Originally posted by D28guy:
Referring to Romans 14, you said...
Read it again. It was more than just eating foods. It was eating meat that had been offered to demons. That was a real religious "hot button" topic of that day. As was "sabbath days" and "religious festivals" which were also mentioned in this and other companion passages.
In historical context, these "hot button" topics were during a transition period between when the Church being exclusively made up of Jews to a body where there was neither Jew nor Greek. Paul's point is that keeping these Jewish festivals and dietary laws had no bearing on salvation. Jews were neither commended nor condemned for merely continuing to observe these practices (
unless they were claiming these practices were necessary for salvation). Clearly, this is a different issue entirely from false teachers that distort the true nature of God, Christ, and/or salvation.
And the scriptural admonition is to allow the differences of views.
You're still making quite a leap. Paul makes no allowances no "differences of views" on what is sound doctrine regarding the true nature of God, Christ, and/or true salvation teaching.
And thats why we have no "Truth Gestapo" in the body of Christ, like the JW's, Mormons, and Catholic Church do.
God invested the Apostles and the visible church they founded with the authority to bind and loose and the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide them (collectively) into all truth. If you want to disparage the exercise of this authority as a "truth gestapo", I suppose you will have to answer to God for that some day. The Apostles and early Christians would find your charge absurd given that the Church is the ground and pillar of
truth (
not "truthS"), and they were to contend earnestly for the
faith (
not "faithS").
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"How have Calvinists kept numbers of non-Calvinists from espousing Open Theism (and of course Open Theists too subscribe to sola Scriptura and therefore claim their view is "the truth")?"
"By vigorously argueing their view of the scriptures. Sometimes they havent kept them from that, but sometimes they have."</font>[/QUOTE]That's really a non-answer. Besides it doesn't address the fundamental issue of Calvism and Arminianism ascribing mutually contradictory attributes to God as we'll see below...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"How have Arminians kept folks from becoming hyper-Calvinists (and hyper-calvinists are also sola Scripturists)?"
By vigorously argueing their view of the scriptures. Just as God admonishes us to do. </font>[/QUOTE]Again a meaningless non-answer. These arguments have not led to a consensus. Each side is firmly entrenched in their respective positions with their mutually contradictory views of God.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"The fact is that Arminianism and Calvinism aren't merely "different 'viewpoints'""
Nonsense.
Of course thats all it is.</font>[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. They differ on the most fundamental issue of all--the character of
GOD. One side's "god" is the god who monergistically determines whom he will bestow eternal life upon irrespective of any will, desires, or response of his creatures--his creatures basically have no choice in the matter. The other side's "god" is the one who truly offers salvation to everyone but allows creatures to receive or reject His offer based on the free will He created in them. So the two ascribe mutually contradictory characteristics to "god" (and to man as well). If position A is true about God, then position B is necessarily false (and vice versa). Therefore the alleged commonality of "faith" breaks down at the very point of the
object of that faith as there are two rival concepts of "God" being expoused. No amount of kum-bah-ya relativism can reconcile these mutually contradictory "gods".
Regarding the "checks and balances" system God has provided...
You said...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"It may exist inside the historic Church, but it certainly doesn't exist among the ever expanding plethora of schismatic denominations. Otherwise folks wouldn't be continuously splitting over doctrine.
True checks and balances have existed in the historic Apostolic Church when councils have met to answer doctrinal novelty and the threat of heresy. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church to define the limits of orthodoxy"
Of course the Catholic Church
must command their people to believe that nonsense. </font>[/QUOTE]Not nonsense; it's fact, irrespective of the
Roman Catholic bogeyman you keep bringing up.
Heresy is recognised in the true body of Christ. We easilly call out the Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Catholic Church, Mary Baker Eddy, etc etc etc using Gods scriptures alone.
Yet your dubious ecclessiology prevents you from seeing the mutually contradictory concepts of God (described above)
within your own
sola scripturist ranks. Sad.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Yes, He will guide them--THE CHURCH--into all truth."
Correct. All born again people. There is no promise that God will guard the traditions, teachings, and doctrinal purity of
any organised body on earth.</font>[/QUOTE]He promised He'd guide the Church founded by the apostles--which was (and still
is) a visible, organized community, mind you--into all truth. Inspired Scripture commands us to keep the Tradition whether delievered orally or written (2 Thess 2:15). The visible historic Church has kept this authentic Tradition since the days of the Apostles who enjoined them to keep it.
No...bo...dy on earth has perfect hearing...none of us. But when we feed on the scriptures, with a humble and teachable heart, beautiful things happen.
True, Scriptures must be approached with humility and a teachable heart. But part of that humility and teachableness is recognizing the God ordained authority of the Apostolic Church and the Apostolic tradition. It's pride that deludes people in thinking that they can arrive at the correct interpretation outside the life of the Holy Spirit in the Apostolic Church which has kept the "rule of faith" delivered by the Apostles and indeed from Christ Himself.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"He's not guiding the ever expanding schismatic fellowships into their ever multiplying mutually contradictory "truths" (as they see it)."
You better believe He is. </font>[/QUOTE]No, for the mere fact that God doesn't lead into contradiction regarding the truth.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"True, in His providence God has kept some denominations from completely abandoning historic orthodox biblical Christianity...but that's inspite of sola Scriptura not because of it."
The principle that we call "sola scriptura" simply can not be over emphasised. It is so very very very VERY important.</font>[/QUOTE]This principle,
"sola scriptura", is in truth very very very
unbiblical, unhistorical, and unworkable.
All one has to do is look at the mess that happens when that principle is ignored...
Jehovahs Witnesses.
Jim Jones.
Mormons.
Christian Science.
David Koresh.
You keep throwing out that canard. These are groups which are even more extreme in rejecting the
Apostolic Tradition and replacing it with their own
man-madetraditions.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"There is only ONE church of Jesus Christ on earth today. ONE body of Christ."
You...
True, and it's that visible body which has visible succession from the Apostles which has maintained the Apostolic Tradition.
And there are those who believe in the easter bunny and the tooth fairy as well.
</font>[/QUOTE]Herein lies the crux of the matter. You and other modern day sola Scripturists seemingly have a high view of Scripture (while manipulating it to arrive at their desired conclusions), yet you have a low view of the historic church founded by Christ and the Apostles (those who are in the tradition of the "magesterial Reformation" may be the exception). Those of us who recognize the historic apostolic Church have a high view of both Scripture
and the Church, which wrote the New Testament Scriptures (and proclaimed the Christological interpretation of the Old), defined the limits of the canon, and which has guarded the correct interpretation of it as found in the Apostolic tradition.
