John Robertson and New Teaching

[Don]

You don't HAVE to know who they are- but you DO rely upon the teachings they passed down to us.

This is not enough. I'm glad that you acknowledge this much but you have yet to display that you understand that Scripture is not interpreted in a vacuum. That it takes the CHURCH to understand the Word of God properly. That God always intended for us to work together. That even the authors of the Bible worked with each other and those before them and that you have to do the same thing.

The knowledge of God cannot be over elevated.

To know him better is to be further from idolatry- not closer to it.

The problem is the independent mindset that keeps people from REALLY knowing God. Because of this mindset they themselves are idolators fixing a god in their mind to suit them.

Since they lack the humility to submit their interpretations to the scrutiny of the Church, it is THEIR knowledge that is idolatry- because it is not the knowledge of God- it is the knowledge of a god who is the product of ignorance and arrogance.

You've created a Catch-22 situation.

Someone studies scripture; quotes only scripture; uses scripture as the guide for all they say and do; preaches only from scripture; but your interpretation of them is that, because they haven't submitted their knowledge to the scrutiny of others, they are deficient. In other words, what you've said is that scripture isn't sufficient by itself.

 

[plain_n_simple]

The teachings and testamonies of others is good and helpful, but should not replace listening to Jesus directly. I spend time in my quiet place and ask Him to help my understanding and He shows me. Then I get a few scriptures shown to me to back it up, they are always in harmony. We are to become like Him. Jesus did not condemn anyone because of unbelief. He said forgive them, they don't understand yet. We have a short time here to grow in and seek Christ. If a brother is incorrect we don't condemn him, we exhort and encourage in love.

 

[Luke2427]

You've created a Catch-22 situation.

Someone studies scripture; quotes only scripture; uses scripture as the guide for all they say and do; preaches only from scripture; but your interpretation of them is that, because they haven't submitted their knowledge to the scrutiny of others, they are deficient. In other words, what you've said is that scripture isn't sufficient by itself.

Scripture is perfectly sufficient- what is terribly insufficient is our ability to understand it in a vacuum.

You need other Christians.

God gave the church apostles and teachers and prophets etc... to profit the body.

We NEED teachers- ALL OF US! We do not understand anything as we ought from this blessed book without the help of the Body of Christ.

God designed it this way. He intended it to be this way. There are no loan ranger interpreters of Scripture. We interpret it as the Body of Christ.

That Body spans nearly two thousand years of history.

When someone ignores that, they indicate that they lack the wisdom and humility to properly handle the Word of God.

This is what the Mormons do. This is what the KJVonlyists do. This is what the Pentecostals do and the list goes on and one and on.

 

[plain_n_simple]

The body listens and gets instruction from the head. The sheep hear His voice. Paul needed none to teach him. Learning from others is good, but is not the source, it is Christ and knowing Him that makes us grow.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The body listens and gets instruction from the head. The sheep hear His voice.

Indeed so, but how do the sheep hear the voice of the Shepherd? Through the Bible. We are to 'Desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby' (1Peter 2:2). I should add that our reception of God's word does not come only from private Bible study, but also and especially by hearing the word preached by God's faithful ministers. In starting this thread, I did not at all mean to suggest that we should all be our own pastors and depend wholly on our own intellects for our theology. God forbid! All I am trying to suggest is that sometimes it is legitimate for Christians to leave an apostate church or denomination and join with others in starting a new congregation.

Paul needed none to teach him.

Paul was an Apostle, and one of the marks of an Apostle was that he had heard direct from the Lord Jesus (Acts 1:21; 1Cor 9:1). You and I are not apostles.

Learning from others is good, but is not the source, it is Christ and knowing Him that makes us grow.

Well, read 1Peter 2:2 quoted above. If we do not know Christ in some way, we are not His (Heb 8:11), and this knowledge comes from the Holy Spirit through the word.

