If it's new it ain't true

[DHK]

Where is this "True Church"?

The RCC have always claimed that title, but we know it is not.
You are right in inferring that there isn't one. There are and have been true churches throughout history, just like the ones Paul started on his missionary journeys.

See, I think the problem folks have here is that they don't understand what it has historically mean to be catholic.

You are wrong here. Very rarely is the word used to mean "universal." Most often it is used in its historical sense to refer to the RCC. That is what most people think of when they think of a Catholic.

They hear the word "catholic" and they think Mariolatry, and ex cathedra and indulgences, etc...

Words have meanings. That is the common meaning associated with the word.

That is a very uninformed way to think of the word "catholic".

No, it isn't. Ask any of my unsaved relatives. They are all "catholic," not universal. Your usage of the word has become somewhat outdated.

 

[DHK]

If your theology is new, doesn't that bother you?

KJVO is new.

Teetotalism is new.

This idea that God speaks to you apart from Scripture is new.

Mormonism, JW's, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Rob Bell's universalism, are all new.

Does this not concern you?

Do you not see the importance of making certain that what you think is consistent with the Historic Christian Faith?

And your brand of Calvinism is fairly new.
If your brand of Calvinism is that of Augustine, then you would be in the Catholic Church. But you aren't.
If your brand of Calvinism was that of Calvin himself then you would be a Presbyterian, but you are not.
So you are a "Reformed Baptist," a mixture of different theologies, perhaps one of those nameless theologies that we can't quite put a handle on yet: not Catholic (Augustinian); not Presbyterian (Calvinistic), but somehow a wannabe Baptist with Presbyterian leanings. This is new Luke. Whether you like it or not, it is newer than the Reformation.

[FONT=&quot]Manfred E. Kober, in his book, "Divine Election or Human Effort," said:

[/FONT] What is Calvinism? What it all comes down to is this: ARE MEN ELECTED TO SALVATION OR ARE THEY NOT? All Calvinists, whether they be Presbyterian or Reformed, Primitive Baptist or Sovereign Grace Baptist, four-point or five-point Calvinist, Supralapsarian or Infralapsarian; all Calvinists: premillennial or amillennial, dispensational or covenant theologist; all Calvinists, whether they go by the name or not; all Calvinists have one thing in common: God, by a sovereign, eternal decree, has determined before the foundation of the world who shall be saved and who shall be lost. To get your mind off the real issue, a vocabulary has been invented to confuse and confound the Christian. The arguments about reprobation (God damning the non-elect), infralapsarianism (God causing the Fall and damning the non-elect because of it), and supralapsarianism (God damning the non-elect and causing the Fall to insure it) are immaterial. Likewise all the tripe about free will and free agency, common grace and special grace, effectual calling, preterition, and the sovereignty of God. The issue is: election to salvation. This fact is recognized by the Calvinists:

The Arminian will say that man is elect because he believes. The Calvinist asserts that man believes because he is elect.

I believe he had it right.

The essence of Calvinism has been around since Augustine, but your brand is far more recent than that. Doesn't that bother you??



[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[HankD]

No dear brother. That is not so.

The DoG can be traced back as far as Augustine easily- and I think with little difficulty back a couple hundred years further to the Apostles and then the Old testament.

I don't think anyone argues that the Doctrines of Grace started with Calvin or Luther. I think most people with any training from a reputable source whether Arminian or Calvinistic recognize that the DoG span most of , if not all of, Church History.

I stopped here in the thread.

Everybody says that their beliefs were held by the primitive church.

Take for example JW's - they will tell you that their beliefs were held from the very beginning and can bring forth ancient writings to collaborate their teaching, that it came from the scripture and then point out that scripture.

And it's partially true. Error came forth from the beginning out of the primitive church as witnessed by the writings of the apostles and the four Gospels.

During some periods of time it appears that most of christendom was arian and held that Christ was not God come in the flesh until the doctrine of His deity became the official teaching of the Nicene Creed.

Such is the history of the church.

