How NOT to do mission

[Steve Hayes]

It seems that an American lawyer's misguided attempts to do "Orthodox" mission
in Britain have been counter-productive, and have stirred up a wave of
protests against his high-handed bullying methods.

One can't object to his methods in principle -- one was to buy up redundant
churches and try to establish Orthodox congregations there. Another was to
take over an established chain of ailing Christian bookshops and try to revive
them.

But it seems both efforts have backfired, with Orthodox congregations leaving
to worship in Roman Catholic buildings, and many of the book shops closing,
and the staff complaining of being mistreated, and a storm of protest in the
British blogosphere that seems likely to bring the name of the Orthodox Church
into disrepute.

For details and links see:

http://khanya.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/how-not-to-do-mission/

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Steve Hayes
It seems that an American lawyer's misguided attempts to do "Orthodox" mission
in Britain have been counter-productive, and have stirred up a wave of
protests against his high-handed bullying methods.

Ah, but "high-handed bullying methods" are what American lawyers learn so well
in law school and then in the practice of law! So who came up with the
hair-brained idea of letting a lawyer run all these things in the first place?

Post by Steve Hayes
One can't object to his methods in principle -- one was to buy up redundant
churches and try to establish Orthodox congregations there.

Actually, I think one can. I see no indication, for example, of even lip service
to Article 33 of the Apostolic Canons: that the bishop be fully informed of all
the doings in his diocese. I don't even see any indication that this lawyer is
in a canonical jurisdiction. He could be one of the many pseudo-orthodox
crackpots, for all we can tell from the article.

This is important, since we have this long outstanding problem: every Tom, Dick
and Harry who dons funny robes and swings a censer calling himself 'Orthodox'
sets our image in the public mind, even when he is not Orthodox at all.

Post by Steve Hayes
Another was to
take over an established chain of ailing Christian bookshops and try to revive
them.
But it seems both efforts have backfired, with Orthodox congregations leaving
to worship in Roman Catholic buildings, and many of the book shops closing,
and the staff complaining of being mistreated, and a storm of protest in the
British blogosphere that seems likely to bring the name of the Orthodox Church
into disrepute.

I was going to ask what good it could do to "air our dirty laundry" in Khanya,
but I see the dirty laundry is already aired for all to see, so it makes little
difference:(

OTOH, the frank admission that that was the wrong way to go about doing a
mission is potentially good.

[Catherine Jefferson]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Steve Hayes
One can't object to his methods in principle -- one was to buy up redundant
churches and try to establish Orthodox congregations there.

Actually, I think one can. I see no indication, for example, of even lip service
to Article 33 of the Apostolic Canons: that the bishop be fully informed of all
the doings in his diocese. I don't even see any indication that this lawyer is
in a canonical jurisdiction. He could be one of the many pseudo-orthodox
crackpots, for all we can tell from the article.
This is important, since we have this long outstanding problem: every Tom, Dick
and Harry who dons funny robes and swings a censer calling himself 'Orthodox'
sets our image in the public mind, even when he is not Orthodox at all.

True enough about the pseudo-Orthodox groups in the United States. We
have a bunch of them, right along with ad-hock groups claiming to be
Catholic or Protestant that have no affiliation with any large or
established organizations that bear those names. That's part of the
religion scene in the United States, and anybody seeking God or Christ
in this country had best bear that in mind.

Years ago (before I was Orthodox) I ran into a group calling itself the
"African Orthodox Church". Among other things, they venerated the jazz
musician John Coltrane as a saint. <wry grin> I happen to be a big fan
of jazz music. I think John Coltrane's music might well be appreciated
in heaven; it is incredibly lovely stuff. However, at least as best I
know, John Coltrane was neither an Orthodox Christian nor someone who
led a particularly saintly life.

Since I became Orthodox over a decade ago, I've encountered other groups
calling themselves "Orthodox Christians" who hold much stranger and
considerably more damaging beliefs than this group. :/

Post by Matthew Johnson
I was going to ask what good it could do to "air our dirty laundry" in Khanya,
but I see the dirty laundry is already aired for all to see, so it makes little
difference:(
OTOH, the frank admission that that was the wrong way to go about doing a
mission is potentially good.

I don't agree entirely with your first paragraph. IMHO it is often
damaging and foolish not to speak openly about our dirty laundry. It
has definitely promoted a culture of denial in too many parts of the
Orthodox Church and allowed some of that dirty laundry to grow... ripe,
shall I say? <wry grin>

I do agree with the last sentence, and would strike "potentially" from
it. The devil is the father of lies, not God and not His Church.
Although silence is not always equivalent to lying, in many cases
silence can function as a lie. Discretion where individual private sins
are concerned is often the kindest path, but the Church should never
remain silent in the face of public sin committed by its own members in
its name or that of Christ. It is our duty to bear witness to the
truth, even when the truth is embarrassing or inconvenient.

</stepping down from soap box>


Under His mercy,

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Steve Hayes
It seems that an American lawyer's misguided attempts to do "Orthodox" mission
in Britain have been counter-productive, and have stirred up a wave of
protests against his high-handed bullying methods.

Ah, but "high-handed bullying methods" are what American lawyers learn so well
in law school and then in the practice of law! So who came up with the
hair-brained idea of letting a lawyer run all these things in the first place?

Apparently this particular lawyer had the money to do it, and it did not occur
to his furry little mind to check with his spiritual father (or perhaps he
did, and his spiritual father gave him the wrong advice).

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Steve Hayes
One can't object to his methods in principle -- one was to buy up redundant
churches and try to establish Orthodox congregations there.

Actually, I think one can. I see no indication, for example, of even lip service
to Article 33 of the Apostolic Canons: that the bishop be fully informed of all
the doings in his diocese. I don't even see any indication that this lawyer is
in a canonical jurisdiction. He could be one of the many pseudo-orthodox
crackpots, for all we can tell from the article.

One of the problems in some parts of the world, including the UK, is that it
is difficult to determine which bishop has juridiction over the places where
the 23 bookshops were situated.

