Tuesday
Dec262006
Scary Christmas!
Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 09:30AM 
Saw this creepy photo in the news coverage of the Vatican Christmas Eve service. Those poor boys were probably scared to death! Old Benedict XVI couldn't look more ghoulish if he tried.
Reader Comments (41)
"This has been answered time and time again for the past 2000 years, the Gospel still has it's detractors and will until Christ comes again..."
This charge has never been answered, nor can it be as these doctrines can only be defended by resorting to certain 'proof texts' which, in original Hebrew thought, did not and could not mean what the churches say they do.
I am not a detractor of the Gospel. On the contrary, my role is as a messenger of the Gospel, preaching to any who will take heed.
David,
To address some of your remarks:
There are many disputes among scholars as to the proper punctuation of Rom 9:5.Most likely "God over all" is simply a doxology as used on other occasions.
Certain arguments that Paul addressed to the Phillippians in the second letter were a warning to them to guard against self-righteousness and works glorifying themselves. In these arguments 'proof' is found for Jesus' pre-existence and 'divinity'. Shorn of Paul's qualifying statements, verses 5-8 appear to support the accepted teaching. Paul leaves no doubt, however, as to when Jesus existed in the 'form of God' for he continues in verse 9: "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name..."
It was after Jesus became "obedient unto death, yes, the death of the cross".Jesus existed in the 'form of God' after the crucifixion. It was as a man that Jesus emptied himself and took on the form of a servant. (See also John 5:27, Ps.71:16) It is a pity that the point of Paul's utterance - the warning against self-righteousness - has become the servant of an ecclesiastical doctrine.
The prophet Ezekiel was referred to as the 'son of man' more than 80 times. In Hebrew, it is 'son of Adam.' The word 'man' in Daniel's Aramaic 'son of man' actually means 'mortal man.' The Hebrew messiah was never thought of as anything other than a normal man, a man chosen out of the people, the 'servant David,' yet he was to be GIVEN 'dominion, and glory, and a kingdom' by YHVH.
I am not a member of any sect or denomination...merely an independent messenger prepared to demonstrate the unscripturalness of Christian church doctrines.
Are you a prophet or a messenger sent by God? Could you please tell us who Jesus was? was he simply the first to understand the divine requirements?
Christ clearly claims to be God in the NT is do to corruptions imposed by the 'Greek mind'?
http://www.amazon.com/Every-Best-Gift-Tale-Ages/dp/1593331436/sr=8-1/qid=1167412711/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6481317-2003927?ie=UTF8&s=books
I suppose my more ultimate questions centred on epistomology and the question of the Canon, or the books that are contained in the Sacred Scripures, or the Bible. So I ask you again. Why are we to believe your interpretation of the Scriptures and not someone else's (especially the pronouncement of the Church)? What authority do you possess to state that the Church was in error in affirming the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus, the Virgin birth, etc.?
Another question: Do you accept the commonly received Canon? The 66 Books of the Bible (I, however, would say 76, including the Deutero-canonicals)? If you do, why do you reject the authority of the Church which gave you that Canon? Why take the Bible of this "Greaco-Romanised" Church but not accpet their pronouncement concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ?
His unworthy servant,
David
Just to make my position clear, I use the term 'Scripture' to refer to the 66 books comprising the Old and New Testament canon found in Protestant bibles. I ascribe to the 'inspired' view for both writings and canonical selection. I also ascribe to the view that the ideas expressed in the following passage also apply to the New Testament even though it is the Old Testament scriptures to which the author refers:"From infancy, you have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:15-17).
I ascribe to the view that there is no necessity to depart from scripture for teaching. I interpret Scripture by the yardstick of Scripture, not by the teachings or traditions of the churches.
All statements I make are open to be measured by the yardstick of scripture.
Now, to answer your question..."If you do, why do you reject the authority of the Church which gave you that Canon?
Why take the Bible of this "Greaco-Romanised" Church but not accpet their pronouncement concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ?"
The early churches in Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Caesarea, Antioch etc. were all separate entities and from the earliest times were in possession of the various letters and 'gospels' which form our present canon.