HankD

 

[Ruiz]

And your brand of Calvinism is fairly new.
If your brand of Calvinism is that of Augustine, then you would be in the Catholic Church. But you aren't.
If your brand of Calvinism was that of Calvin himself then you would be a Presbyterian, but you are not.
So you are a "Reformed Baptist," a mixture of different theologies, perhaps one of those nameless theologies that we can't quite put a handle on yet: not Catholic (Augustinian); not Presbyterian (Calvinistic), but somehow a wannabe Baptist with Presbyterian leanings. This is new Luke. Whether you like it or not, it is newer than the Reformation.

[FONT=&quot]Manfred E. Kober, in his book, "Divine Election or Human Effort," said:

I believe he had it right.

The essence of Calvinism has been around since Augustine, but your brand is far more recent than that. Doesn't that bother you??



[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

The problem with this post is that you believe that if we don't embrace someone's theology 100%, we cannot rightly call our belief historic.

The reformers and others admitted that we did embrace Augustine's Soteriology but rejected his ecclesiology. However, to call Augustine a Catholic is also a stretch.

As well, while Augustine was a theological stalwart in explaining the reformed view in soteriology, he was not the first. Famous writings espoused a high view of God's Sovereignty in salvation:

* Tertellian understood divine power and grace as the explanation for transformation of people from unbelievers to believers.

* Clement of Rome explained that we struggle to see the number of the elect saved.

* Clement of Alexandria discussed that God had predestined both Greeks and barbarians to Christ.

* Origen saw man had to place faith in Christ, but that God's grace was the determining factor.

Some used fore sight by God as the impetus to God's choice. Most would hold to a compatibalism view, a view more soteriologically aligns with Calvinism and is what I advocate on this board.

It wasn't until Pelagius did the attack of God's predestination and man's responsibility occurred. This forced people like Augustine to clearly set forth the historic doctrine Soteriology.

Thus, this is more than Augustinianism, but predates him. As well, we acknowledge that there is not a single person perfect in their theology. This, though, is not an attack on historicity, but an attack that any single person is perfect in their theology and further emphasizes the need to study doctrines throughout history instead of using "just me and my Bible" approach.

 

[Luke2427]

The RCC have always claimed that title, but we know it is not.
You are right in inferring that there isn't one.

I inferred no such thing.

Such inference is madness as best I can tell.

There are and have been true churches throughout history, just like the ones Paul started on his missionary journeys.

There are true churches that make up the true Church.

You are wrong here. Very rarely is the word used to mean "universal." Most often it is used in its historical sense to refer to the RCC. That is what most people think of when they think of a Catholic.

It's what it meant.

Words have meanings. That is the common meaning associated with the word.
No, it isn't. Ask any of my unsaved relatives. They are all "catholic," not universal. Your usage of the word has become somewhat outdated.

We're talking about the first millennium when the word did mean one or universal.

Yes, the RCC highjacked the term so we don't use it anymore.

But your religious heritage spawns from the catholic church just like the rest of us.

 

[Luke2427]

I stopped here in the thread.

Everybody says that their beliefs were held by the primitive church.

Take for example JW's - they will tell you that their beliefs were held from the very beginning and can bring forth ancient writings to collaborate their teaching, that it came from the scripture and then point out that scripture.

And it's partially true. Error came forth from the beginning out of the primitive church as witnessed by the writings of the apostles and the four Gospels.

During some periods of time it appears that most of christendom was arian and held that Christ was not God come in the flesh until the doctrine of His deity became the official teaching of the Nicene Creed.

Such is the history of the church.

HankD

Your missing the point Hank.

The point has never been that everything old is good or that the church has always been perfect. That would be silly wouldn't it?

The point is that doctrine ought to have historical roots- period.

Doctrines like tongues for salvation, for example, can be rejected outright because we know the Historic Christian Faith never interpreted the Bible to teach this- not in Her nearly 2,000 years of history.

JW's can be condemned outright for the same reason. Yes, Arianism is old. But it was never held by THE CHURCH. No, not the RCC- THE CHURCH which Christ came to build.

That church was held hostage in a sense by the RCC for some time- but it was still THE CHURCH.

 

[Don]

...Yes, Arianism is old. But it was never held by THE CHURCH. No, not the RCC- THE CHURCH which Christ came to build....