I don't know whether he consulted any of the Orthodox bishops in the UK, but
if he didn't he ought to have done so.

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is important, since we have this long outstanding problem: every Tom, Dick
and Harry who dons funny robes and swings a censer calling himself 'Orthodox'
sets our image in the public mind, even when he is not Orthodox at all.

Post by Steve Hayes
Another was to
take over an established chain of ailing Christian bookshops and try to revive
them.
But it seems both efforts have backfired, with Orthodox congregations leaving
to worship in Roman Catholic buildings, and many of the book shops closing,
and the staff complaining of being mistreated, and a storm of protest in the
British blogosphere that seems likely to bring the name of the Orthodox Church
into disrepute.

I was going to ask what good it could do to "air our dirty laundry" in Khanya,
but I see the dirty laundry is already aired for all to see, so it makes little
difference:(

It is already a scandal in the UK blogosphere, though J. Mark Brewer seems to
have managed to censor the regular press to some extent.

As a teacher of missiology I use such incidents as cautionary examples for my
students, and can see some use in discussing them to see where things went
wrong. From a missiological point of view, having 23 bookshops in various
parts of the UK is a tremendous mission opportunity, which makes it even more
of a pity that the Brewer brothers blew it so completely. And it appears that
far from consulting local bishops, they used their intimidatory tactics on the
local Orthodox clergy as well.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <JbOmk.521$***@trnddc02>, Catherine Jefferson says...
[snip]

Post by Catherine Jefferson
I don't agree entirely with your first paragraph. IMHO it is often
damaging and foolish not to speak openly about our dirty laundry.

You need to think a little harder about the traditional Orthodox interpretation
of the sin of Ham, that he failed to cover his father's sin, but told his
brothers about it instead. Also, about the traditional (even if it is Jewish
traditional) interpretation of Prov 15:2. Do you have easy access to Me'Am
Lo'Ez's commentary on this?

[snip]

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:28:57 GMT, Catherine Jefferson

Post by Catherine Jefferson
Years ago (before I was Orthodox) I ran into a group calling itself the
"African Orthodox Church". Among other things, they venerated the jazz
musician John Coltrane as a saint. <wry grin> I happen to be a big fan
of jazz music. I think John Coltrane's music might well be appreciated
in heaven; it is incredibly lovely stuff. However, at least as best I
know, John Coltrane was neither an Orthodox Christian nor someone who
led a particularly saintly life.

I would like to know more about them, since our pressent mission congregation
formerly belonged to the African Orthodox Church, and the AOC played a
significant (if indirect) role in the spread of Orthodoxy in East Africa.

For background on this see my article on "Orthodox mission in tropical Africa"
at:

http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/ORTHMISS.HTM

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:28:57 GMT, Catherine Jefferson

Post by Catherine Jefferson
Years ago (before I was Orthodox) I ran into a group calling itself the
"African Orthodox Church". Among other things, they venerated the jazz
musician John Coltrane as a saint. <wry grin> I happen to be a big fan
of jazz music. I think John Coltrane's music might well be appreciated
in heaven; it is incredibly lovely stuff. However, at least as best I
know, John Coltrane was neither an Orthodox Christian nor someone who
led a particularly saintly life.

I would like to know more about them, since our pressent mission congregation
formerly belonged to the African Orthodox Church, and the AOC played a
significant (if indirect) role in the spread of Orthodoxy in East Africa.
For background on this see my article on "Orthodox mission in tropical Africa"
http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/ORTHMISS.HTM

There is, unfortunately, no guarantee that these are even the same groups. But
the John Coltrane worshippers were definitely not canonical Orthodox.

I am going to take the cue from the URL you gave above to say that though
Coltrane's music was definitely a HIT, this group is definitely a MISS!

[Patrick Nolan]

Post by Matthew Johnson
There is, unfortunately, no guarantee that these are even the same groups. But
the John Coltrane worshippers were definitely not canonical Orthodox.

Google is your friend. A quick search turns up the Saint John Coltrane Church
in San Francisco: http://www.coltranechurch.org/

They claim to be associated with the African Orthodox Church. Here are the

Post by Matthew Johnson
The Episcopate and Authority of the AOC dates back to the Syrian Church of
Antioch where disciples were first called Christians. St. Peter, the Apostle
was the first Bishop of the Syrian Church. On May 29, 1892, Joseph Rene
Vilatte of France was consecrated Metropolitan of the archdiocese of America,
by permission of a Bull issued by Ignatius Peter III, Patriarch of Antioch
and the East. On September 28, 1921, in Chicago, IL George Alexander McGuire
was consecrated the first Bishop and Primate of the AOC, by Joseph R. Vilatte.
He became Archbishop Alexander McGuire when on September 10th 1924 he was
unanimously elected by the House of Bishops. The Apostolic succession of the
AOC has continued in this way down through the years, eventually resulting in
the consecration of Archbishop Franzo Wayne King, by Archbishop George Duncan
Hinkson, consecrated by Miller, in the year 1982.

I leave it to Orthodox readers to evaluate the validity of that.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Founders Archbishop Franzo King and Reverend Mother Marina King began this work
in 1971 under the name of One Mind Temple Evolutionary Transitional Body of
Christ. The inspiration came after the young couple had seen John Coltrane
perform live in San Francisco in the year 1965. Being raised in the
Pentecostal Church, Franzo King knew the presence of the Lord when it came
through the power of the Holy Ghost. Seeing John Coltrane and hearing his sound
that night was that familiar feeling he knew since childhood. It was the
presence of God. Archbishop King refers to this as a "sound baptism" which
touched their hearts and minds. Further investigation into this man proved him
to be not just a jazz musician but one who was chosen to guide souls back to God.
In his thesis, A Love Supreme, John Coltrane declares the omnipotence of God and
our need for and dependence on Him. He gives all praise to God and encourages
the dear listener to "...pursue Him in the righteous path..." and declares
"...Yes, it is true, Seek and ye shall find. Only through Him can we know the
Most Wondrous Bestowals..." Saint John Coltrane demonstrated great love and
devotion, declaring in his personal Testimony his own spiritual awakening.
Which he said: "was to lead me to a richer, fuller, more productive life.
At that time, in gratitude, I humbly asked to be given the means and privilege
to make others happy through music. I feel this has been granted through His
grace. All praise to God."
We thank God for the anointed universal sound that leaped (lept) down from the
throne of heaven out of the very mind of God and incarnated in one Sri Rama
Ohnedaruth the mighty mystic known as Saint John Will-I-Am Coltrane. That same
healing sound was captured and recorded on the sound disc on the wheel in the
middle of the wheel (sound disc recording). Music has the power to make
others happy, deliver and set free the mind, hearts and souls of the dear
listener. All praise to God. One Mind, A Love Supreme.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Patrick Nolan

