Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Who Cares about Historical Theology?

Jason Stellman has posted an article in which he says:
It seems to me that all this effort on the part of Catholics to prove that the fathers are on their team, and (especially) all the effort on the part of Protestants to demolish these claims, is beside the point and can be a distraction from the real issue, which is what the Bible actually teaches.
(link to article)

While I agree that what the Scriptures have to say about any subject is infinitely more important than what the fathers, or Calvin, or anyone else had to say about the subject, there's still importance in historical theology. Likewise, I agree that focus on what the fathers taught can be a distraction from the real issue, namely what Scripture teaches.

On the other hand, the study of what the fathers and the Reformers and others taught can be important. It can be important for several reasons.

1. One way to help Roman Catholics see that they are following a church that is lying to them is to expose Roman Catholics to the historical record. When we examine the historical record, we see that doctrines like the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, the bodily assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, and Purgatory are innovations, not doctrines handed from the apostles. Thus, the study of the patristic literature can serve as a tool for the evangelism of Roman Catholics, by helping to liberate them from the false gospel that requires their unjustified trust in Rome.

2. A second, defensive, use is also important. Frequently, Roman Catholics make claims that the core doctrines of the Reformation are themselves historical novelties. While, in principle, this doesn't matter to us (since Scripture, not history, is our rule of faith), these lies about the historical record can be discouraging to Christians. In particular, Roman apologists try to suggest to those unfamiliar with history that by following Reformed doctrine one is saying that "the whole church went off the rails almost from the earliest time," or something like that.

3. Historical theology is not our ultimate rule of faith, but it is a helpful guide. We do not believe that a universal apostasy happened or will ever happen, even if there are great falling away periods in church history. Moreover, we value the teaching of our spiritual ancestors, even those who made many mistakes. I suspect that Pastor Stellman realizes the value of historical theology, because I've noticed that his recent book, Dual Citizens, makes use of human authors. He does not rely exclusively on the Bible, nor should he!

I do think it is foolish to simply say "who cares," to the historical record. Sometimes we will simply have to disagree with the errors of our predecessors, but we should do so carefully, not recklessly.

Pastor Stellman writes:
Rather than get into a patristic prooftext war—especially if we may very well lose it—wouldn’t it be wiser to shift the locus of the battle to Scripture, the place where we claim to believe all controversies of religion are to be solved?
Well, of course, we've already won the battle on the grounds of Scripture. There may be a tiny handful of Roman Catholic apologists that think they can prove their doctrines from Scripture, but those folks are easily shown to be wrong.

The problem is that Rome has persuaded many people to accept an additional rule of faith - one that in effect supercedes Scripture. It is useful to help Roman Catholics see that this additional rule of faith is one that doesn't work, that cannot stand up to historical scrutiny, indeed one that is both established and maintained on lies and forgeries.

And don't worry, Pastor Stellman, we won't "lose" the analysis of the patristic writings, because we have nothing to lose. We're interested in the truth of what happened in the early church, not transforming the early church fathers into a PCA presbytery in Greece. We "win" simply by letting the fathers be the fathers, because history is our friend.

That means we admit that certain departures from the purity of the apostolic teachings happened very early, while other departures happened much later. Precisely because Scripture is our rule of faith, we cannot "lose" a battle over whether Bernard taught the immaculate conception (answer: he definitely did not) or whether Bernard taught the personal sinlessness of Mary (answer: it seems he did). In one case we can point out that Bernard's testimony is one voice among many against the idea the the dogma of the immaculate conception was really handed down in some kind of oral tradition format, in the other case we can acknowledge Bernard's mistake.

All that said, all the historical knowledge in the world won't save someone. One may be able to persuade a rational person that Rome is not who she claims to be, but unless that person trusts in Christ alone for salvation, they will be no better off in eternity. Mere knowledge of the truth is not enough.

-TurretinFan

22 comments:

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Well, of course, we've already won the battle on the grounds of Scripture. There may be a tiny handful of Roman Catholic apologists that think they can prove their doctrines from Scripture, but those folks are easily shown to be wrong."

LOL!

LMAO!

ROFLMAO!