Steve

 

[Don]

Indeed so, but how do the sheep hear the voice of the Shepherd? Through the Bible. We are to 'Desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby' (1Peter 2:2). I should add that our reception of God's word does not come only from private Bible study, but also and especially by hearing the word preached by God's faithful ministers. In starting this thread, I did not at all mean to suggest that we should all be our own pastors and depend wholly on our own intellects for our theology. God forbid! All I am trying to suggest is that sometimes it is legitimate for Christians to leave an apostate church or denomination and join with others in starting a new congregation.

Paul was an Apostle, and one of the marks of an Apostle was that he had heard direct from the Lord Jesus (Acts 1:21; 1Cor 9:1). You and I are not apostles.
Well, read 1Peter 2:2 quoted above. If we do not know Christ in some way, we are not His (Heb 8:11), and this knowledge comes from the Holy Spirit through the word.

Steve

Sir--in general, your response is spot on. I ask you to evaluate what you've written against what Luke's written.

One other thing I would point out: You mention that Paul heard direct from the Lord Jesus--except, as we all know, Jesus had already risen by that time. I assume what you're proposing is that Paul's method is not possible today?

 

[Winman]

Luke is saying the exact same thing the Catholics have said for 1500 years, that no man can understand the scriptures outside the official teaching of the church.

Was that correct?

No, nothing could be further from the truth, the RCC corrupted the true meaning of scripture as did the religious leaders in Jesus's day. Jesus was often accused of being heretical.

The RCC forbid the common man to read the scriptures. Why? Because their corruption would be exposed. This also allowed them to hold power over men and keep them in darkness.

And this is exactly what Luke wants as well. He wants all men to conform to his select and approved teachers. Anyone who disagrees with him is labeled a heretic, just as the RCC (and Calvin) did.

This is not 1500 A.D. anymore, and you cannot burn those who disagree with you at the stake. Too bad.

 

[plain_n_simple]

The bible is a reflection of the Spirit moving. You can have all the head knowledge you want and think it's spiritual, but it can never replace relationship with Him. Him in me and me in Him. He talks to me directly in my spirit and explains His word as we go. You don't know the bible til you become it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The bible is a reflection of the Spirit moving. You can have all the head knowledge you want and think it's spiritual, but it can never replace relationship with Him. Him in me and me in Him. He talks to me directly in my spirit and explains His word as we go. You don't know the bible til you become it.

Whether you understand or admit it, you are claimng to be inspired by God in greater sense than those who wrote the scriptures as they did not understand all that they wrote but searched the very scriptures they wrote seeking to understand them and God did not always give them understanding.

If he talks directly to you - that is inspiration in the highest sense. Hence, whaever you wrote down that he said to you would be equal with sciptures.

 

[plain_n_simple]

He told us we can know His will, wants us to know it. His word is above His name, everything He says is said in scripture, He reminds me and teaches me His ways. It takes faith and trust from the heart, not from an intellectual study and some statement you rely on. That would be legalistic and superficial to me. It's about the heart and mind being renewed away from how the world teaches scripture, there's a difference the latter can puff you up.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke is saying the exact same thing the Catholics have said for 1500 years, that no man can understand the scriptures outside the official teaching of the church.

Was that correct?

No, nothing could be further from the truth, the RCC corrupted the true meaning of scripture as did the religious leaders in Jesus's day. Jesus was often accused of being heretical.

The RCC forbid the common man to read the scriptures. Why? Because their corruption would be exposed. This also allowed them to hold power over men and keep them in darkness.

And this is exactly what Luke wants as well. He wants all men to conform to his select and approved teachers. Anyone who disagrees with him is labeled a heretic, just as the RCC (and Calvin) did.

This is not 1500 A.D. anymore, and you cannot burn those who disagree with you at the stake. Too bad.

Wrong.

The RCC is accountable to THE CHURCH. That is what the reformation was all about. THE CHURCH is the body of Christ.

No denomination, no individual gets to sever himself from accountability to THE BODY OF CHRIST.

That is what you do Winman. You adopt this arrogant view of Scriptural interpretation. This view of yours says that you don't NEED ANYBODY but the Holy Ghost. Who CARES that the CHURCH has never believed what you proclaim? Not you. You don't need THE CHURCH.