The formation of the canon was due to a growing grass-roots consensus rather than a decision that was handed down by ecclesiastical authorities. It was not imposed by church leaders or by councils. They stand at the end of the process rather than at the beginning. No action of a council or a synod was early enough to have had a decisive influence on the course of events.
The Church did not give authority to the canon...it RECOGNISED the authority of the canon. The council decrees have the form: "This council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical". It would therefore be more accurate to say that the canon selected itself, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, than that the Church selected it.
As to your question about 'authority', the truth needs no justification. It is its own authority. I would gently remind you, however, that Jesus himself was challenged on this very issue.
These are good points, let me address them one by one. I agree with you on your first point concerning the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. I also hold to "sola Scriptura", but not as you do. You seem to approximate a "solo Scriptura" approach to the relation of Scripture, Church, and blessed Tradition. See Keith Mathison, "The Shape of Sola Scriptura".
The earliest churches were "not" independent from each other in the slightest (and especially not by the time of the Ecumenical Councils and when the Canon was more finalised). While the New Testament shows a plurality of church governance, it presents only plurality between "connectional ecclesiology" (i.e. episcopalianism and presbyterianism). The Apostles were the proto-bishops of the New Testament church. All churches were under the jurisdiction of their local elders/pastors/priests and deacons, deaconesses, etc., who themselves were under the authority of one of the Apostles. We see this very clearly in Acts 15. The Apostles made a dogmatic statement that was binding on all the churches (15.22ff.).
This was continued throughout the centuries with the eventual development of throughgoing diocesan episcopacy. The various parishes were governed by a bishop in a given area who in turn answered to one of the five Patriarchates (who were the "primus inter pares" of the bishops, led by the Patriarch of the West, the Bishop of Rome, who was himself the "primus inter pares" of the Patriarchs). While it is true that some parishes/local churches had certain letters while other churches had others, this was most certainly natural as the Church did not have a final Canon yet.
But this works against your view if the Canon was gradual since all that would be left to the Church was "oral Tradition". What would eventually be called the "regula fedei" or, "rule of Faith" which would be codified in the Sacred Scriptures, the Three Ecumenical Creeds and explicated in the Ecumenical Councils. We cannot interpret Scripture correctly outside of this context. Scripture must be interpreted in and by the Church. And this is certainly affirmed by the Apostle Paul when he tells the Thessalonians, "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thessalonians 2.15).
Yes, it is true that it was as Dr Roger Nicole has said, "the witness of the Holy Spirit given corporately to God's people and made manifest by a nearly unanimous accpetance of the NT canon in Christian churches". However it was a process done corporately, by the Church, and not individually at all. And the Church eventually gave decisions concerning the Canon (such as the Council of Carthage), especially in its decisions to not include particular books into the Canon, though certain bishops, saints, and theologians thought some should have been included. Yet, they submitted to the greater authority of the Church on this matter. Also, the Church had to give an answer eventually, as there would have been canonical choas otherwise.
Let us accept however your thesis concerning the 'grassroots movement" among the covenant community. Is it to be believed that this concensual agreement was correct concerning the Canon but when this same Church concensually agreed on the Holy Trinity, they were in error? So, they could get what books were in the Canon correct, but they couldn't interpret them? Also, if the Church has no authority in this matter, why should I accept this Canon? Couldn't I pick and choose which books of the Bible I wanted to believe in and no one could fault me for it? Such argumentation seems tenuous at best. It is interesting when we consider that the doctrines of the Trinity, Virgin birth, etc. were proclaimed "before" the Canon itself was throughly finalised! How could they have done this? Two reasons: 1) a smaller Canon which, by the time of Nicaea, was genrally accounted authoritative and 2) the "regula fedei".
I would have to respecfully disagree with you. It is rather impossible for a Canon to "select itself". While it is true that it was the authority of the Sacred Writings that the Church recognised (she did not imbide them with authority), it was also the authority of the Church to recognise their authority and declare them and root out those books which were not inspired Scripture. We remember that our Lord said that the Word of God is truth (John 17.17), and the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3.15). It is she who supports the Word, proclaims the Word, and interprets the Word. This is done through the life of the Church. To reject this authority (an authority our Lord gave to his Church, Matthew 16), is to reject the Scriptures. For without the Church, one cannot know what Scripture is. Scripture, Church, and Tradition can be distinguised (must be distinguished) but they cannot be separated. Our Lord was questioned by the authorities of his day, but he was God himself. A proposition you do not believe in.