P.S. Why are the Called to Communion Guys, Dave Armstrong, and Matthew Bellisario looking so glum at this bit of writing by TurretinFan?

Turretinfan said...

They know it's true, TU&D. That's why they end up saying "we don't have to prove this from Scripture."

natamllc said...

Well said TF.

Here: That means we admit that certain departures from the purity of the apostolic teachings happened very early, while other departures happened much later. Precisely because Scripture is our rule of faith, we cannot "lose" a battle over whether Bernard taught the immaculate conception (answer: he definitely did not) or whether Bernard taught the personal sinlessness of Mary (answer: it seems he did).

I would skin the cat this way.

The man on the cross that most infamous day of reckoning left that cursed tree with his guilty flesh impaled to it, as Sinless Christ's was as well, leaving it hanging thereon for others to attend to and entered with Christ into paradise forgiven of all his sins now full of the Spirit of Grace and Truth!

Oh, wouldn't that be nice and pleasant for each of us but for the anguish, sorrow and pain suffered when once we too are born again, to leave this world devils full and active, leaving behind our corrupted flesh nature, inherent by the fall of the first Federal Head, Adam, to decay on top of or under the earth when we too pass out of this world to Paradise? Which ever way our flesh decays, it is left behind intact, corrupted by our own personal history.

But, mostly, it is not that way, that one, as that thief, should see Him and know for what purpose He suffered and died to instantly be released from personal historical corruption to enter into Paradise!

The highlighted portion above that I place an emphasis on, the comment cited, points to the wisdom of the Apostle Peter when we read this, whether it is he or as in 1 Peter, through Silvanus it is written:

2Pe 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.
2Pe 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.


We might be born again on our death bed with no personal history left to us but to die in Christ and leave this world devils full and active. Or we might come into this world born into a True Reformed family, served by them and raised up into True Salvation strong, full of Grace and Truth, being born again, enjoying Godly parents with siblings so godly and true in Holy Communion with other Church participants. Yet, we will live out our own personal corrupting history in this life, having to face the odious oppressing forces of evil which will be allowed to press hard upon our souls. If this is our lot, so it is then that Peter's exhortation is our true experience and reality, that is, by his Words, "Scriptures too", they are to take hold of us and provide us with sufficient spiritual nutrition so we also can grow up in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ to remain stable and steadfast in the Faith our entire lifetime, in the face of all the troubles that certainly will come upon us to test our soul until we die and leave this corrupting world!

It is unavoidable. There will be departures, some early on and some, late.

It is a grave Word then, especially to those charged with the service of souls, to keep, these Words of Scripture, also, that one should note as well as Peter's:

1Ti 5:24 The sins of some men are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later.


I will post and then continue with more of a response to this thread!

natamllc said...

To continue responding to this plainly powerful and spiritually cutting word, I would make mention of four historical records, three passed already, but with them, we can gain insights by them into ourselves when we too are being forthright with our own history in making comments hereon.

The first mention is Moses.

The second mention is Elijah.

The third mention is Paul the Apostle.

And then from them we can make mention of ourselves too.

The battle is for and against the soul and where the soul goes upon departing this place.

Again, I would start with Peter, here:

2Pe 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.
2Pe 1:11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
2Pe 1:12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.
2Pe 1:13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder,
2Pe 1:14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me.
2Pe 1:15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
2Pe 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.


It is simple and yet "true", God has in every generation eyewitnesses of His Majesty!

Continuing:::>

natamllc said...

First then, consider these Words of Scripture from Exodus about fallible sinful Moses:

Exo 3:10 Come, I will send you to Pharaoh that you may bring my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt."
Exo 3:11 But Moses said to God, "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the children of Israel out of Egypt?"
Exo 3:12 He said, "But I will be with you, and this shall be the sign for you, that I have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain."
Exo 3:13 Then Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?"
Exo 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"


With regard to fallible sinful Elijah, we read:

1Ki 19:3 Then he was afraid, and he arose and ran for his life and came to Beersheba, which belongs to Judah, and left his servant there.
1Ki 19:4 But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness and came and sat down under a broom tree. And he asked that he might die, saying, "It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life, for I am no better than my fathers."


