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

[Marooncat79]

there a creed in New Testament?
"); display: inline-block; height: 24px; width: 24px; transform: rotateZ(-180deg);">

[1] Several of the major creedal passages are the following: Galatians 1-2- Although perhaps not in kerygmatic formulation these two chapters underline Paul's expectation of the Galatians to recall his former teachings; Romans 1:3-4, Romans 10:9, 1 Cor. 8:6, 1 Cor. 12:3, 2 Cor.

 

[JonC]

So, you disagree with most biblical scholars who all teach that this statement of Paul is an early creed of the Church, which Paul had learned and was passing on to the Corinthians for our benefit.

This is an early, formal, statement of faith. Paul tells us this. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:"

Jon, you have drifted from the simplicity of the Gospel to something that you cannot even clearly express to anyone. You reject the simple clarity of the text and complicate things so as to not even have the capacity to explain what you believe. You cannot show us any systematic understanding of your faith. All you can do is tell us how the saints of the past are woefully wrong.

I have more training than you imagine and more knowledge of Church history than you grasp. However, you are correct in that I have not delved into the teachings of the Reformed Church of America or the Christian Reformed Church of America. I have read God's word and I see how the writers of the New Testament (Covenant) connect what they are teaching to the Old Testament (Covenant) teachings. I see how God has saved by grace, through faith, from the days of Adam and Eve to this present hour. I see how God works out His will through His eternal Covenants. Perhaps you do not see this in scripture. This is therefore the point of our debate.

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.

 

[Marooncat79]

I'm not denigrating anybody.

You, however, have declared that all Christians prior to the 17th Century and most afterwards were not ready to share the gospel.

Have you even considered that?

You get emotional when I point out the fact that Covenant Theology is a relatively new idea developed by the Presbyterian Church. You see that as denigrating Reformed preachers.

BUT you are completely blind to the fact that you were denigrating the Apostles, the Early Church, most Christians today and every Christian prior to the 17th century by claiming they were not ready to share the gospel.

You confuse theory and method with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christians had no Bibles prior to the 16th century, so memorizing Creeds and Bible passages were all they had at that time.

there was also persecution from the RCC as well as various other factors including economic which kept evangelism and missions at bay.

the reformation was based upon missions and church planting especially Calvin and Luther

 

[AustinC]

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.

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received"
Paul received, what he shared with the Corinthians, a creed from the early believers who taught him in the faith. Paul tells us this.
Now, you are free to deny the obvious so as to follow the theology you have made up, but the vast amount of Christianity will follow the creeds of scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

The problem I have with Covenant Theology is applying it to all of God's interactions with man. There are places (depending on what version of Covenant Theology we are dealing with) where a covenant is assumed and a few where covenants are forced.

That said, we can certainly benefit through studying God's covenants.

Yes. You can sit in many reformed Baptist churches for years and never hear Covenant Theology actually applied at all, at least with the identifiable label of Covenant Theology. Most reformed Baptists simply talk about Christ and him crucified, and try to teach that Jesus as presented in the Bible is this "Christ". But anyone who also teaches the lost condition of men and that God has said they can come to him through faith in Christ is teaching the elements of Covenant Theology, whether or not their particular tradition has given it that label.

I keep thinking of John Piper's justification for teaching the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Basically he does because it is easily taught and accepted while traditional Christian positions are more difficult to explain to a contemporary audience.

We'll always disagree on that. I think he teaches it because it is the most correct understanding of the Atonement. In that the Primitive Baptists, reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, free will Baptists and semi-Pelagians agree.

 

[JonC]

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received"
Paul received, what he shared with the Corinthians, a creed from the early believers who taught him in the faith. Paul tells us this.
Now, you are free to deny the obvious so as to follow the theology you have made up, but the vast amount of Christianity will follow the creeds 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.

 

[JonC]

We'll always disagree on that. I think he teaches it because it is the most correct understanding of the Atonement. In that the Primitive Baptists, reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, free will Baptists and semi-Pelagians agree.

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]

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.

Oh young one. Your complications have caused you to miss the simplicity of God's word. You are accountable to God for your pathway into an unorthodox theology.

 

[JonC]

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.

@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?

 

[JonC]

Oh young one. Your complications have caused you to miss the simplicity of God's word. You are accountable to God for your pathway into an unorthodox theology.

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.

 

[JonC]

@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.

 

[JonC]

The are actually several snipets in the NT that ar from early Xian creeds

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).

 

[AustinC]

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.

Nope, I am declaring your teaching to be unorthodox. The traditions of the Church are in agreement with my declaration regarding your views.
Beyond that, you are merely flailing in the dark.

 

[Marooncat79]

The Bible is Gods Word. Period

Paul uses what the early church was confessing to affirm it in Scripture

there are definitely NT quotations from non biblical sources in the Apostolic writings of the NT which are authoritative

 

[JonC]

JonC,

Ok, if you say so...using terms like immature child, and needing a crutch did not seem to be compliments.

[QUOTE]You, however, have declared that all Christians prior to the 17th Century and most afterwards were not ready to share the gospel.

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.

 

[AustinC]

@AustinC ,
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?

First, Paul was sharing what he had been taught. That is the nature of a creed.
Second, he was reciting a formal declaration of the early church; a Creed.

 

[JonC]

Nope, I am declaring your teaching to be unorthodox. The traditions of the Church are in agreement with my declaration regarding your views.
Beyond that, you are merely flailing in the dark.

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.

 

[AustinC]

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.

Nope. Your view is unorthodox and untraditional. I am declaring that your view is a newly created, particular view that the early church did not ever express. I am pointing at you, Jon, and only you. You cannot hide behind anything.

 

[Marooncat79]

The Covenants in the OT show how God promises to deal with His people through C

The problem I have with Covenant Theology is applying it to all of God's interactions with man. There are places (depending on what version of Covenant Theology we are dealing with) where a covenant is assumed and a few where covenants are forced.

That said, we can certainly benefit through studying God's covenants.

I keep thinking of John Piper's justification for teaching the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Basically he does because it is easily taught and accepted while traditional Christian positions are more difficult to explain to a contemporary audience.

Reformed Theology is very simplistic, easy to teach and accept. Covenant Theology is also simple and easily taught/ learned because it is one method for all of God.

But should simplicity be the criteria?

do you agree that we as believers live under the New Covenant? Ie Jer 31?

did God cut a Covenant w Abraham in Genesis?

What about the Covenant in Deut? Is it important?

what about Jesus statement at the Last Supper? He says He is instituting a “new covenant”- is it important? Why or why not?

there are more

God has given us Covenants to teach us about Himself

 

[Marooncat79]

8 Covenants in the Bible and What They Mean for You Personally Today — Beautiful Christian Life