Post by Matthew Johnson
There is, unfortunately, no guarantee that these are even the same groups. But
the John Coltrane worshippers were definitely not canonical Orthodox.

Google is your friend.

But here, possibly a false friend.

Post by Patrick Nolan
A quick search turns up the Saint John Coltrane Church
in San Francisco: http://www.coltranechurch.org/
They claim to be associated with the African Orthodox Church. Here are the

You call _that_ "bona fides"? It takes more than that to establish canonicity.
Of course they _claim_ their "Episcopate and Authority of the AOC dates back to
the Syrian Church of Antioch where disciples were first called Christians."

But it takes more than reference to episcopal enthronement and Patriarchal Bulls
to establish that. I'm not even sure where to begin doing such research relying
only on Google. I just know that they are not SCOBA members. The canonicity of
SCOBA members (http://www.scoba.us/jurisdictions.html) is beyond the shadow of a
reasonable doubt. All others in the US, beware!

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:28:57 GMT, Catherine Jefferson

Post by Catherine Jefferson
Years ago (before I was Orthodox) I ran into a group calling itself the
"African Orthodox Church". Among other things, they venerated the jazz
musician John Coltrane as a saint. <wry grin> I happen to be a big fan
of jazz music. I think John Coltrane's music might well be appreciated
in heaven; it is incredibly lovely stuff. However, at least as best I
know, John Coltrane was neither an Orthodox Christian nor someone who
led a particularly saintly life.

I would like to know more about them, since our pressent mission congregation
formerly belonged to the African Orthodox Church, and the AOC played a
significant (if indirect) role in the spread of Orthodoxy in East Africa.
For background on this see my article on "Orthodox mission in tropical Africa"
http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/ORTHMISS.HTM

There is, unfortunately, no guarantee that these are even the same groups. But
the John Coltrane worshippers were definitely not canonical Orthodox.

That is why I would like to know more about them -- if there are any links
between John Coltrante's church and that founded by Georghe Alexander McGuire.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Patrick Nolan

Post by Matthew Johnson
There is, unfortunately, no guarantee that these are even the same groups. But
the John Coltrane worshippers were definitely not canonical Orthodox.

Google is your friend. A quick search turns up the Saint John Coltrane Church
in San Francisco: http://www.coltranechurch.org/
They claim to be associated with the African Orthodox Church. Here are the

Post by Matthew Johnson
The Episcopate and Authority of the AOC dates back to the Syrian Church of
Antioch where disciples were first called Christians. St. Peter, the Apostle
was the first Bishop of the Syrian Church. On May 29, 1892, Joseph Rene
Vilatte of France was consecrated Metropolitan of the archdiocese of America,
by permission of a Bull issued by Ignatius Peter III, Patriarch of Antioch
and the East. On September 28, 1921, in Chicago, IL George Alexander McGuire
was consecrated the first Bishop and Primate of the AOC, by Joseph R. Vilatte.

Joseph Rene Vilattee was an episcopus vagans, who "consecrated" all kinds of
bishops. He episcopal orders were repudiated by the Patriarchate of Antioch in
1935, according to Peter Anson's book "Bishops at large".

Post by Patrick Nolan
He became Archbishop Alexander McGuire when on September 10th 1924 he was

Post by Matthew Johnson
unanimously elected by the House of Bishops. The Apostolic succession of the
AOC has continued in this way down through the years, eventually resulting in
the consecration of Archbishop Franzo Wayne King, by Archbishop George Duncan
Hinkson, consecrated by Miller, in the year 1982.

I leave it to Orthodox readers to evaluate the validity of that.

The Orthodox Church does not regard the bishop sof the AOC as being within the
apostolic succession.

Post by Patrick Nolan

Post by Matthew Johnson
We thank God for the anointed universal sound that leaped (lept) down from the
throne of heaven out of the very mind of God and incarnated in one Sri Rama
Ohnedaruth the mighty mystic known as Saint John Will-I-Am Coltrane. That same
healing sound was captured and recorded on the sound disc on the wheel in the
middle of the wheel (sound disc recording). Music has the power to make
others happy, deliver and set free the mind, hearts and souls of the dear
listener. All praise to God. One Mind, A Love Supreme.

They certainly seem to be moving further away from Orthodoxy. I wonder what
their relationship is with McGuire's original African Orthodox Church -- are
they McGuire's successors?

[l***@hotmail.com]

I'm not responding to the specific event that took place in England,
but rather the whole paradigm. I think, in part, the problem stems
out of the false understanding that the "church" has replaced Israel.
Please give a moment to explain.

IMHO, I feel that denominationalism is a heresy, at least during the
Church era. Yes, I'm a dispensationalist. For you see, the
scriptural story is quite clear that the election of Israel was very
much different than that of the Church. As an elect nation, Israel
always had the dichotomy of believing remnant and everyone else. Yet,
as a national group, called out of the nations, it was still a
distinct entity of God. The Church is very much different. The
Church is comprised only of the elect. Only they are part of the body
of Christ, only they are to be wed to Christ. Denominationalism sets
up something other than the NT paradigm where as late as 96AD, in Rev
2 & 3, the local churches were viewed as independent unto themselves,
having only Christ and His revelation as the final authority for
rule.

