in Mt 23…”you have one instructor, the Christ.”
Aurelius Augustine: “But men are mistaken, so that they call those teachers who are not teachers, merely because for the most part there is no delay between the time of speaking and the time of cognition. And since after the speaker has reminded them, the pupils quickly learn within, they think that they have been taught outwardly by him who prompts them……”

“….So that now we may not only believe but also begin to understand that it has truly been written on divine authority that we are not to call anyone on earth our master because there is only one Master of all who is in heaven. But what in heaven means, he himself will advertise to us by means of men, through signs and outwardly, so that we may by turning inwardly to him be made wise; whom to know and to love is the blessed life which, though all claim to see it, few indeed may rejoice that they have found.” ~ Concerning the Teacher.
God is in control of the process. And since God is in control of the “inward” cognition, a lack of cognition may not necessarily be tied to the inability of the earthly teacher to “prompt” us.

All of which is just another way of saying that the objection fails because a pupil’s “forgetting” something or not getting it at all is not NECESSARILY a reflection upon the teacher. God may have other plans.

2. Another reason this objection is weak is because it fails to acknowledge examples given to us in Scripture itself of pupils simply not getting it.

Was Jesus a “lousy” teacher?
14 Now they had forgotten to bring bread, and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. 15 And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” 16 And they began discussing with one another the fact that they had no bread. 17 And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? - Mark 8
Are we to argue that Christ was a “lousy” teacher seeing that the disciples “quickly forgot”? God forbid.

One last example will suffice; one directly related to “eschatology”:
2:1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? - 2 Thessalonians 2
Interestingly, in both examples, Christ and Paul questioned their “memory”. “Do you not remember?” Yet, our objector argues that the apostles must have been lousy teachers for the church “quickly forgot what the apostles taught”.

I hope I have demonstrated what a “lousy” argument this is. It is one that fails to acknowledge other possible factors in the learning process, namely the sovereignty of God; and it is one that flat out ignores examples within the Scripture itself of pupils either a little slow or simply not getting what Jesus and/or the Apostles taught. And many of these students got the teaching first-hand. Heaven forbid these objectors would now impugn the job of Christ and His Apostles. That is where such a fallacious argument would lead if taken seriously.

And this you will see if God permits. ( ;

* Preterism is the belief that the death/burial/resurrection of Christ and his “coming” were the two foci of one complete, eschaton (end time) that pertain to the fulfillment of all redemptive history and prophecy within the closing period (“last days”) of the Old Covenant age.





My responce:
There is a difference between a few within a church plant or a church plant falling into error or just not getting it and all the church plants falling into error or just not getting it. This would be like every scribe falling into error at the same passage of scripture, in the same way, and at the same time. Such a thing just doesn't happen. It is most likely for multiple scribes to error in different places, at different times, rates, and ways........as seen by manuscript evidence.

I find it odd that you trust in God to preserve His word....even with erroring scribes, but you won't trust God to do the same with the Church.....even with erroring members.


You as a full-preterist will have to believe in some type of "total" amnesia or "total" apostasy shortly after the Apostles died........which is ridiculous restorationism. I already showed that it was the gnostics that rejected the idea of a "physical resurrection", and so your belief was held back then.......just not within the Church. It was held by the ancient anti-christs. And so, the early Church knew what the belief was for their enemies held to it. This alone should throw up some red flags....or at least show that maybe you are the one that is interpreting some portions of Scripture incorrectly.


Remember, we are not talking about just one individual or one church plant in the early church forgetting or falling away, but all of the ones in recorded or known history.

Why didn't the ancient gnostics point to people in the Church that believed the way they did about their not being a "physical resurrection"? If such a thing was at one time tought by the church but quickly lost, then why didn't the gnostics tell the christians that?

The gnostics did believe in a "secret wisdom". A wisdom that the Apostles hid from everyone else except for them and their teachers. You seem to be makingly a similar claim with "private cognitive gnosis/knowledge".

ICXC NIKA



Kingneb said:

Quoting me:

"This would be like every scribe falling into error at the same passage of scripture, in the same way, and at the same time. "
So are you telling me that there is a single, orthodox interpretation for every single passage in the bible?




My Response:
What is a scribe?

According to wicki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribe
Quote:
"A scribe is a person who writes books or documents by hand as a profession and helps the city keep tracks of its records.The profession, previously found in all literate cultures in some form, lost most of its importance and status with the advent of printing. The work could involve copying books, including sacred texts, or secretarial and administrative duties such as taking of dictation and the keeping of business, judicial and historical records for kings, nobility, temples and cities."

