Ancient Christian Witness

David's blog.

He likes to use the Western tradition when talking about the Trinity. For those that don't know what the western tradition is, it is to start with the Essence first and Persons second. The Eastern tradition is to start with the Persons first and Essence second.

He did a pretty good job in talking with the JW's.

As seen from Holyculture.net




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

The Bible didn't record everything either:
John 21:25
"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

The book of Acts didn't record what the other Apostles did either. Thus, you can't use that which was not recorded as an excuse to dismiss what was recorded.

Scripture shows us that it's not necessary to record everything.



You are confusing ones bias/presupp and interpretation with the actual evidence itself.



Scripture shows us the example that such a thing is not necessary. If you believe that the Providence and Sovereignty of God works through history, then you should also believe that what we have can be trusted at some level/degree......or else we wouldn't have it.

You seem to be saying that we can't trust what we do have because we don't know what we don't have. And so what the known recorded history says doesn't mean a lick.




You seem to be missing something here.

Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 7:17
Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.

1 Corinthians 4:17
For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

2 Timothy 2:2
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.


Now note what Tertullian(around 197 A.D....still in his Orthodox years) had to say about the Apostles and the common Faith they preached to the churches: (Tertullian was arguing against the claims and arguments of the heretics Marcion, Apelles, Philumene, Valentinus, Nigidius, and Hermogenes).
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm (Read chapters 20 to 42)

Quote: (from chapter 20)
"they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery."


Quote: (from chapter 21)
"Chapter 21. All Doctrine True Which Comes Through the Church from the Apostles, Who Were Taught by God Through Christ. All Opinion Which Has No Such Divine Origin and Apostolic Tradition to Show, is Ipso Facto False.
From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knows the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Matthew 11:27 Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach— that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached— in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them— can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches— those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth."


Quote: (from chapter 26)
"Much less, when churches were advanced in the faith, would they have withdrawn from them anything for the purpose of committing it separately to some few others. Although, even supposing that among intimate friends, so to speak, they did hold certain discussions, yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches, — as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church, 1 Corinthians 1:10 seeing that they, whether Paul or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered (the words): “Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this comes of evil;” Matthew 5:37 so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment."


From Chapters 27 and 29
Quote:
"Chapter 27. Granted that the Apostles Transmitted the Whole Doctrine of Truth, May Not the Churches Have Been Unfaithful in Handing It On? Inconceivable that This Can Have Been the Case.
Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust you may find put forward by the heretics. They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: “O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?” Galatians 3:1 and, “You did run so well; who has hindered you?” Galatians 5:7 and how the epistle actually begins: “I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him, who has called you as His own in grace, to another gospel.” Galatians 1:6 That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat;” who also “thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.” 1 Corinthians 8:2 When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle “rejoices and gives thanks to God,” which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.

Chapter 28. The One Tradition of the Faith, Which is Substantially Alike in the Churches Everywhere, a Good Proof that the Transmission Has Been True and Honest in the Main.
Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, John 14:26 and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; John 15:26 grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?

Chapter 29. The Truth Not Indebted to the Care of the Heretics; It Had Free Course Before They Appeared. Priority of the Church's Doctrine a Mark of Its Truth.
In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! Else, if not wrongly done, and to no purpose, how comes it to pass that the things of God were on their course before it was known to what God they belonged? That there were Christians before Christ was found? That there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which foretold that there should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a church which possessed this doctrine, it was written— yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own church— “Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed."

Chapter 30. Comparative Lateness of Heresies."


The picture I see from both Scripture as well as from Tertullian some 100 years after the death of Saint John the Apostle is one of the Apostles teaching doctrine in front of witnesses. In public to the faithfull in all the churches. This is what you are not seeing.

You are making it seem as if the early Church....from the 1st century onward.... had no unity whatsoever. That everyone disagreed about everything. This is what you will have to assume.

I disagree with the idea that there was no unity at all.


You are looking at the issue from a different context. You are assuming that the fracture of christianity that we have now was always the same in the past. And thus, you are looking at this issue from that context. Some of the ancient gnostics called themselves christian, and thus the term "christian gnostics". And yes, they did teach a "figurative" resurrection of the dead......just as Kingneb, brandon, full-preterists, and liberal christians do today.

The thing is. I don't call nor consider the ancient gnostics as christian nor would I call certain forms of modern liberal christianity christian.

And so, according to your context. Yes, I would have to agree with you......because of the way you have it set up. I understand your point, but I wouldn't use the same context as you. My context would focus on the actual groups themselves.

In 4,000A.D. if someone wanted to know what Reformed protestantism was, and they only could find a handfull of Reformed pastors, then they will have to base their info on that. And if someone else from that time in the future wanted to find out what WOF was all about in our day, and if they had alot of WOF pastors to go by, then they will have to base their info on that.