1Ki 19:15 And the LORD said to him, "Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus. And when you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael to be king over Syria.
1Ki 19:16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint to be king over Israel, and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint to be prophet in your place.
1Ki 19:17 And the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu put to death, and the one who escapes from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha put to death.
1Ki 19:18 Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him."


Here we read about the struggles in "history" of these two men of God as He gently and carefully works out the Salvation of His Elect by them.

Certainly the Apostle Paul, equally a fallible sinful man, learned from these historical men, Moses and Elijah, about Jesus. He was a learned man reading their writings about their exploits, exploits that hid nothing from his sight nor when we read them too will anything be hidden from our sight, of their frailties as they confronted the oppressors of the souls of men.

I did note Christ's frailties, didn't I?

Mat 4:11 Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.


Luk 22:41 And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed,
Luk 22:42 saying, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done."
Luk 22:43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him.




Paul writes with insight and we can come to understand him well enough so that by his insight when we read along with Scripture other writings of men from the beginning about the Christ Himself and His Church during the First Century until now, we should be able to realize whether or not what we read is anointed and an inspired writing that points to and confirms Scriptures:

Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

Where does this leave us then?

Whether it is our own inspiration by the Spirit of Grace, that we write or speak, or, by reference to Scripture or any author's writings in History, if the God of Peace is not known and confirms what we read, why shouldn't it be understood as a work of darkness and not of Grace?

I concur with your words, here:

" ... Moreover, we value the teaching of our spiritual ancestors, even those who made many mistakes. ..."

beocat93 said...

Some additional points in favor of a knowledge of what past believers have said:

1. Studying the history of doctrine also shows past deviations (some leading to heresy). It's amazing how Satan recycles the same errors (albeit at times in new garb) in order to bring confusion and disunity into the church. This is a warfare that has been waged from the garden.

2. Having an appreciation of the history of doctrine can prevent pride in one's own thoughts from leading him into error. "Just me and the Bible" may have a nice ring to it - but it denies the means of the preservation of truth that God has provided for in the Church. Care needs to be taken that the church serves as an executor of what has been handed to it (in the Word) rather than the legislator (creating new "truth") - but its role as a fence to maintain truth should not be denied even if it has been abused by the RC camp.

Ryan said...

"I do think it is foolish to simply say "who cares," to the historical record. Sometimes we will simply have to disagree with the errors of our predecessors, but we should do so carefully, not recklessly."

On the other hand, I have found that many of these predecessors have made great contributions, framing doctrines and making connections in ways that otherwise I may have never thought to do.

Does Mr. Stellman never reference any commentaries, systematic theologies, devotionals, &c., all of which are as much a part of historical theology as patristic literature? That's hard to imagine.

Viisaus said...

Long before modern "Catholic But Not Roman Catholic" net compilations, William Goode had already back in the 1840s compiled this thick "a catena" opus (with footnote citations in original Greek and Latin) of how the church fathers taught the fundamentally Protestant point of view concerning the supremacy of the Scriptures over traditions:

http://www.archive.org/details/a583271702gooduoft

"The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice,

or a defence of the Catholic doctrine that Holy Scripture has been since the time of the apostles the sole divine rule of faith and practice to the church, against the dangerous errors of the authors of the Tracts for the Times, and the Romanists, as, particularly, that the rule of faith is “made up of Scripture and tradition together;” &c."

Viisaus said...

What I mean is that Goode proved that no matter how greatly the church fathers might have differed from modern Protestants on other, smaller matters, in THIS one great decisive issue - the absolute supremacy of Scriptures over other, merely derivative and relative authorities - they were on their side.

And this one big card trumps all other concerns, like how the CFs might have loudly extolled celibacy while modern Prods do not, etc.

Lucian said...

Hi, TF!

Thought this might interest you...

Viisaus said...