Yes, I know. The Church is made up of individual all unique and
therefore having a unique relationship with God. THis is the
distinction that separates it from Israel. But what occurred in the
establishment of a state church, i.e. Roman Catholic (a contradiction
in terms- how can it be catholic and yet centered in Roman?) began
this denominational ball rolling. It re-established what had been
abandoned, namely a priesthood and yet another sacrificial system.
Eventually it grew to where it demanded its lordship or else in
regards to salvation. Out of this grew rebellions which were just
more schisms than anything. "Belong to us or regard yourself as
standing outside of the camp." This is NOT biblical Christianity.
Biblical Christianity is uniquely personal. The individual stands
before God by means of a personal relationship with an Advocate who
died a personal death for just that one man or woman. Christ did not
die for a faceless humanity.

Yes I know - evangelical protestantism is just as guilty. Today local
churches are more about attracting disgruntled members of other
churches rather than evangelizing the lost, unbelieving communities
wherein they sit. This, again IMHO, is just that natural child of
this modern "gospel." The "old" gospel was not anthropocentric. Its
chief aim was to prepare men to stand before God boldly in worship and
praise for His glory and grace. This new fangled modern "gospel" is
all about making people (they don't even have to *really* believe in
Christ or even the Trinity for that matter) feel better about
themselves. This talk of hell and being held accountable and all, its
all so disenfranchising. People don't want hear such things. After
all, no one has a corner on the truth so who can rightly be so
dogmatic about such things -right? After all, there is not such thing
as absolutes any more. "Love" them into the "church." Now that's the
new gospel. Doctrines divide. Christ is not about division.
Christ is about "love." The new gospel is that man is too great for
God to deny him eternal life. God is all about helping man. And so
the "old" theocentric gospel has been replaced by this "new"
anthropocentric gospel wherein man is enabled to see his rightful
place. The whole perspective and emphasis has been dramatically
changed.

So, whether you are proselytizing to convert in a specific
denomination or into an independent "evangelical" assembly, you stand
outside of what the NT Church was called to be and in fact, actually
is. The former has put forth doctrine without out either reference to
Scripture or without grace, gentleness and true Spirit-filled love.
The later has abandoned doctrine. Doctrine is seen as only driving
people away, cause divisions, shattering any self-esteem men/women may
have of themselves when they first enter in the doors. Both, however,
appeal to men/women as if they have it within themselves (with a
little encouragement from God) to live lives acceptable to God, to
gain entrance into His kingdom, to receive Christ at any time and in
just about any way. God's love is reduced from being that high and
holy thing which is governed by holiness to little more than a general
willingness to receive any or all.

So god is no longer sovereign. Man is. God is outside waiting for
man to open the "door of our heart" to let him in. The end result of
all this is than through his cunning patience, Satan has replaced the
biblical Gospel with half-truths and warm fuzzy feelings. It is not
without reason that the last church mentioned in scripture is that
which represents the church of the end of days -Laodicea. It is
disfunctional. It no longer has Christ within its fellowship. It is
without Christ, clothed in its delusionment of being "rich" when in
fact, it is destitute. Christ did not commend the widow who placed
her two talents in the pot. Rather, He was commenting on the
foolishness of one becoming destitute on account of a dead hope. And
so it is today in the church, whether it be a large and historically
established denomination, or a recent evangelical assembly where
neither the bible nor doctrine have any place.

Why should be surprised by statistics such as that of 90% of churches
in the US are not growing and the that of the remaining 10% which are,
only 1 % are growing through old gospel evangelism? Can you tell me
why? When the "church" leaves Christ of the bible outside the doors,
why should the world see it as offering anything different than the
country club down the road, or the local sports bar on Sunday
morning? Can you tell me why?

The Gospel is about a sovereign God saving sinners. ONLY the Cross
saves. Christ, of the bible, is the only Way into the eternal
kingdom. Placing warm blankets around dead men does nothing to revive
them. Men MUST be made aware that they are in fact dead and in need
of a Savior before a Savior can have worth for them. Today's
assemblies have it all ass-backwards. Everyone is running down the
broadway to eternal destruction. The Church has been given the charge
to "persuade" men to saving faith in Christ. This requires truth,
i.e. doctrine, and it requires humility. Humbly, recognizing that was
solely by the grace of God that we ourselves were plucked from the
broadway leading to death, that we fearfully seek to lead others to
the only means to and meaning of -eternal life. That's what the
Church is all about. It's about gathering to elect and preparing for
the eternal worship of He who is alone worthy.

So who cares if a bunch of dead churches die? Rather, we should be
more concerned, not about some denominational loss, but rather a
diminishing of means of evangelization. Shame on us for our pride.
We are called to have the mind of Christ who laid it all aside that
some may live. Can we do anything less?

[Denis Giron]

[W]hat occurred in the establishment of a state
church, i.e. Roman Catholic (a contradiction in
terms- how can it be catholic and yet centered
in Roman?) began this denominational ball rolling.
=A0It re-established what had been abandoned,
namely a priesthood and yet another sacrificial
system.

This caught my eye.

First, regarding the term "Roman Catholic," I was under the impression
that was meant to distinguish it from other churches claiming to be
the One, True, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church (e.g. the churches
of Orthodoxy, and even the Anglican Church).

Nonetheless, could you be more specific? When do you believe the Roman
Catholic Church was established? After the Great Schism? Perhaps,
centuries before, e.g. in the time og Constantine? Perhaps some other
time? I'd like to know when it is you believe the RCC came into
existence.

Beyond that, are you saying the true Church had no priesthood or
belief in sacrifice? I ask because such does not seem to be unique to
the RCC (i.e. don't the Orthodox believe in the same thing?).

This is NOT biblical Christianity.

And what, exactly, is Biblical Christianity? With all due respect, I
hope you do not mean a system of scrapping the Traditions of the
Church in favor of your private interpretation of a truncated canon.
Hence the reason I asked: what is "Biblical Christianity"? How do you
define it?

[Catherine Jefferson]

Post by Denis Giron

[W]hat occurred in the establishment of a state
This is NOT biblical Christianity.