Walt,
Returning to some of your previous points.
2) I also respect the religion of Islam, yet I also see the inherent dangers of it. However, I do not know how this has anything to do with whether the Pope denies the Gospel or not.
3) Perhaps I was being a little sensitive, but it was something that has happened on the comments thread in the past before. Let me say it differently, would we make the same jokes about Dr Michael Horton? If not, why the Holy Father? I do not mind a good joke or poking fun, I know I do it, but it was just getting out of hand in this particular instance and I was not the only one to call people on it.
4)I didn't think that anyone implied that Revd Astor was thinking low of the site. He said it himself quite plainly, "OK, this blog obviosly wasn't what I thought it was." Blog implies the whole site. Perhaps Revd Astor meant the peanut gallery comments (which are not always bad, don't get me wrong) but let him say so himself. If that is what he meant, then I am sorry. May God keep you strong in the Faith. Pax Christi.
His unworthy servant,
David
You seem to be defending Romanism and the Pontiff. are you a Romanist or a Protestant? if a Protestant do you believe that Rome is a false church that teaches a false gospel? if you believe Rome teaches the Gospel how do you explain Trent and countless denials made in their documents throughout the ages?
Rome is a false church but there is now doubt that a true church lies in her midst.
Blessings,
If you wish to enter into a discussion about apostolic succession, then I am willing to oblige.
The point of my original argument, however, is simply that when the scriptures fell into Greek, and subsequently Latin, hands, the Hebrew concepts underlying the writings were lost. Ignorance of Hebrew monotheism, the Hebrew God and the Hebrew Messiah, led the non-Hebrew fathers to superimpose layers of 'gentile' interpretation onto the texts. This is evident as early as Ignatius.
It is indeed sublime that an obscure Jew was thrust onto the world stage precisely because the fathers created a 'Jesus Christ' holding universal and substitutionary appeal for the gentile world.
Ari Stotle
"Not that vynette needs another response, but I would like to thank her for her wonderful illustration of a genetic fallacy. It's not everyday that we see such a clear example. I think we're all more enlightened having read it."
Please 'enlighten' me. How did I commit this error of logic?
Also, please note that the Scriptures state: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject:" in Titus 3:10.
Why waste time arguing with those who refuse to believe the truth.
WRT Islam, Islam explicitly states in the Qur'an that Jesus was not God, and that we are polytheists for attributing a Son to God, or saying that God has a begotten son. Also, it explicitly tells Muslims to fight Christians and Jews. There is nothing to respect about their religion.
In Christ,
Many of the previous posts move me to ask two questions to those who are members of Christ Reformed Church. Would a man with David's beliefs be allowed to join your churh? Would such a person be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper?
The whistle has been blown on Catholiscism, Protestantism, (Constantinian Christianity), and MANY are beginning to see that the emperor has no clothes (or, in this case, bad doctrine).
The heated arguments, political intrigue, riots, power struggles and bloodshed centred around the formation of the trinitarian doctrine is a sad testimony to the mindset of the 'church' who had even in the apostle John's time begun to follow after deceivers and antichrist.
The bloody history of the Roman Church is enough for any pure minded believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and in His Anointed One, Jesus the Christ, to totally distance oneself from. The man-made creeds and dogmas formulated in the various councils are foreign to the scriptures, but cloaked in just enough religious haze and terminology to dupe the gullible, and later the innocent into believing (OFTEN on pain of death, and many anathemas and various other forms of persecution).
To those who would aid and abet this false church even to this present day when all her dark secrets have been revealed, I would say that you have become drunk on the wine of the beast, and that you still have the opportunity to 'come out of her'!