George Salmon could calmly observe back in the 1880s that the most advanced RC ideologues had quietly abandoned the Patristic field as well as the Biblical one - Newman's "doctrine of development" was the herald of this new approach:

http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Classic_Sermons/George%20Salmon/infallibility_church.htm


"When two opposing generals meet in battle, and both send home bulletins of victory, and Te Deums are sung in churches on both sides, we, who sit at home, may find it hard to understand which way the battle has gone. But if we look at the map, and see where the next battle is fought, and if we find that one general is making 'for strategic reasons' a constant succession of movements towards the rear, and that he ends by completely evacuating the country he at first undertook to defend, then we may suspect that his glorious victories were perhaps not quite so brilliant as he had represented them to be. And so, when the Church of England champions left the plain ground of Scripture, and proceeded to interchange quotations from the Fathers, plain men, out of whose sight the battle now went, might be excused for apprehension as to the result, themselves being scarcely competent to judge of the force of the passages quoted on each side. But when they find that the heads of the Roman Catholic Church now think it as great a heresy to appeal to antiquity, as to appeal to Scripture, they have cause for surmising which way the victory has gone.

...

An unlearned Protestant perceives that the doctrine of Rome is not the doctrine of the Bible. A learned Protestant adds that neither is it the doctrine of the primitive Church. These assertions are no longer denied, as in former days. Putting the concessions made us at the lowest, it is at least owned that the doctrine of Rome is as unlike that of early times as an oak is unlike an acorn, or a butterfly unlike a caterpillar. The unlikeness is admitted: and the only question remaining is whether that unlikeness is absolutely inconsistent with substantial identity.

...

But with the doctrine of Infallibility once proved, or supposed to be so, the doctrine of Development becomes needless; and Cardinal Manning, in particular, has quite got beyond it. In my own time the aspect of Romanism has changed so rapidly that this theory of Development, so fashionable thirty years ago, has now dropped into the background. It was wanted while the Roman Catholic divines were attempting to make some kind of battle on the field of history. In those days it was still attempted to be maintained that the teaching of the Church of the present day agrees with that of the Church of early times: not indeed in form, but at least in suchwise that the former contains the germ of the latter. Now, the idea of testing the teaching of the Church of the present day, by comparison either with Scripture or antiquity, is completely abandoned.

...

The most thoroughgoing and most ignorant Protestant cannot show greater indifference to the opinions of the Fathers than does Cardinal Manning. If Dr. Manning were asked whether St. Cyprian held the doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, he might answer much in the same way that, as the story goes, Mr. Spurgeon answered, when asked whether St. Cyprian held the doctrine of Justification by Faith. Either might say, ' I don't know, and I don't much care; but, for his own sake, I hope he did; for if he didn't, so much the worse for him.' According to Manning, it is a matter of unimportance how the Church is to be reconciled with Scripture or antiquity, when once you understand that the Church is the living voice of the same Being who inspired Scripture, and who taught the ancient Church. To look for one's creed in Scripture and antiquity is, to Manning, as great a heresy as to look for it in Scripture alone. Either course makes the individual the judge or critic of Revelation. The appeal to antiquity, says Manning, is both a treason and a heresy."

Viisaus said...

George Salmon could calmly observe back in the 1880s that the most advanced RC ideologues had quietly abandoned the Patristic field as well as the Biblical one - Newman's "doctrine of development" was the herald of this new approach:

http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Classic_Sermons/George%20Salmon/infallibility_church.htm


"When two opposing generals meet in battle, and both send home bulletins of victory, and Te Deums are sung in churches on both sides, we, who sit at home, may find it hard to understand which way the battle has gone. But if we look at the map, and see where the next battle is fought, and if we find that one general is making 'for strategic reasons' a constant succession of movements towards the rear, and that he ends by completely evacuating the country he at first undertook to defend, then we may suspect that his glorious victories were perhaps not quite so brilliant as he had represented them to be. And so, when the Church of England champions left the plain ground of Scripture, and proceeded to interchange quotations from the Fathers, plain men, out of whose sight the battle now went, might be excused for apprehension as to the result, themselves being scarcely competent to judge of the force of the passages quoted on each side. But when they find that the heads of the Roman Catholic Church now think it as great a heresy to appeal to antiquity, as to appeal to Scripture, they have cause for surmising which way the victory has gone.

...