This would be my context of your example.


It means alot. For it would mean, that this is what WOF is. If someone claimed to be WOF but was spittin Reformed doctrine......then that person wouldn't be WOF....you will have to put them in a different group.....the Reformed group.

And so, dispite all the splits we see in christianity. If one of the few common things we see is that our Resurrection from the dead is physical and that the 2nd Advent is still future.......then anyone who claims the opposite can't be christian. They will have to be something else......but christian is something they can't be.


It means alot. For it would mean, that this is what Reformed theology is. And so, if someone claimed to be Reformed, but was spittin mad WOF doctrine......then that person wouldn't be Reformed. ....you will have to put them in a different group.....the WOF group.

And so, dispite all the splits we see in christianity. If one of the few common things we see is that our Resurrection from the dead is physical and that the 2nd Advent is still future.......then anyone who claims the opposite can't be christian. They will have to be something else......but christian is something they can't be.


It would actually mean alot if seen in the right context.



It depends on the topic.



Did the Apostles do a lousy job? Yes or no

Did the Apostles teach the samething to all the churches? Yes or no

Did the known recorded historical record in regards to the teachings of our Resurrection from the dead and Christ's 2nd coming get it right or wrong? Yes or no

The Apostles didn't teach two opposite things......what did they teach?


So the Apostles didn't teach the samething to the churches? Are you saying that the Apostles tought onething to one group but the total opposite to another group?


Did the Apostles do a lousy job? Yes or no

What did they teach in regards to this issue?

Is what we have in regards to this issue from known recorded history wrong? Yes or no


Scripture shows us that it's not necessary to record everything.


So the Apsotles didn't teach the samething to the churches? Is this what you are saying?


So are you saying that it is impossible to know what Pentecostalism is and isn't? Are you saying it is impossible to know what Reformed protestantism is and isn't?

Is this what you are saying?

Scripture shows that it isn't necessary to record everything.


No one is claiming history as the ONLY form of evidence. I am using both Scripture and history,.....Scripture first, and history second as a subordinate tool. But you don't seem to like it when history is used as a tool to support an interpretation of Scripture.


Did the Bible fall from the sky only to land on your lap and your lap only? Yes or no

Did God only speak to you? Yes or no


You can't have it both ways. You can't be frustrated one minute because people are trying to check their interpretation with the interpretations of 2,000 years worth of commentary only to turn around and be frustrated again for people not checking their own interpretations with 2,000 years worth of commentary.







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

We don't know with 100% certainty who wrote the book of Hebrews either. That too is an unknowable. Infact, if you dismiss the claims of the early Christians in who wrote what Gospel, then we wouldn't even know who wrote some of the Gospels either.....with 100% certainty. Also, I never claimed that there weren't any "unknowables" in history. The Gospels, the Epistle of Hebrews and the western Athanasius creed at least truly existed in "KNOWABLE HISTORY".

That is totally different than the existence of full-preterists being absent within the Church in Recorded knowable History.


Who said it was? I never said it was! But it is a guide, and if your view doesn't exist in most of Knowable recorded church history, then that should throw up some red flags that maybe your way of dividing scripture is fallible.

Is the way you interpret Scripture INFALLIBLE? If not, then maybe you can use Knowable recorded church history as a tool to help you correct a faulty exegesis.

So, Clark's analysis of history was INFALLIBLE?


I know you didn't say that, but your view will have to lead to that conclusion anyway. Because the Apostles did teach something about the Resurrection, and it was up to the next generation to hold on to what they taught...... and your view wasn't taught by the early christians......instead it was taught by the gnostics......one of their main enemies.

And so, in order for your view to be right, everyone in recorded known history had to become apostate, fell away, got it wrong, forgot.....etc.


It is because of Knowable recorded church history that we know about all these differences. And so, I accept the reality of it.

What you should be worried about is why your view about the Resurrection shows up among the ancient gnostics in knowable recorded church history? What you should be worried about is why your view of full-preterism shows up pretty late in knowable recorded church history.

You see, your view is a difference too. Your view was debated too. Your view is a schism too. It's just that it was all these things late in time.

Yes the radar shows a marker in history of when something happened.

Just like we can tell how old a tree is by the rings of it's trunk:



We can tell how old a certain biblical interpretation/view is as well. How do we know about the circumcision sect, Sabellianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism.....etc? How do we know about all this stuff? It is because the debates caused a ripple in Church history. A scar, an imprint!

How do we know about some of the different movements that popped up over time? It is because they left a mark in Church History. It is because the unity of the Church was disturbed by it.