So I am telling you that just like the ancient scribes who may have errored/made mistakes every now and then when copying texts. So like wise, men in the church errored, fell away, forgotten.......etc.

And just like how scribes errored in differences places of scripture and at different times, so too have men in the church.

In order for preterism to be true, everyone in known recorded history had to have got it wrong at the same time and in the same way.

ICXC NIKA




Eternal said:
Quote:
"Well, to be honest Israel would fit your bill here. By and large they misunderstood the coming Kingdom, that the Messiah would have to be killed and raised from the dead. And that was a pretty long time as well. Jesus was breaking open the scriptures for them and they jaws dropped. They just plain misinterpreted scripture, in pretty much every school of Jewish thought.

Or consider even Paul's efforts to demonstrate through scripture that God's plan all along was THROUGH Israel for the world and not just FOR Israel. They pretty much missed this by and large too, not as bad as the death and resurrection of the coming Messiah, but missed it by a pretty large margin none the less.

And this is scripture and history telling us this.

So I am not sure if that argument is actually a sound one here. Since we are taught by scripture that it does really happen."



My Response to Eternal:
It's sound because of the context. The context is the Church, the New Testament, not the Old. Jesus said He will be with us always...even unto the end of the ages. He also says that the gates of Hades will not prevale. And Jude talks about how the faith was once handed to the Saints. In other places of Scripture...like 1st John, we have the Anointing/Holy Spirit..... teaching us all things.

Also, according to Saint Paul, every Jew didn't miss it. Were the Apostles not jews too? Weren't there Jews in the early church too? The early Church was made up of both Jew and Gentile.

In order for what you said to be true....all the jews of the 1st century had to have had amnesia or forgot some teaching that was told to them by Moses. This is the whole point. The details of the 1st advent was a mystery.....yeah there were clues, but that is not the same as Moses telling them to observe something and all of them having amnesia shortly after his death.

This is the context of the matter.....did all the jews have amnesia shortly after Moses died? Did all the Apostles have amnesia shortly after Jesus ascended into heaven? Did all the church plants in known history have amnesia shortly after the Apostles died?

ICXC NIKA




Eternal's response back:
Quote:
"
The apostles didn't get it until Jesus explained it to them, is my point:

Quote:
Luke 24:13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 And they were talking with each other about all these things which had taken place. 15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. 16 But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. 17 And He said to them, "What are these words that you are exchanging with one another as you are walking?" And they stood still, looking sad. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, "Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?" 19 And He said to them, "What things?" And they said to Him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the sentence of death, and crucified Him. 21 "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened. 22 "But also some women among us amazed us. When they were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and did not find His body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive. 24 "Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also had said; but Him they did not see." 25 And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Luke 24: 44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 "You are witnesses of these things. 49 "And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."
They totally missed it.




My response to Eternal:
After Jesus explained it to them, did they all have amnesia shortly afterwards?

In order for KingNeb to be right, something had to be tought to a group of people, then all of them had to have gotten amnesia......shortly after.




Eternal's response:
Quote:
"I think you are moving the goal posts here. My point was that even scripture shows that that history can in fact unfold with God's people by and large misinterpreting the scripture. Israel up to the death of Christ is a prime example.

God didn't make sure that Israel had a proper understanding of the death/resurrection of the Messiah throughout the years preceding His coming.
Some of your other points are good, but this one is lacking."




My Response to Eternal:
I am not moving the goal post. We are talking about all the Apostles mis-interpreting Jesus after Jesus explained it to them, and all the early christians mis-interpreting the Apostles after they explained it to them.

In order for KingNeb to be right 1 or 2 things must be true.

1.) Something was tought to the people and they all got amnesia shortly afterward

or

2.) God kept it hidden from christians until the arrival of the christian gnostics and later full-preterists some 1970 years later.

No sir, I didn't move the goal post.

ICXC NIKA




Kingneb said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by king neb View  Post
Nope, not at all. Fulfillment was seen, by many. That isn't the issue. The issue is about what was ADDED to that.

Preterism is nothing more than Christianity without all the end of the world, billions of corpses flying into the air, "soon" means "whenever" talk.

Preterism is Christianity MINUS all that.

ADDING stuff is not amnesia.

If you don't know that many early christians viewed the events leading up to ad70 as prophetic fulfillment, then your ignorance is showing as well.


My Response:
I hold to what the Apostolic fathers, pre-nicene fathers, and post nicene fathers had to say about 70 A.D.