I am saying that it is EXACTLY this that we find in many IFB churches. I am saying that it is EXACTLY this that gave rise to Pentecostalism and Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and Rob Bell and Joel Olsteen, etc...

I am saying that people who believe this way about bible interpretation are dangerous to simple minded people.

 

[Winman]

Wrong.

The RCC is accountable to THE CHURCH. That is what the reformation was all about. THE CHURCH is the body of Christ.

No denomination, no individual gets to sever himself from accountability to THE BODY OF CHRIST.

That is what you do Winman. You adopt this arrogant view of Scriptural interpretation. This view of yours says that you don't NEED ANYBODY but the Holy Ghost. Who CARES that the CHURCH has never believed what you proclaim? Not you. You don't need THE CHURCH.

I am saying that it is EXACTLY this that we find in many IFB churches. I am saying that it is EXACTLY this that gave rise to Pentecostalism and Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and Rob Bell and Joel Olsteen, etc...

I am saying that people who believe this way about bible interpretation are dangerous to simple minded people.

Wrong Luke. I attend church and hold very traditional views except on Original Sin which I discussed with my pastor and deacons before I joined. I showed them the scripture I believe supports my view, and they admitted I had valid points for my view. We are a very traditional Baptist church, we are neither Calvinistic or Arminian. We believe people have freewill, but we believe a believer is PRESERVED in Christ and cannot lose their salvation.

You have been taught that anyone who is not Calvinistic is heretical, which is simply not so. Just because you are not Calvinist does not mean you are Arminian, something most Calvinist seem unable to understand.

Your argument is the same argument the RCC has been dishing out for nearly 1500 years, you are intolerant of soul liberty, that is that the individual has the right to believe scripture as he personally interprets it. Even Calvinists do not all agree 100% on doctrine, thus 4 pointers...

 

[Dr. Walter]

Wrong Luke. I attend church and hold very traditional views except on Original Sin which I discussed with my pastor and deacons before I joined. I showed them the scripture I believe supports my view, and they admitted I had valid points for my view. We are a very traditional Baptist church, we are neither Calvinistic or Arminian. We believe people have freewill, but we believe a believer is PRESERVED in Christ and cannot lose their salvation.

You have been taught that anyone who is not Calvinistic is heretical, which is simply not so. Just because you are not Calvinist does not mean you are Arminian, something most Calvinist seem unable to understand.

Your argument is the same argument the RCC has been dishing out for nearly 1500 years, you are intolerant of soul liberty, that is that the individual has the right to believe scripture as he personally interprets it. Even Calvinists do not all agree 100% on doctrine, thus 4 pointers...

I would not make this issue a point of fellowship unless the other church did, or if they denied eternal security of true believers, then I would have no choice. This is a point of valid difference and should be discussed in a rational reasonable manner.

 

[Winman]

What Luke overlooks is that the Reformers themselves were called heretics and many paid with their lives. Calvin himself was very intolerant of anyone who disagreed with him as history records.

Luke seems to think the Reformers got it 100% right, but many would disagree. In fact, he himself does not agree with the early reformers, he does not believe in baptismal regeneration or baptizing infants. Yet he hypocritically labels others as rebels and heretics. He does not seem to realize that his beloved Calvin and Augustine would probably throw him in prison or even worse. The reformers believed in soul liberty which Luke is intolerant of.

Sure, you are going to get some real heretics, that is the price you pay for liberty. It is no different from our political liberty in this country. I think socialist liberals are morons, but they have a right to believe what they wish. And they are not always wrong, on a few occasions they are right. This is the cost of liberty.

It would be nice if Luke could go back to Geneva, he would get an attitude adjustment real quick.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sir--in general, your response is spot on. I ask you to evaluate what you've written against what Luke's written.

One other thing I would point out: You mention that Paul heard direct from the Lord Jesus--except, as we all know, Jesus had already risen by that time. I assume what you're proposing is that Paul's method is not possible today?

Thank you for your kind words. To take the second point first; Paul was an Apostle. He received his doctrine direct from the risen Lord. We are to emulate the first Christians and devote ourselves to the Apostolic teaching (Acts 2:42) which is found in the NT.

