Featured 2 Thess. 2:13-14, What does it say? pt2

No. I disagree that the verse itself is a creed in the text of Scripture.

The difference is important as it speaks to the nature of Scripture.

 

Yes. Paul (and Luke...and all of the Apostles that wrote to churches) delivered to the people what they had received.

What is painfully obvious is that you have never studied theology at any level. Otherwise you would grasp what I am saying.

You continually downplay God's Word. That is wrong. Scripture is "God breathed". Paul does not make a distinction in his words to the Corinthian and that he is reciting a formal creed. You read that into Scripture. Paul's words are an early creed, but as much as you reject the idea Paul's epistle is Scripture (equally Scripture).

You have a habit and of posting stupid stuff and then criticizing those who know better for having the education and experience you lack.

 

While I am sure that may be why Piper teaches it (I am a Piper fan) this does not negate Piper stating that we should teach it because it is easily understood and the traditional Christian understanding is difficult for congregations to grasp.

Most contemporary forms of Reformed traditions agree. That was Piper's first argument (worse than the idea traditional Christianity is too difficult for contemporary congregations).

He argued that the view had been developed by the Reformers and questioned that we should even be reexamining the theory as it dates back to the 17th century.

The problem here is that had the Reformers maintained that mentality the Reformation would have never occurred.

The Piper references are in his book "Justification".

 

@AustinC ,

No, it is not funny. You attack people who disagree with you and if they do have a Master's from a Baptist Theological Seminary then you attack the seminary.

You are unable to defend your own ideas (probably because they are not really yours).

Here is your chance - why do you believe Paul was not relating what he had been taught to the people in Corinth but was instead reciting a formal declaration of faith?

 

Careful. You are declaring most of Christianity (all of post-Reformation Christianity) unorthodox.

God's Word is actually simple. That is my point. You rely on philosophy to explain what really does not need explanation beyond Scripture itself.

You reject Scripture and claim Paul was just reciting a creed (you misunderstand what you read online about that being a creed).

You elevate a Presbyterian method over Scripture and support the idea that only Presbyterians and select Calvinists are ready to share the gospel (your agreement with @Iconoclast when he made the claim).

You elevate philosophy over God's Word by denying what is written in Scripture to tell us what the Bible really teaches.

And you do this as a part of a no linger significant and fading minority within Christianity.

Have you ever wondered why you have to go back a few centuries, to a time not long ago when your views were new, to find the majority of your support?

Traditional Christianity can go back to the Apostles, to the early church, to the pre-Reformation Christians existing outside of the RCC, and to contemporary scholars. You rely on 17th and 18th century pastors and many of them were still developing the philosophy you have placed over God and His Christ.

 

@DaveXR650 ,

I need to clarify .

There is a sense where I agree with Piper. If the truth is too difficult for a congregation to accept (here because of its simplicity, but one that no longer "speaks" to those of a Reformed tradition) then it may be better to use a different way. I see the best way as illustrations - and these confined to evangelism

I believe we need to be more careful with Scripture than we as a whole have been in the past.

 

Ok.....let's be clear

You are saying the passages are in the Bible because they were creeds rather than those passages were creeds because they were God's Word.

Where else do you believe Scripture departs from being God's Word?

I know only the instance where Paul states a message is his own.

And how do you tell when God stops and the creed begins?

For the record, I disagree because I believe Scripture is the Word of God and churches adopted parts of God's Word as creeds (you and I agree on what we see but present it in opposite ways).

 

The quote did not say that.It said IN ALL IT's GLORY. you left that portion out as you do quite often

[QUOTE]Have you even considered that? [/QUOTE]
I did, that is when I noticed you left out the part about in all it's glory.


I am not emotional at all about this, as I know a different way to understand it.


Never said that, like I never said Adam had no spirit, you cannot find that can you?[/QUOTE]
I also never said that Adam had no spirit (I can provide a quote that shows you making the false accusation that I did).

I did not call people here immature (although I contend many are spiritually immature) but I did call theological crutches a "crutch". That is what they are.

I left off "in its glory" because it does not matter. You still have the Presbyterian Church doing what God could not (spreading the gospel in all its glory).

The Apostles did not teach using Covenant Theology. Neither did Jesus. They mentioned covenants but they did not frame God's economy of salvation within Covenant Theology.

Why do you believe Jesus, John, and Paul were not ready to share the gospel in all its glory? Were they stupid, ignorant, or just too lazy to present Covenant Theology?

My point is Covenant Theology is a newer Presbyterian development. Just like Dispensationalism it spread out of Calvinism. But the gospel is not dependent in ANY way on needing to be explained using Covenant Theology.

 

Yes. You are declaring traditional Christianity unorthodox, claiming orthodox Christianity is a 17th century phenomenon.

You are wrong. Had you studied theology you could still hold your views but you would not argue so foolishly.