An unlearned Protestant perceives that the doctrine of Rome is not the doctrine of the Bible. A learned Protestant adds that neither is it the doctrine of the primitive Church. These assertions are no longer denied, as in former days. Putting the concessions made us at the lowest, it is at least owned that the doctrine of Rome is as unlike that of early times as an oak is unlike an acorn, or a butterfly unlike a caterpillar. The unlikeness is admitted: and the only question remaining is whether that unlikeness is absolutely inconsistent with substantial identity.

...

But with the doctrine of Infallibility once proved, or supposed to be so, the doctrine of Development becomes needless; and Cardinal Manning, in particular, has quite got beyond it. In my own time the aspect of Romanism has changed so rapidly that this theory of Development, so fashionable thirty years ago, has now dropped into the background. It was wanted while the Roman Catholic divines were attempting to make some kind of battle on the field of history. In those days it was still attempted to be maintained that the teaching of the Church of the present day agrees with that of the Church of early times: not indeed in form, but at least in suchwise that the former contains the germ of the latter. Now, the idea of testing the teaching of the Church of the present day, by comparison either with Scripture or antiquity, is completely abandoned.

...

The most thoroughgoing and most ignorant Protestant cannot show greater indifference to the opinions of the Fathers than does Cardinal Manning. If Dr. Manning were asked whether St. Cyprian held the doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, he might answer much in the same way that, as the story goes, Mr. Spurgeon answered, when asked whether St. Cyprian held the doctrine of Justification by Faith. Either might say, ' I don't know, and I don't much care; but, for his own sake, I hope he did; for if he didn't, so much the worse for him.' According to Manning, it is a matter of unimportance how the Church is to be reconciled with Scripture or antiquity, when once you understand that the Church is the living voice of the same Being who inspired Scripture, and who taught the ancient Church. To look for one's creed in Scripture and antiquity is, to Manning, as great a heresy as to look for it in Scripture alone. Either course makes the individual the judge or critic of Revelation. The appeal to antiquity, says Manning, is both a treason and a heresy."

Viisaus said...

Lvka, I will not hesitate to say that by 430 AD - when the first church divisions occurred - Christian churches had already widely departed from their original "simplicity in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3) and were in a need of a righteous Reform. (First reformers like Vigilantius had already appeared.) Unfortunately it took about thousand years before that process got rolling - according to God's inscrutable will.

5th century churches were not yet nearly so corrupt as medieval RC (and to a lesser extent, EO) churches would later become, but they were on a slippery slope to ever more banal superstition and graceless-legalistic, priestly ritualism. Prophetically, many Prods see the churches of Pergamon and Thyatira in Revelation 2-3 symbolizing this increasingly contaminated church system which still had many good qualities left in it nonetheless.


And believing in the supremacy of Scriptures means that NO MATTER how historically widespread some practice might be - like prayers for the dead - it CAN be abolished if it's not explicitly supported by the Bible, and if we see that it leads to pernicious results, like praying TO the dead and worship of images - the whole sorry semi-polytheistic mess we have seen in pre-modern RC or EO countries. This would be a simple application of the Gospel principle: "Ye shall know the practice by its fruits." The end results of originally innocent-looking prayers for the dead were the impious absurdities of purgatory and indulgences.

Such practices can be broken, just like the brazen serpent of Moses was broken when it began to seduce people to idolatrous sin. Mere historical prestige and tradition did not save Nehushtan.

Viisaus said...

And furthermore on the principle of trees and their fruits, during the last 500 years Protestants have shown to the world that one can well be a Christian, a good pious servant of God, without bowing down to images or relics, or praying for or to the dead.

We have shown that those things are nothing but irrelevant sideshow issues for believers and we can get along just fine without them - to put it in a very mild, neutral manner.

Bob Suden said...