I don't think that Luke and I are very far apart. I believe that Christians are to attend church and place themselves under the authority and discipline of the leadership and receive their teaching. The Apostles always appointed elders (and presumably deacons) in the churches they founded (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5).

However, a believer is not to follow a Pastor or elder further than they follow Christ. One of the Puritans put it like this: a captain is sovereign to run his ship, even if the king or president should come on board. However, if the captain, either wilfully or negligently, should be about to run his ship upon the rocks, then the passengers are entitled to depose him and set the ablest man among them in his place, or if not, to abandon ship and take to the lifeboats.

Over the years, many once fine Bible-believing congregations have degenerated so far as no longer to be true churches of Christ. In such a case, a true believer should confront the minister and, if he gets no satisfaction, the eldership or the church meeting. If no one will listen to him, then he is not just entitled to leave that church, he must do so and find a church where he can hear the word faithfully preached.

However, separation from a church is a serious matter and anyone considering that should search his own heart to make sure that his separation is on Biblical grounds only. Schism is a grievious sin.

Like Luke, I believe that Statements of Faith, like the Baptist 1689 Confession, are very valuable. For a church to say it 'Just believes the Bible' is not enough; it needs to be able to say what it believes the Bible to teach. However, the Confession is not the same as the Bible. Some Presbyterians seem to place the Westminster Confession on the same level as the Bible which is very wrong. Confessions are not a substitute for studying the Bible; they are a help, and a way to keep false doctrines out of the churches.

Steve

 

[Luke2427]

Thank you for your kind words. To take the second point first; Paul was an Apostle. He received his doctrine direct from the risen Lord. We are to emulate the first Christians and devote ourselves to the Apostolic teaching (Acts 2:42) which is found in the NT.

I don't think that Luke and I are very far apart. I believe that Christians are to attend church and place themselves under the authority and discipline of the leadership and receive their teaching. The Apostles always appointed elders (and presumably deacons) in the churches they founded (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5).

However, a believer is not to follow a Pastor or elder further than they follow Christ. One of the Puritans put it like this: a captain is sovereign to run his ship, even if the king or president should come on board. However, if the captain, either wilfully or negligently, should be about to run his ship upon the rocks, then the passengers are entitled to depose him and set the ablest man among them in his place, or if not, to abandon ship and take to the lifeboats.

Over the years, many once fine Bible-believing congregations have degenerated so far as no longer to be true churches of Christ. In such a case, a true believer should confront the minister and, if he gets no satisfaction, the eldership or the church meeting. If no one will listen to him, then he is not just entitled to leave that church, he must do so and find a church where he can hear the word faithfully preached.

However, separation from a church is a serious matter and anyone considering that should search his own heart to make sure that his separation is on Biblical grounds only. Schism is a grievious sin.

Like Luke, I believe that Statements of Faith, like the Baptist 1689 Confession, are very valuable. For a church to say it 'Just believes the Bible' is not enough; it needs to be able to say what it believes the Bible to teach. However, the Confession is not the same as the Bible. Some Presbyterians seem to place the Westminster Confession on the same level as the Bible which is very wrong. Confessions are not a substitute for studying the Bible; they are a help, and a way to keep false doctrines out of the churches.

Steve

I agree with this.

 

[Rippon]

Calvin himself was very intolerant of anyone who disagreed with him as history records.

Calvin,in a letter to Myconius :"...those who once open enemies have become friends..."

Calvin had life-long Roman Catholic friends. He disagreed radically with their doctrines but he valued them personally. An example of this was a published letter (the size of a booklet) addressed to a Roman Catholic friend :On Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly.

I don't have my books with me,but Calvin maintained friendships with a number who differed with him doctrinally.

So history is against you Winman.

In fact, he himself does not agree with the early reformers, he does not believe in baptismal regeneration...

Calvin certainly did not believe in Baptismal Regeneration.

It would be nice if Luke could go back to Geneva, he would get an attitude adjustment real quick.

