John Robertson and New Teaching

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

I agree with this.

 

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.

Calvin certainly did not believe in Baptismal Regeneration.

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.

 

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.