And what, exactly, is Biblical Christianity? With all due respect, I
hope you do not mean a system of scrapping the Traditions of the
Church in favor of your private interpretation of a truncated canon.

That's one of the best descriptions I've ever heard of the extreme
evangelical Protestantism I came out of. <wry grin> The source
surprised me, too; you weren't a believer the last time I was paying
attention. ;-) Whether that has changed or not, this was nicely said!

The attitude you describe is an extreme within Protestantism, however;
it isn't the whole of it. I don't believe it represents how the
majority of Protestants believe, even in the United States or the Bible
Belt.

Post by Denis Giron
Hence the reason I asked: what is "Biblical Christianity"? How do you
define it?

I wouldn't mind hearing some definitions of this term from everyone that
uses it. You may get as many definitions as you do people who answer,
of course. (But put five Orthodox Christians in one room and on any
subject but the fundamentals of the Faith, you're likely to get six
opinions. Unless they're all monks or nuns, and then they'll be too
busy praying for the world to talk about worldly matters, or so we
hope.) ;-)


Under His mercy,

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Denis Giron

[W]hat occurred in the establishment of a state
church, i.e. Roman Catholic (a contradiction in
terms- how can it be catholic and yet centered
in Roman?) began this denominational ball rolling.
=A0It re-established what had been abandoned,
namely a priesthood and yet another sacrificial
system.

This caught my eye.
First, regarding the term "Roman Catholic," I was under the impression
that was meant to distinguish it from other churches claiming to be
the One, True, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church (e.g. the churches
of Orthodoxy, and even the Anglican Church).
Nonetheless, could you be more specific? When do you believe the Roman
Catholic Church was established? After the Great Schism? Perhaps,
centuries before, e.g. in the time og Constantine? Perhaps some other
time? I'd like to know when it is you believe the RCC came into
existence.

I can't speak for lsenders, but when the Roman Catholic Church was established
is a moot point, and you are likely to get different answers depending on who
you ask.

The answer I would give is that it was established when the Roman Church began
to claim that it was the Catholic Church, but the precise date of that is
difficult to establish.

What is clearer, however, is how it operates.

It can be seen, for example, in the cardinals who elect the Bishjop of Rome.

Originally they were seven cardinal priests and seven cardinal deacons in the
city of Rome itself. They represented the clergy of the diocese in the
election of the bishop.

But now there are cardinals all over the world -- the parish clergy of the
diocese of Rome.

When one diocese has its parish clergy in almost every continent (I don't
think there are any cardinals in Antactica), then you can see what is meant by
the term "Roman Catholic Church" -- it expresses an ecclesiology in which one
diocese -- that of Rome, comprises and constitutes the whole church.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Denis Giron

[W]hat occurred in the =A0establishment of a state
church, i.e. Roman Catholic (a contradiction in
terms- how can it be catholic and yet centered
in Roman?) began this denominational ball rolling.
=3DA0It re-established what had been abandoned,
namely a priesthood and yet another sacrificial
system.

This caught my eye.
First, regarding the term "Roman Catholic," I was under the impression
that was meant to distinguish it from other churches claiming to be
the One, True, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church (e.g. the churches
of Orthodoxy, and even the Anglican Church).

"catholic" as in "catholic epistles" i.e. "general epistles".
"catholic" as in "universal"
a. universal: all believers in all ages
b. universal: all believers today, around the world

Hence, when one adds the specificity of "Roman" catholic, it destroys
the actually meaning of the term. For one, it denies all other
Christian denominations. You won't read such strict language in
Western RC rags, but if you look at the publications and comments from
Rome, it is very much teaching this. Look at the old catechisms.
Read what many Roman (living in Rome) bishops & cardinals have written
as to the nature of the exclusivity of RCism.

The 39 articles of the Anglican Church came out of the same
reformational base as did the Westminster Confession. They correctly
use the term "catholic".

Post by Denis Giron
Nonetheless, could you be more specific? When do you believe the Roman
Catholic Church was established? After the Great Schism? Perhaps,
centuries before, e.g. in the time og Constantine? Perhaps some other
time? I'd like to know when it is you believe the RCC came into
existence.

Hard dates are hard to determine. The Roman ecclesiastical unit was
made the religion of the state for a time before the pagan religions
won back their prominence, only to lose it again once and for all.
Well sort of. Here again, you will not find the RCC US admitting to
it, but with great bravado the central RCC does, that it is synthetic
in its theological formation. How can it be denied historically? It
absorbs the religious customs of the culture it invades (yes, I really
mean the harshness of that term. Read about the history of Cuba and
Haiti, Puerto Rico and Jamaica and the RC "evangelism" paradigm of
convert or die. Search "Hatuey"). It takes the superstitions
(doctrines of demons) of a particular culture and waves the magic wand
of "christianity" over them to legitimize them- quiet regardless of
the what Biblical authority teaches or demands.

Post by Denis Giron
Beyond that, are you saying the true Church had no priesthood or
belief in sacrifice? I ask because such does not seem to be unique to
the RCC (i.e. don't the Orthodox believe in the same thing?).

What the RC church did, largely because it swallowed up the pagan
religions of Rome and Greece as became the state church of Rome, was
to take those pagan practices and incorporate them into the religious
practices and beliefs in order to satiate the many and powerful pagan
religions.

Now, later you as about "biblical Christianity." The bible teaches of
only two accepted priesthoods as established by God. Of course we
immediately think of the Aaronic priesthood established at the giving
of the Law at Sinai. The tribe of Levi were the only tribe to realize
this calling and function. You not only had to be a descendent of
Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, but also of Levi to be a priest. So this
priesthood was not only exclusively Jewish, it was also exclusively of
Levi lineage.

Of the second priesthood authorized and legitimatized, that of course
is the mysterious priesthood of Melchizedek which the author of
Hebrews quite well established as being the the superior of the
Aaronic. This is the priesthood that typifies Christ. This is the
only legitimate priesthood today according to the testimony of the
NT. Again, the author of Hebrews has much play in this. In his
inspired warning against those 1 century Jews from turning away from
the atonement won by Christ and returning to the Levitical sacrifices,
it is clear to see that no longer is there any need of yet another
priesthood or another sacrificial system.