This is why we know about Montanism, Novationism, Ebionites, Donatists.....etc. This is why we know about Tertullian changing for something else in his later years. The same with Tatian. This is why Clement of Alexandria is not considered a Saint among the Eastern Orthodox because we don't know about his life after a certain point in time of persecution. Christians were all up in your business back then.....just as we still are today. So yes, I accept all those difference you mentioned as a reality! It exist in knowable recorded History.

The same is true when it comes to the history of the Baptist church I was raised in. In my time there, the congregation split twice. Those splits are known among the members of that congregation because it disturbed the unity of the faithful there.

And so yes, I accept those things as a reality. Your full-preterism comes late in time, and that is the REALITY of your view.


What did Saint Paul say?
1 Corinthians 11:19
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1 out of the 3 has to be right. All 3 can't be wrong for there has to be a "they which are approved may be made manifest among you"

But all heresy isn't at the same level of wrongness. Some are more wrong than others. Saint Paul didn't mind the circumcision sect until they started to cause him and his gentile followers problems. He didn't mind those who didn't eat meat until they started to cause his gentile followers problems.

And so, all error isn't equal. Some are more harmful than others. Full-preterism destroys the Faith. Shoot! Even some forms of Partial-Preterism destroys the faith.

Pre-mill doesn't. Eventhough my Church rejects pre-mill.....they are very lenient or soft handed when it comes to the error. The only difference I can see between Eastern Amill and pre-nicene pre-mill is the 1,000 year reign and the super foods and other carnal things within that reign. And this is why it was easy for me to switch. I really didn't have to change that much.



Amill existed along with Pre-mill. I have to review, but you start to see people arguing against pre-mill around 200A.D.

Caius from Rome, argued against the view, and he lived around 215 A.D.

Origen and Dionysius from Alexandria both fought against the view.
Origen lived from 185 A.D. to about 255 A.D.
And Dionysius was ordained a Bishop around 247 A.D. and he mentioned that there were people before his time, that rejected the book of Revelations.

The book of Revelations had a hard time being accepted in the christian East....which is ironic for it came from the East. It was immediately embraced by the christian west. The west, had a hard time embracing/accepting the book of Hebrews. But eventually the West made the East embrace Revelations, and the East made the West embrace Hebrews.

But to answer your question....Acts chapter 15 shows us how the Church solves some disputes.



In the book of Acts, we see how the Apostles handled the circumcision party dispute.
Acts 15:28
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

You have beef with councils, but gathering to solve disputes is Scriptural.

1st Corinth 6:1-2
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?



If I must talk about INFALLIBLE Authority, then the only INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

It was God that Inspired Scripture, and it's God that leads the Church into all truth.



It seems like to me that your only standard is your flawed interpretation. You are only hiding behind Scripture as a smoke screen.
You refuse to admit that maybe....just maybe....you took a wrong turn in your exegesis. Instead of going right you went left, somewhere along the process, and instead of checking yourself for errors you are sticking your nose up and blaming most of known recorded church history for being wrong.

I find it strange that you will pick and choose a side when it comes to christians being divided on an issue, but you refuse to side with christians when they are actually united on something.


This is what the text says:
1.Jude 1:3
"Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints."

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

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.


John chapter 17:
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."


Acts 15:28
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:


and

2 Timothy 2
1You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. 3Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

Did Saint Timothy do a Lousy job? I say no! In order for you to be right, the earlychristians who taught that our Resurrection was physical had to be wrong. All the people in whom Timothy taught and discipled had to get it wrong.

1 Corinthians 6:14
By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

Saint Paul used the word dead only once here. Last month, you and Brandon tried to make our "Resurrection" something different from Christ's Resurrection. Well this verse is making it more difficult for you guys to do that. You see, 1st Corinth 15 should be obvious.

Now if we combined this with 1st Corinth 15, then there is little to no wiggle room to assume that our Resurrection is different from that of Christ's.

Like I said before, the word "death" is only used once here. So what are you and Brandon gonna do? You can't say that the word "death" is figurative......for that would make Christ's death figurative as well.

The same word is used for both us and Jesus, and since your hermeneutics doesn't allow you to believe that a verse can have more than one interpretation. It looks like the only thing you can do is have one interpretation for the word "death".

So which is it gonna be? Figurative or Literal?



You can't say that our rising is "figurative" for that would make Christ's rising figurative too! So which is it gonna be? Figurative or Literal?


What are you gonna do Neb? How are you gonna interpret this verse? How are you gonna get out of this one?






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

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)

---

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:



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?




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:




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:



My Response to Eternal:




Kingneb said:

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:


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:
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?


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.



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.



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.


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?


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.


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?


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?



I was arguing with Eternal when I said that.....for he was talking about misunderstanding something that wasn't revealed.


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.



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..



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