You forgot that I use to be a pre-millennialist. I was raised dispy, but when I started reading the works of some of the pre-nicene christians, I adopted the popular pre-millenial view of the time.

I dropped ante-Nicene pre-mill 3 years ago when I became Orthodox.

And yes, I still believe what they had to say about 70 A.D. and it's not the same as what you say......for if it was the same......then you wouldn't be a full-preterist.

You keep saying all the extra stuff, but that stuff isn't extra. You took away what was always there.

ICXC NIKA




Eternal said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternal View  Post
It seems unscriptural to suggest that God would not allow such a thing to happen. The bible itself preserves such a thing happening.

I don't find truth nor merit in that line of argument is all.



My Response:
Happening to all and at the sametime?

Eternal, I think you are confusing two different things. You are confusing a mystery.....something that was not revealed......and had to be explained with something that was revealed and explained.

You keep saying I am moving the goal post, but I am not. If something was explained, then it's not a matter of it being hidden. Instead, it is a matter of preserving what was told.

Now if it was hidden, then in order for Neb to be right.....it had to be hidden from christians ...only for it to be revealed to the gnostics and later full-preterists.




Kingneb said:
Quote:
" Jnorm,

I don't understand what you are saying. So let me clarify what i am saying.

1) I side with Owens and other reformed men that acceptance of the Word of God does not rest on the testimony of the church.

The link i provided below of John Owen's work provides a devastating critique of Rick's view.

2) Revelation was complete in the first century. Therefore, from that point onward it is not a matter of things being "hidden", but a matter of understanding what has been revealed.

3) The general understanding of the church does not equal the understanding of those apostles that were chosen to bring about that revelation. The revelatory apostles, if you will, are in a totally separate camp than the rest of us.
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]
The WCF, on this point, is clear and biblical. The writings of Paul, as one example of a revelatory apostle, were "immediately inspired". They were received as a revelation from God. The rest of us...the ECF, popes, bishops, Jnorm, Kingneb....do NOT fall into that same category. Our writings, our councils, our creeds and confessions, do NOT fall into the same category and are therefore subject to the Scripture.

ALL DECREES OF COUNCILS, OPINIONS OF ANCIENT WRITERS, DOCTRINES OF MEN, AND PRIVATE SPIRITS ARE TO BE EXAMINED.

It does not get any plainer than that. EXAMINED...not automatically assumed to be correct because the council had Johnny Smith in it and he's a cool guy, plus a bunch of other cool men we like.

The fact that a large number of men come with the same opinion does NOT necessarily infer that the opinion is correct. Logic 101. Scripture is correct and our opinions are to be examined by it.

4) I don't believe the revelatory apostles (Paul, Peter, John, etc.) erred in anything they wrote. So to charge me with believing that Paul, for example, misunderstood something because Polycarp misunderstood something, is nonsense. Polycarp (or any other father you want to name) is not in the same category as Paul. Polycarp is no different than us, only that he lived in closer proximity to Paul's time. And as i have pointed out in the past, proximity in time does NOT assure accuracy.

People sitting directly under Paul's teaching got things wrong. Heck, Roderick here has grossly misrepresented Sam, someone who is alive now and all it would take is a phone call to prove Rod's interpretation of Sam wrong; yet he refuses and will continue to lie about a contemporary; so what in the world would make us think that just because some dude lived in or near the time of Paul, that he automatically understands Paul correctly?

5) Scripture no where promises that those leaders who would come after the apostles would come to a complete understanding of everything in the scripture at once.

Arguing for organic development, as i do, is not the same thing as arguing for some mysterious, hidden content as you seem to suggest i am doing.

Preterist interpretation has always been available to understand from the scripture, and in fact, i would argue that most, if not all, of the main elements of preterism HAVE been seen; only for people to go BEYOND it with a sensual, delayed coming in some unknown future.

Preterists did not invent a metaphorical understanding of Ez 37. Preterists did not invent an ad70 "coming" of Christ. Preterists did not invent the understanding that souls were raised out of sheol/hades in the first century. Preterists did not invent the understanding that Daniel's 70 weeks are fulfilled.

And if in fact you are paying any attention at all to scholarship, it is becoming more "preteristic". Even those who despise preterism, like Gentry, are putting out revisions and assigning more and more passages to first century fulfillment."




My Response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by king neb View  Post
Jnorm,
I don't understand what you are saying. So let me clarify what i am saying.