Thousands streamed to Geneva in Calvin's time because it was a whole lot better there than just about any other place for Protestants. And it was a good place to conduct business. The sanitary conditions were also better than most other cities. Geneva was the place to be during Calvin's time. It was very popular.

 

[JesusFan]

Wrong.

The RCC is accountable to THE CHURCH. That is what the reformation was all about. THE CHURCH is the body of Christ.

No denomination, no individual gets to sever himself from accountability to THE BODY OF CHRIST.

That is what you do Winman. You adopt this arrogant view of Scriptural interpretation. This view of yours says that you don't NEED ANYBODY but the Holy Ghost. Who CARES that the CHURCH has never believed what you proclaim? Not you. You don't need THE CHURCH.

I am saying that it is EXACTLY this that we find in many IFB churches. I am saying that it is EXACTLY this that gave rise to Pentecostalism and Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and Rob Bell and Joel Olsteen, etc...

Are you equating those of us here on the BB that do hold that the Spiritual Gifts did not fully ceaseafter the Apostolic Age, that in some fashion still were carried on today, as being linked with those Cults?

Do you realise that there are different groups in that broad pentacostal camp, as some hold to aberrant theology like WoF/prosperity etc, whle there are some good and solid teachers of it like a DR wayne Grudem and DR Gorden Fee?

I am saying that people who believe this way about bible interpretation are dangerous to simple minded people.

except that some of those groups that are NOT cults actually found their theology from the sacred texts, its just more of a "rediscovering" neglected truth, ala as in the Reformation, though too a lesser extant than that!

 

[Luke2427]

Are you equating those of us here on the BB that do hold that the Spiritual Gifts did not fully ceaseafter the Apostolic Age, that in some fashion still were carried on today, as being linked with those Cults?

Do you realise that there are different groups in that broad pentacostal camp, as some hold to aberrant theology like WoF/prosperity etc, whle there are some good and solid teachers of it like a DR wayne Grudem and DR Gorden Fee?


except that some of those groups that are NOT cults actually found their theology from the sacred texts, its just more of a "rediscovering" neglected truth, ala as in the Reformation, though too a lesser extant than that!

There are plenty of people who believe in gifts for today who are perfectly orthodox. You named a couple.

But the WAY... that's the issue... the WAY they come to this stuff is danerous.

For them it does not produce heresy. For MOST it does.

The WAY Winman interprets Scripture is DEADLY- absolutely DEADLY.

People like Winman are EXTREMELY dangerous. They have no concept of THE FAITH. This is because THE FAITH is a body of doctrine delivered to a BODY of believers. It is to be interpreted for and by and through THE CHURCH.

Winman's lone ranger, me-and-the-holy-ghost-and-nobody-else, attitude is- not just ONE of the things that gives us cults- no, no- it is the MAIN thing that gives us cults.

This attitude is and always has been the greatest adversary to THE FAITH.

What causes you to miss this fact, probably, is that there are plenty of these people, like Winman, who are, at least on the surface- orthodox. So you say, "What's the danger?"

That's like saying, "What's the danger in pulling this pin in this grenade since there have been so many that did not go off when the ins on them were pulled?"

The WAY you interpret Scripture is the MOST important thing in your life.

It is of absolutely NO importance THAT you can quote a bunch of Scriptures that you feel support your way of thinking. Nothing could be more worthless. No skill could be more useless. No person could be more deluded than the one who thinks that amounts to anything.

But what is of the GREATEST import in this world is the MEANS whereby you interpret the Scripture.

This lone ranger, me-and-the-holy-ghost way of interpreting Scripture with no regard to what the Church has historically believed, with no regard to proper hermeneutics, with no sense of the need of God gifted teachers- this gave us Jim Jones, David Koresh, Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc, etc, etc...

 

[Winman]

I am dangerous? You teach that before the foundations of the world that God chose to create billions of people he had no intention of ever saving and tortures them forever in hell for his glory and pleasure. People that were born sinners through no fault of their own who cannot possibly escape their sinfulness.

And you call me dangerous?

God will judge which one of us was teaching truth and which one taught lies.