Since everything has calmed down over at GB where this first came up, I'll post it here. Regarding the ECF vs. sola Scriptura, Wm. Whittaker says in his classic of 1588, Disputations on Holy Scripture (SDG rpt. 2000),

"In the fourth place, our opponent collects the testimonies of the fathers; in the management of which argument he is large and copious, yet so as to combine at the same time judgment and selection. These we must needs answer, as well because our adversaries repose on these their special confidence, as because it is fit that all who are desirous of becoming learned divines should be thoroughly acquainted with all these matters. Neither in this, nor in any other controversy, can they possibly prevail against us by the scriptures; and therefore they press us as closely as they can with the authority of the fathers. Indeed, even if the fathers were opposed to us, and we could give no answer to the arguments drawn from them, this could inflict no real damage upon our cause, since our faith does not depend upon the fathers, but upon the scriptures. . . (“Chapter XII on the Sixth Question concerning the Perfection of Scripture and Unwritten Traditions”, p.564,4"

Whittaker goes on, but suffice it to essentially say, regarding Scripture, the ECF or whatever, the Roman position is what it is - a very poor one that can be beat in any arena it chooses. And in the interest of doing a thorough job, we are to pursue them wherever they try to take refuge. Besides when you got somebody on the run, you don’t let them quit. Called to Communion is in retreat for good reason.

Turretinfan said...

Good point! Thanks, Mr. Suden!

natamllc said...

I, for one, do not in the least believe they will remain in retreat!

The Scriptures make it clear this fight is to the death.

There shall be casualties to be sure. And so it should be! Our God reigns.

The devils and those whose name is not found written in the Book of Life will be ever more aggressive.

Let's not lose sight of the endgame!

Psa 46:4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High.
Psa 46:5 God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved; God will help her when morning dawns.
Psa 46:6 The nations rage, the kingdoms totter; he utters his voice, the earth melts.
Psa 46:7 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah



Joh 4:12 Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock."
Joh 4:13 Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again,
Joh 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."
Joh 4:15 The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water."


Rev 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
Rev 22:11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."
Rev 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
Rev 22:15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."
Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Rev 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
Rev 22:21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.


It's a hard rain that is coming!

john said...

I believe you cannot defend SS or SF from either scripture or the patristics. Why? Both are thoroughly illogical and both are against the nature of God and man.

JM

dtking said...

I believe you cannot defend SS or SF from either scripture or the patristics. Why? Both are thoroughly illogical and both are against the nature of God and man.

Thanks for sharing your belief. It is duly noted and rejected as the vanity of your imagination.

ChaferDTS said...

"I believe you cannot defend SS or SF from either scripture or the patristics. Why? Both are thoroughly illogical and both are against the nature of God and man."

You must by neccessity must ignore all the exegetical treatments of all the passages in question. Likewise the history of it is well recorded in it's essential elements in the writings of the church fathers. I honestly do not believe you have read any important theological works written in support of it . Try reading DISPUTATION ON HOLY SCRIPTURE Againist Papist especially Bellarmine and Stapleton by William Whitaker ( 1547-1595 ) . You well see all of the Church of Rome's arguments were answered long ago. And that Newman whom the RCC looks up to was answered long before he was even alive. With regard to Sola Fide we have aspects of it in Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Justin Martyr and others in their writings. Most importantly, it is in Scripture exegetically. Historically speaking, the RCC had no dogmatically defined teaching on justification until the Council of Trent. But of course, you have no clue on what you are talking about and repeat the false claims of Roman Catholicism. Nothing original there.

Coram Deo said...

JM said: I believe you cannot defend SS or SF from either scripture or the patristics. Why? Both are thoroughly illogical and both are against the nature of God and man.

dtking replied: Thanks for sharing your belief. It is duly noted and rejected as the vanity of your imagination.

LOL!

In Him,
CD

P.S. - I'm looking forward to the Formal Sufficiency piece, Pastor King!

Turretinfan said...

"I believe you cannot defend SS or SF from either scripture or the patristics. Why? Both are thoroughly illogical and both are against the nature of God and man."

a) I think you mean that you are not persuaded by our defense of those doctrines, either from Scripture or patristics.

b) Our defense of those doctrines is always from Scripture. The arguments about patristics are rebuttal arguments or simply confirming evidences. They are not the standard.

c) In our previous discussions we have rebutted your critiques of our positions on SS and SF. You have not come up with any new or better critiques.

-TurretinFan