1) I side with Owens and other reformed men that acceptance of the Word of God does not rest on the testimony of the church.

The link i provided below of John Owen's work provides a devastating critique of Rick's view.
You and I already argued about this before in years past. But what does this have to do with the topic at hand? In this conversation I was talking about scribes, scribal error, and how members in the church in general either error, fall away, misunderstand.....etc.

And just like how EVERY scribe DIDN'T make copy errors in the same passage of scripture, and at the same time.....in like manner, EVERYONE who heard the Apostles didn't misunderstand, fall away, or error in the same way, and at the same time.

Did all the known church plants forget, fall away, and mis-understand the Apostles? Yes or no? Did they all have amnesia shortly after the apostles died? Yes or no?


Quote:
2) Revelation was complete in the first century. Therefore, from that point onward it is not a matter of things being "hidden", but a matter of understanding what has been revealed.
Tell this to Eternal, for he was the one making an argument for mis-understanding things not yet revealed/explained. He thought I was moving the goal post. Thanks for being more clear about the issue being one of Mis-understanding something that was known/revealed/explained.....etc, and not one of misunderstanding something that was hidden/not explained/not revealed......etc. Now I can cross out what I said earlier in my option # 2 with Eternal:
(2.) God kept it hidden from christians until the arrival of the christian gnostics and later full-preterists some 1970 years later) and (You keep saying I am moving the goal post, but I am not. If something was explained, then it's not a matter of it being hidden. Instead, it is a matter of preserving what was told.
Now if it was hidden, then in order for Neb to be right.....it had to be hidden from christians ...only for it to be revealed to the gnostics and later full-preterists.)



So Mr. Neb,

Since the issue is one of understanding that which is revealed, what I said earlier about something being tought to a group of people, and all of them either having amnesia shortly after or all of them mis-understanding and falling away still stands.



Quote:
3) The general understanding of the church does not equal the understanding of those apostles that were chosen to bring about that revelation. The revelatory apostles, if you will, are in a totally separate camp than the rest of us.
Yes, they may be in a totally separate camp as individuals, but you seem to be forgetting one thing.

1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

The power of the Holy Spirit in preserving what was tought by the Apostles. The "you" in the passage above is "plural"....not singular, and so, it is talking about the church/group/collective.



Quote:
The WCF, on this point, is clear and biblical. The writings of Paul, as one example of a revelatory apostle, were "immediately inspired". They were received as a revelation from God. The rest of us...the ECF, popes, bishops, Jnorm, Kingneb....do NOT fall into that same category. Our writings, our councils, our creeds and confessions, do NOT fall into the same category and are therefore subject to the Scripture.

ALL DECREES OF COUNCILS, OPINIONS OF ANCIENT WRITERS, DOCTRINES OF MEN, AND PRIVATE SPIRITS ARE TO BE EXAMINED.
I find it strange and very odd for you to claim to hold to the WCF(Westminister Confession of Faith), yet you refuse to hold to all of it. You pick and choose what you like from it like some kind of salad bowl or fast food place. Now maybe if you held to all of it I would take you more seriously when you quote it.

However, with all that said, Scripture does say:

1 John 2:27
"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

And so, if 1st John 2:27 is correct.....which I believe it is....then there should be at least some kind of track record in "KNOWN RECORDED CHRISTIAN HISTORY" about the 2nd advent still being future or not. In order for your view to be correct the early christians from 70A.D. to about 200A.D. should of tought the idea that the 2nd advent was already past for it happened in 70A.D. and that the anti-christs were correct in there not being a "physical" resurrection.

Kingneb, it seems more likely that you are misunderstanding one passage of Scripture in Math chapter 24. For it is causing you to not only make huge chunks of Scripture "figurative speech", but it is also causing you to put Scripture against History. Such a thing is really unnecessary.


Quote:
It does not get any plainer than that. EXAMINED...not automatically assumed to be correct because the council had Johnny Smith in it and he's a cool guy, plus a bunch of other cool men we like.

The fact that a large number of men come with the same opinion does NOT necessarily infer that the opinion is correct. Logic 101. Scripture is correct and our opinions are to be examined by it.
1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.


Was God sleeping at the wheel? Did God refuse to preserve the Truth about this matter in REAL RECORDED CHRISTIAN HISTORY?