We could discuss this at great length but there is really no need.
THe NT is clear in its teaching.

Post by Denis Giron

This is NOT biblical Christianity.

And what, exactly, is Biblical Christianity? With all due respect, I
hope you do not mean a system of scrapping the Traditions of the
Church

First off, please list and define the "traditions of the church" for
us all. I await with bated breath.

Biblical Christianity maintains that God has left His Church but one
and only one sure source of authoritative safeguard against error-
the Scriptures, all 66 books. It is a naive fallacy to think one can
bring these so called "traditions" along side of the Scriptures while
maintaining the authority of each. "There can be only one!" As soon
as you inaugurate such a paradigmatic shift, you destroy Scripture.
"A man cannot serve two masters." It raise "tradition" up to the
authoritative level of Scripture is to immediately lower Scripture to
serve as a perfunctory of those traditions.

THis is part of the foundational objections of the Reformation. Sola
scripture is both theo-logically and logically demanded. Scripture
stands over ALL traditions of men. To the degree they flow out of
scripture, they are to be taught as doctrine and dogma of the Church.
To the degree they do not, they are to be discarded.

Post by Denis Giron
in favor of your private interpretation of a truncated canon.
Hence the reason I asked: what is "Biblical Christianity"? How do you
define it?

"private interpretation." Now here we could spend an exorbitant
amount of time. But as a brief note, it is not what 99.9% define it
to be. I suggest you read Edwards lengthy exposition on this
subject. Charles would point you to Calvin, but I think Edwards is
the superior.

"truncated canon" exposes a bit of hostility! Again, preferring to be
brief, any regenerated man/woman who has matured in the faith and fed
upon the 66 books has no difficulty of spiritually discerning the
inferiority of the Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha writings.

It has been a year or so since I last visited what the 1st & 2nd
century church were enlightened to believe were canonical, but as I
recall my study, though the apocryphal writings were oft referred to,
they were clearly not held up along side what has today become the
Bible outside of the RC faith. Of course this would soon take us into
an in-depth analysis of 2 Pet and Jude, the impetus of my last journey
into this study, but critical analysis has only solidified their place
in the canon and denied apocryphal texts of which they reference.

The question is about this or that particular system of theology,
though this is determinative in much, it is about correctly answering
the question, "And who do you say I am?" Idolatry is anything that
answers the question incorrectly; anything which does not, from the
heart, correctly regard the reality. Beyond that all things are
secondary. Satan and his evil horde can expound the scriptures better
than any man who ever lived. Their doctrinal statements would be
second to none. But what does it matter? (James 2:19)

There is but One Advocate, One Mediator. There is no longer any need
of any supposed priesthood let alone co-matrix. Salvation is by faith
alone. "It is finished" was the Greek equivalent to "Paid in Full."
The atonement of Christ was both vicarious and penal. "In my place
condemned He stood." You should pick up a copy and read it for
yourself. Only true faith in the true Christ matters. The RC
organization declares that it is means of salvation. It draws its
congregants under its wings, placating / pacifying sin with externals,
making itself out to be the true source of mediatorial advocacy.
"Broad is the path unto eternal damnation."

THis is about false religion.

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Post by Denis Giron

[W]hat occurred in the =A0establishment of a state
church, i.e. Roman Catholic (a contradiction in
terms- how can it be catholic and yet centered
in Roman?) began this denominational ball rolling.

First, regarding the term "Roman Catholic," I was under the impression
that was meant to distinguish it from other churches claiming to be
the One, True, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church (e.g. the churches
of Orthodoxy, and even the Anglican Church).

I recall years ago that Catholics objected to the term Roman Catholic
for exactly the reason suggested: there is only one Catholic church.
Calling it Roman was considered a Protestant insult.

More recently the term does seem to be used by Catholics themselves.

There is actually some justification. According to Catholic theology,
the pope has 2 different roles: partriarch of one particular church,
the Roman Catholic Church, and overall leader of Christianity.

There are 22 other catholic churches that acknowledge the Pope as
overall leader, but have their own patriarch or equivalent. These are
the Eastern Catholic Churches, e.g. the Armenian Catholic Church.
Don't confuse these with the Eastern Orthodox churches. These are
churches that are in full communion with the Pope, and over which he
has control. However in principle he does not have the same type of
direct control that he does over the Roman Catholic Church. Each of
these churches has its own leader.

So Roman Catholic can be used to refer to one of a number of different
churches, all in communion with the Pope.

[Denis Giron]

Post by Steve Hayes
I can't speak for lsenders, but when the Roman Catholic Church
was established is a moot point, and you are likely to get different
answers depending on who you ask.

Greetings Mr. Hayes.

I agree that the answer will differ depending on whom you ask, and I
think you are approaching the subject from the complete opposite end
of the spectrum from which Loren Senders was approaching the issue. I
would think your approach is more informed in terms of Christian
history, and perhaps a bit over my head at this time.

Mr. Senders approach, on the other hand, struck me as egregiously

Post by Steve Hayes

[W]hat occurred in the establishment of a state
church, i.e. Roman Catholic (a contradiction in
terms- how can it be catholic and yet centered
in Roman?) began this denominational ball rolling.
It re-established what had been abandoned,
namely a priesthood and yet another sacrificial
system.

Does the beginning of the RCC roughly coincide with the existence of a
Christian priesthood and a belief that a type of sacrifice is
presented on the altar at mass? I suspect you might say no, but Mr.
Senders seems to clearly be saying yes.