Interesting thought here. I'm thinking you meant "arminianism"; if so, then I would point out that the conference that was meant to decide on the merits of arminianism, was heavily influenced by calvinists; that the supporters of the arminianian way of thinking were primarily brought forth as prisoners; were not given an impartial chance to present their viewpoint for consideration; and that the primary lawyer representing them was later jailed and executed for his unwavering defense on the subject. Not to mention, that arminianism has survived to this day, giving it the same basic lifespan as calvinism. So it may not have been held by the "mainstream" church, but that doesn't lessen its historicity.

The primary problem with your line of reasoning is this: History is written by the victors. Or those who are the loudest.

 

[Amy.G]

I'm thinking you meant "arminianism";

No. I think he meant Arianism.

LINK: Arianism

 

[Don]

No. I think he meant Arianism.

LINK: Arianism

My bad; my apologies. Please disregard previous.

 

[Robert Snow]

Doctrine should be grounded in the Word of God. Regardless of what was taught 500 years ago or last Sunday. If it doesn't conform to what God says, it doesn't matter when it was formulated.

 

[Luke2427]

Interesting thought here. I'm thinking you meant "arminianism"; if so, then I would point out that the conference that was meant to decide on the merits of arminianism, was heavily influenced by calvinists; that the supporters of the arminianian way of thinking were primarily brought forth as prisoners; were not given an impartial chance to present their viewpoint for consideration; and that the primary lawyer representing them was later jailed and executed for his unwavering defense on the subject. Not to mention, that arminianism has survived to this day, giving it the same basic lifespan as calvinism. So it may not have been held by the "mainstream" church, but that doesn't lessen its historicity.

The primary problem with your line of reasoning is this: History is written by the victors. Or those who are the loudest.

No. I meant Arianism- Arius is the father of JW doctrine.

 

[Luke2427]

And your brand of Calvinism is fairly new.

I don't even know what that means- my "brand" of Calvinism.

But apparently you are still missing the WHOLE point of this thread and this conversation.

It has been stated repeatedly and consistently that doctrines can be refined over the span of Church history- in fact- they SHOULD be.

It is NEW doctrines that we are bringing into question- like much of what many of us have experienced in your movement.

By new, it ought to be clear to any reader of this thread, we mean something that has no roots in the Historic Christian Faith.

For example, Christians cherish the phrase as it pertains to the Second Person of the Godhead, "very God of very God."

But that is a refinement of the understanding of the historic doctrine of the Trinity- it was not a new doctrine in 325AD- it was an excellent refinement of a historic doctrine.

KJVO has no roots. This is TOTALLY different from historic doctrines on which our understanding has been refined over the span of Christian history.

Tongues as an essential of salvation was never accepted by the Historic Christian faith. It is new. It is not a refinement of a historic doctrine.

There is a world of difference.

The key word is "roots".

KJVO has no ROOTS in the historic Christian Faith.

United Pentecostalism has no roots in the Historic Christian Faith.

These doctrines sprang up without root in the Historic Christian Faith about a century ago.

So, thinking people question them and say, "Hey! There's probably something wrong with these doctrines since nearly 1900 years of Christians NEVER taught them, never accepted them, never discovered them, etc..."

 

[JesusFan]

I don't even know what that means- my "brand" of Calvinism.

But apparently you are still missing the WHOLE point of this thread and this conversation.

It has been stated repeatedly and consistently that doctrines can be refined over the span of Church history- in fact- they SHOULD be.

It is NEW doctrines that we are bringing into question- like much of what many of us have experienced in your movement.

By new, it ought to be clear to any reader of this thread, we mean something that has no roots in the Historic Christian Faith.

For example, Christians cherish the phrase as it pertains to the Second Person of the Godhead, "very God of very God."

But that is a refinement of the understanding of the historic doctrine of the Trinity- it was not a new doctrine in 325AD- it was an excellent refinement of a historic doctrine.

KJVO has no roots. This is TOTALLY different from historic doctrines on which our understanding has been refined over the span of Christian history.

Tongues as an essential of salvation was never accepted by the Historic Christian faith. It is new. It is not a refinement of a historic doctrine.

There is a world of difference.

The key word is "roots".

KJVO has no ROOTS in the historic Christian Faith.

United Pentecostalism has no roots in the Historic Christian Faith.

These doctrines sprang up without root in the Historic Christian Faith about a century ago.