Quote:
4) I don't believe the revelatory apostles (Paul, Peter, John, etc.) erred in anything they wrote. So to charge me with believing that Paul, for example, misunderstood something because Polycarp misunderstood something, is nonsense. Polycarp (or any other father you want to name) is not in the same category as Paul. Polycarp is no different than us, only that he lived in closer proximity to Paul's time. And as i have pointed out in the past, proximity in time does NOT assure accuracy.
In order for you to be right, EVERYONE of their church plants and hearers would have to fall for the same error, and at the same time.

Did they all fall for the same error? Yes or no?

According to Scripture, Paul makes it seem as if EVERYONE will not fall away.....that EVERYONE will not misunderstand.....that EVERYONE will not quickly have amnesia.

1 Corinthians 11:19
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

In order for your view to be correct......no one can be approved! No one can be made manifest among the people for they all fell away, had amnesia, misunderstood.....etc.

My view is that ALL will not fall away, have amnesia, misunderstand.....etc.


Quote:
People sitting directly under Paul's teaching got things wrong. Heck, Roderick here has grossly misrepresented Sam, someone who is alive now and all it would take is a phone call to prove Rod's interpretation of Sam wrong; yet he refuses and will continue to lie about a contemporary; so what in the world would make us think that just because some dude lived in or near the time of Paul, that he automatically understands Paul correctly?
Did all Sam's readers and hearers misunderstand him? If so, then you misunderstood him to!

So did all of Saint Paul's hearers misrepresent him? Did all of his church plants fall away and misunderstood him? Did all his readers and hearers misunderstand him?


Quote:
5) Scripture no where promises that those leaders who would come after the apostles would come to a complete understanding of everything in the scripture at once.
That's not the point. The point is about "holding on" to what has been passed down. This is the point....for if the Apostles tought something, then it is up to their hearers and listenners to "preserve it".

And so, whatever knowledge that comes later isn't gonna contradict the original knowledge that came before.

Jude 1:3
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Titus 1:9
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

If your Doctrinal Development guts the foundation of christianity then it's obviously false.



A better understanding of things won't happen until we are glorified.

1 Corinthians 13:11-12
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."


But you can't believe in such a thing now can you?



Quote:
Arguing for organic development, as i do, is not the same thing as arguing for some mysterious, hidden content as you seem to suggest i am doing.
I was arguing with Eternal when I said that.....for he was talking about misunderstanding something that wasn't revealed.


Quote:
Preterist interpretation has always been available to understand from the scripture, and in fact, i would argue that most, if not all, of the main elements of preterism HAVE been seen; only for people to go BEYOND it with a sensual, delayed coming in some unknown future.
Seventh Day Adventists can only use Scripture when trying to put the yoke of the jewish Sabbath on folk. The same is true for alot of different groups, and so, only using scripture isn't necessarily a gaurantee of being free from error.

At the end of the day, you still have to rightly divide the Word of God.



Quote:
Preterists did not invent a metaphorical understanding of Ez 37. Preterists did not invent an ad70 "coming" of Christ. Preterists did not invent the understanding that souls were raised out of sheol/hades in the first century. Preterists did not invent the understanding that Daniel's 70 weeks are fulfilled.
We know from your other thread that the Reformed and Calvinistic partial prets helped you to become a full blown full preterist.

I obviously don't agree with them and their views about the issue..



Quote:
And if in fact you are paying any attention at all to scholarship, it is becoming more "preteristic". Even those who despise preterism, like Gentry, are putting out revisions and assigning more and more passages to first century fulfillment.
You mean scholarship within Reformed, Calvinistic and maybe some Roman Catholic circles.

I too believe that some things were fulfilled in 70A.D., but my view of what happened in 70A.D. is the same as the pre-nicene pre-millers, and amillers.

And so to me, it is more about PRESERVING / HOLDING ON to that, and not reconstructing a new belief that changes the very heart and foundation of christianity.







ICXC NIKA


Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 1

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 2

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 3

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 4

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 5

Debunking Pagan Parallels part 2 (by Albert a traditional Anglican)











ICXC NIKA

Free e-books

They didn't have much of what I wanted, but they did have one I thought was useful.

The link:
http://ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Church%20Fathers.pdf









ICXC NIKA

Eshon Burgundy "Porcelain" feat Chances R

Eshon Burgundy is from Philly, you can tell by the way he raps. He has that Philly sound. I personally believe he is way better than most mainstream rap artists.

eshon burgundy- Porcelain ft chances r from eshon burgundy on Vimeo.










ICXC NIKA
Thursday, February 18, 2010

Debunking pagan parallels: A series by Albert (a traditional Anglican)

Pagan Parallels and Pope Leo X
Related Posts with Thumbnails