If I'm not mistaken, you view the RCC from the vantage point of an
Orthodox Christian. Mr. Senders seems to view it in a way in which the
Orthodox Church is irrelevant. This is something I have seen come up
in conversations with Protestants before. They'll name a number of
alleged heresies or corruptions distinct to the RCC (Mr. Senders
mentioned the priesthood and, if I didn't misunderstand him, belief
that the eucharist is a type of sacrifice, and others I have spoken
with in the past have mentioned iconography, confession, belief in the
intercession of saints, prayers for the dead, belief in Mary as Ever-
Virgin, and, of course, calling priests "father"!). When I object that
the Orthodox believe the same things, the person I am talking with
either (A) is wholly unfamiliar with what I am referring to, or (B)
just waves off the Orthodox Church as an obvious branch of Rome. I
wanted to see if Mr. Senders fell into either of these camps.

In other words, the sort of logic that Mr. Senders *seemed* to be
employing was one I am familiar with, and one which can easily lead to
conclusions which seem to obviously be false (e.g. that the RCC
actually began in 325, or that long-time SRC poster Matthew Johnson
is, even unbeknownst to himself, is actually a Roman Catholic, et
cetera). But of course, I could be wrong about Mr. Senders. Perhaps I
misread his post! This is why I asked the questions I did, and await
his answers.

[Denis Giron]

Post by Catherine Jefferson
...

Greetings Catherine!

Post by Catherine Jefferson
That's one of the best descriptions I've ever heard of the
extreme evangelical Protestantism I came out of. <wry grin>
The source surprised me, too; you weren't a believer the last
time I was paying attention. ;-) =A0Whether that has changed
or not, this was nicely said!

Regarding the statement being out of place considering the source, I
would offer one word: evolution. As far as emoticons are concerned,
";-)" indeed!

In all seriousness, while such has not been too obvious over usenet,
over the last few years I have, first, come to consider theism
rational rather than irrational, and then, more specifically, come to
consider Christianity the more appealing of the major faiths I am
familiar with. Perhaps one can thank the writings of William Lane
Craig for me adopting those two positions.

But of course, anyone who is considering Christianity is going to be
forced to decide between the myriad of different groups calling
themselves Christian. Personally, I quickly concluded that all the
sorts of "Bible only" interpretations of Christianity were logically
inconsistent. At this point, I'm standing at the fork in the road
between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I've sort of alluded
to this evolution in past posts to SRC, e.g.:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/msg/b78cf6644b0f6417

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/msg/79ff486a916244f8

Post by Catherine Jefferson
The attitude you describe is an extreme within Protestantism,
however; it isn't the whole of it. =A0I don't believe it represents
how the majority of Protestants believe, even in the United
States or the Bible Belt.

I'm not sure I agree with you. Aside from a few High Church Anglicans
(or Anglican Traditionalists), it seems to me that almost all
Protestants believe in specifically the 66-book canon (i.e. the 27
book New Testament combined with the Masoretic Text), and further,
that their understanding of that canon is the final bar by which all
doctrines are tested. Now , admittedly, they would not claim their
understanding is mere "private interpretation," but, honestly, that is
what it is.

In fact, this method is precisely the reason for the vast amount of
differences and division among Protestants. The point I like to
meditate on is the following: Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians
have been separated from one another for nearly a thousand years.
Protestants and Roman Catholics have been separated for about half
that amount of time. Yet notice how similar Roman Catholicism and
Orthodoxy still are, and constrast it with (A) the major differences
between some Protestant sects and Roman Catholicism, as well as the
vast differences across the Protestant spectrum itself.

I have a great deal more to say on this issue, but I'll stop here. In
the mean time, I was hoping you could elaborate on what you meant
above (i.e. your understanding of the Protestant spectrum).

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Post by Denis Giron
But of course, anyone who is considering Christianity is going to be
forced to decide between the myriad of different groups calling
themselves Christian. Personally, I quickly concluded that all the
sorts of "Bible only" interpretations of Christianity were logically
inconsistent. At this point, I'm standing at the fork in the road
between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I've sort of alluded

Several postings here have talked about Biblical Christianity or
"Bible only."

Of course all branches of Christianity believe that they are Biblical.
What distinguished the Reformers is that they believed it was possible
to use the Bible to correct long-standing Catholic doctrine and
practice. Catholics used Tradition as a defense, so the debate came to
be couched in terms of Scripture vs. Tradition.

However if you look at what was really going on, it's clear that the
real question was organizational control over intrepretation of
Scripture. The Reformers never intended (or practiced) an unregulated
right of individual interpretation. However they did believe that it
was possible for churches over time to build up error. If you're going
to fix that, there has to be some ability to challenge current
interpretation.

In fact Lutheran and Reformed churches continued to have tradition.
Furthermore, they continued to make theological judgements as a
community. They did not intend to have individuals operating
independently. But they did allow individuals the right to call for a
reexamination on Scriptural grounds, and claim that a change was
needed. But this was a call on the community, not a completely
independent thing.

So in practice the Reformers really wanted a balance of community,
tradition, and individual interpretation. However they had to
emphasize the right of individual interpretation, because if they
didn't establish at least some level of that, the institution would
rule any demands for reconsideration out of order.

The second issue was whether tradition was a separate source of
doctrine. The question isn't whether there could be traditions of
Scriptural interpretation. Protestants certainly have that. Because
circumstances change, and new questions arise out of new contexts,
there are plenty of questions not directly addressed in Scripture, and
traditions of how to handle these things. All of this is just fine
for Protestants (as long as people are allowed to challenge them
now and then).

But what I'm talking about are ideas which if true would have to be
known by revelation. The Protestant claim is that Scripture contains
all of public revelation. Tradition can look at how to interpret or
apply it, but tradition doesn't contain any genuinely new revelation.

---------

Things happened in the 16th Cent that the Reformers didn't want.
In my view they happened because by that time, the State was in many
cases either unwilling or unable to enforce doctrinal conformity.

There had always been a wide variety of alternative views. However
they had previously been either coopted or burned at the stake. In the
16th Cent this no longer became possible. Luther and Calvin were able
to operate because of new political situations. But the same political
changes saw to it that we had not just the Lutheran and Reformed
Churches, but a growing group of others. And of course in the US the
political situation was even more favorable.