So, thinking people question them and say, "Hey! There's probably something wrong with these doctrines since nearly 1900 years of Christians NEVER taught them, never accepted them, never discovered them, etc..."

just curious, is there a Baptist brand of cal, and another for presby flavored?

 

[Amy.G]

just curious, is there a Baptist brand of cal, and another for presby flavored?

Yes. One is chocolate and the other is strawberry. :laugh::laugh:

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. One is chocolate and the other is strawberry. :laugh::laugh:

And the rest of Christiandom just "plain vanilla!"

 

[seekingthetruth]

Luke

Your whole premise of this thread is to bash KJVO, mainly because of your crusade against IFB.

Why would KJVO be an old doctrine? The KJV is only 400 years old, but that is at least 300 years older than the modern versions you are defending. Before all of these "modern versions" were put out there was no reason to be KJVO!

By your standards, you should be KJVO also because it is the oldest accepted English translation available to us, so "it must be true". NIV is "new so it can't be true". Give me a break.

You are nit-picking a silly issue in order to bash IFB. One of the things you keep arguing against IFB is the dogmatic teaching.

Good grief!!! Get a grip, you are more dogmatic than any tyrantical IFB preacher I have ever seen.

Why don't you switch gears and rant about some group that is not christian, and leave us Christian IFB alone?

When you bash IFB and call IFB heretic, in darkness, ect, you are in essence calling me and every other IFB a heretic and in darkness. And don't say it's the "doctrine" you hate, and not the people, you are fooling yourself, because whatever you call the doctrine, you are also calling the people.

For instance, if you say that black people are less intelligent, and a black Harvard professor reads that, he will see that your statement includes him, and he will be offended, even though he has twice the IQ and education as you. Get my point?

John

 

[Winman]

Luke

Your whole premise of this thread is to bash KJVO, mainly because of your crusade against IFB.

Why would KJVO be an old doctrine? The KJV is only 400 years old, but that is at least 300 years older than the modern versions you are defending. Before all of these "modern versions" were put out there was no reason to be KJVO!

By your standards, you should be KJVO also because it is the oldest accepted English translation available to us, so "it must be true". NIV is "new so it can't be true". Give me a break.

You are nit-picking a silly issue in order to bash IFB. One of the things you keep arguing against IFB is the dogmatic teaching.

Good grief!!! Get a grip, you are more dogmatic than any tyrantical IFB preacher I have ever seen.

Why don't you switch gears and rant about some group that is not christian, and leave us Christian IFB alone?

When you bash IFB and call IFB heretic, in darkness, ect, you are in essence calling me and every other IFB a heretic and in darkness. And don't say it's the "doctrine" you hate, and not the people, you are fooling yourself, because whatever you call the doctrine, you are also calling the people.

For instance, if you say that black people are less intelligent, and a black Harvard professor reads that, he will see that your statement includes him, and he will be offended, even though he has twice the IQ and education as you. Get my point?

John

Glad to see you are hanging around John, and your point about the KJB is valid, from 1611 until 1881 the KJB was practically the only "word of God" known to most English speaking persons, so there was no controversy. The issue between the KJB and MVs is over source text (TR vs. CT) not interpretation. But that does not belong here.

 

[Luke2427]

Glad to see you are hanging around John, and your point about the KJB is valid, from 1611 until 1881 the KJB was practically the only "word of God" known to most English speaking persons, so there was no controversy. The issue between the KJB and MVs is over source text (TR vs. CT) not interpretation. But that does not belong here.

But the church always had better sense than to purport that a TRANSLATION was infallible or inspired throughout the church's history.

It was not until about a century ago that a significant population of people who had no better sense arose to purport otherwise.

 

[matt wade]

Luke2427 is just mad that the KJV stood the test of time instead of the the Geneva.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke2427 is just mad that the KJV stood the test of time instead of the the Geneva.

Another swing and miss, Matt.

I ADORE the KJV.

It is my version of preference.

I only ever preach from it. It is the only one I read devotionally (though I reference other versions in study)

I actually do not think any English version compares.

I think there are some that are based on slightly better manuscripts.

I think there are some that are slightly more accurate.

But when one takes into consideration all that makes the KJV the KJV, I think it excels them all.

So you missed that one- bad.