I shall from here focus on the claims of some that Rome is a false church preaching a false Gospel. It seems that we are not getting anywhere with those who deny the authority of the holy Church, the Divinity of our holy Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, his birth from our Lady, the Blessed Virgin, and other issues. The epistemological foundations of their views are greatly in a state of collapse. The Church has always had to deal with such and "Bible-onlyism" has not helped the matter at all. Some will always reject the truth.
Matthew,
I am a Reformed Catholic, specifically a confessionally Protestant High Church Anglican. I am a Protestant. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic church is a false church or that she teaches a false Gospel. What is the Gospel? According to the Heidelberg Catechism it is summarised in the Apostle's Creed (Q&A 22), a document Rome loves and proclaims. Justification by faith alone is not the Gospel, as I said above. If you think Rome is a false church because she thinks we are made righteous instead of reckoned righteous, you have unchurched the Church before the Reformation. Now I will say this, Rome is not a "pure" church, but she is still a "true" church.
And let us lay aside this claim that the Roman church is not a member of the Church, not one of the Magisterial Reformers denied that Rome was a part of the visible Church. See Charles Hodge, "Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?" at http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/charles_hodge/is_the_church_of_rome_a_part_of_the_visible_church.htm. See also Keith Mathison, 'The Shape of Sola Scriptura", pp. 326-35. Remember that we rightly accept the baptisms that the Roman Catholic Church administers and we cannot accept non-Christian baptisms. Hence, Rome's baptisms are Christian baptisms and Rome is a part of the Christian Church.
Could you show me places where Trent anathematised any of the statements in the Apostle's Creed? If not, where have they denied the contents of the Gospel? As far as the question of Tridentine merit and related issues, the Rev'd Michael J Pahl's paper, "Reversing Babel: A Calvinist Reading of the Tridintine Doctrine of Merit" is an interesting read, see here: http://www.abbotgregory.com/Imported%20Writings/Reversing%20Babel%20(Final).pdf. May the peace of God be with you.
Walt,
As far as there is some truth in Islam, there is much to respect. Also, as gentlemen (and ladies), we are called in the civil sphere to be courteous, tolerant, and respectful. But I also see the great dangers of Islam, and would not go so far, as some have, to say that one could be a Muslim and somehow be a Christian incognito. But our views on this do not affect whether we believe or do not believe the Gospel and I still do not see the relevance of this in terms of the Pope denying the Gospel. The Lord be with you.
A.S.,
Your point is well taken. I here think of the example of Elijah and the prophets of Baal. But I also wonder if that was more a case of religious humour and irony than ridicule?
I do not see how my views would restrict me from membership at Christ Reformed Church. My language might be more high church but the ideas are the same as those of Keith Mathison in his excellent book, "The Shape of Sola Sriptura", which recieved a positive recommendation from Dr RC Sproul, and Dr Mathison is a Prebyterian minister in good standing. Also, they are no more higher than either the language of Luther or Calvin. As pertains the Holy Eucharist (the blessed Supper of our Lord), I hold to John Williamson Nevin's position which he ably defends in his book, "The Mystical Presence". His view is also coincidently Calvin's, which is presented by Dr Mathison (again) in his book, "Given For You". It is a position which affirms the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper. It is also the position of Dr Riddlebarger's parish. One must satisfy certain requirements however to partake of the Supper, namely one must be baptised, a member of a parish, confess the articles of the Apostle's Creed, and hold to the Real Presence. I hope this is helpful. Peace be with you. Pax Christi.
His unworthy servant,
David
http://www.abbotgregory.com/Imported%20Writings/Reversing%20Babel%20(Final).pdf
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/charles_hodge/is_the_church_of_rome_a_part_of_the_visible_church.htm
I don't want to start a long conversation, but I must clarify somethings.
First, I was not referring to your view of Sola Scriptura or of the Lord's supper. What I had in mind was your views on the church of Rome and Islam. A Christian should not have respect for Islam, but respect for Muslims because they are human beings.
Second, you don't sound like the kind of person I would expect from Dr. Riddlebarger's church. You don't sound Reformed like those from Christ Reformed Church.
Third, I would agree with James White that the expression "Reformed Catholic" is an oxymoron. As a matter of fact, I'm inclined to think that you are one of the people at the oxymoronic website that Dr. White has referred to.