In my view the Christian Church as a whole had an unsolved problem
left over from its very early days. Church unity had come from a
government that believed doctrinal conformity was politically
important, from Constantine's time. It's only around the 16th Century
that the church had to start facing the question of how to maintain
unity without coercion. And in the beginning it didn't do a very good
job. In the last 50 - 100 years Protestants have started coming to
grips with it. This includes a reappropriation of parts of church
history, and parachurch or ecumenical discussions leading to standards
with fairly widespread acceptance. While there are certainly some
disagreements, evangelical churches agree on quite a substantial body
of theology, and I think have learned to be tolerant in the areas
where agreement hasn't been reached. Similarly the liberal end of
Protestantism.

I prefer this kind of hard-won agreement than living on the
inheritance of Constantine. It's uncomfortable, but I think will lead
to better results. I'm not bothered that there are large areas where
we have to agree to tolerate disagreement. I see little evidence that
Jesus wanted the kind of doctrinal conformity that came to
characterize the church.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Catherine Jefferson

What is "Biblical Christianity"? How do you define it?

I wouldn't mind hearing some definitions of this term from everyone that
uses it.

I don't use the term very often because I like to communicate
effectively and I am always unsure what my hearer will presuppose
"Biblical Christianity" means.

I would use the term to describe a Christianity that accepts nothing
as coming from God except via the Bible. I have read in one
theological work a sentence I remember as "All we know about God is
what we find in the Bible." I thought it was Charles Hodge's
"Systematic Theology", but what I find there under the rubric
"Theology a Science" is nowhere near as pithy, although, as far as I
can tell, it means the same thing. For example, Hodge says "the Bible
contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate,
arrange and exhibit in their internal relation to each other." Whether
or not Hodge actually adheres to his stated standard is a different
question.

I don't think one should lump Hodge, and men (no women, so far as I
know) like him together with redneck TV preachers in an single
derogatory category.

I will stop here because I am not a fan of what I call Biblical
Christianity and, as a consequence, I not in a position to discuss it
dispassionately.

[Denis Giron]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"catholic" as in "catholic epistles" i.e. "general epistles".
"catholic" as in "universal"
=A0 =A0 =A0a. =A0universal: =A0all believers in all ages
=A0 =A0 =A0b. =A0universal: =A0all believers today, around the world
Hence, when one adds the specificity of "Roman" catholic,
it destroys the actually meaning of the term.

As Mr. Hedrick noted, the term originally was employed as a slur.
Nonetheless, as it is used today (whether by a member of the RCC, or
by an critic), it is meant to distinguis the RCC from other churches
which also claim to be the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church (such as the Orthodox Church(es), and the Anglican church).

Regarding points (a) and (b) above, the RCC absolutely teaches that
its teachings are for all believers in all ages, including all
believers today, around the world. I am confident that you do not
actually think otherwise. So where is the alleged contradiction?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
For one, it denies all other Christian
denominations.

What is the other option? Recognize all other Christian denominations?
It seems plainly obvious to me that there is one truth. Either a
Church is teaching the truth, or it is not. Either you're part of the
Church built by Christ, or you are not. Why should any church
recognize "denominations" which teach contrary to its own doctrines?
Do you recognize all denominations? Do you recognize the RCC, or deny
it? What about the Greek Orthodox church? What about the Mormons,
Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Black Israelites and
members of the Creciendo en Gracia cult? What are the limits to
reognizing or denying other denominations.

In all honesty, I have no idea what you have in mind with such an
objection above. Romans 16:17 seems to make it clear that one is to be
wary of recognizing those who divide themselves from the Church or
teach contrary to the Church. In fact, 1 John 2:18-19 seems to make it
clear that those who separate from the Church are antiChrists. Do you
think a body which considers itself the Church should ignore such
verses, and recognize those who separate from the Church, cause
divisions, and teach doctrines contrary to the Church?

Your objection is perplexing, as it seems give the impression that you
think a Church is automatically false if it is intolerant of groups
which teach different doctrines. Galatians 1:8 comes to mind, so I
would ask that you please elaborate on what you had in mind above.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The 39 articles of the Anglican Church came out of
the same reformational base as did the Westminster
Confession. =A0They correctly use the term "catholic".

Interesting. Could you be more specific? Just recently I started
reading about the notion of "brance theory" employed by certain High
Church Anglicans in the 19th century, but it is a subject I am not at
all familiar with, hence the reason I asked you to elaborate.

Also, don't some High Church Anglicans call themselves "Anglo-
Catholics"? How is the Church of England being Catholic not a
contradiction, while the Vatican being Catholic is?

Finally, on this portion, note that I have not specifically said the
RCC is the Church. I'm open to the possibility that it is not, and
that rather one of the Orthodox Churches is. But then I look at the
Anglican communion today, with their openly gay bishops, their
openness to contradictory approaches to doctrine, and their ArchBishop
who writes books attempting to overturn ancient notions of heresy
(e.g. does Rowan Williams believe the heresy of Arius is still a
heresy today), et cetera. If I was comparing the RCC and/or Orthodoxy,
on the one hand, and the Anglican communion, on the other, I can't see
by what stretch of the imagination I would conclude that the latter is
the Church built by Christ (or even a part of it).

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Hard dates are hard to determine.

Fine, you don't have to give a hard date. You can give a general span
of years, decades or even centuries. Judging by what you wrote next...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Roman ecclesiastical unit was made the religion
of the state for a time before the pagan religions
won back their prominence, only to lose it again once
and for all.

...I'm still wondering if you're thinking of the RCC starting some
time around the time of Constantine. Surely, if that is your position,
I imagine the Orthodox readers/contributors of this newsgroup would
raise an eyebrow at such. So, again, when is it that you believe the
RCC began? I'm not asking for a hard and fast date, but try to be
specific. I want to see what, exactly, it is that you're claiming.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now, later you as about "biblical Christianity." =A0The bible
teaches of only two accepted priesthoods as established
by God.

Romans 15:16 gives the impression that Paul was a sort of priest. Now,
he was a Benjaminite, not a Levite, so obviously he was not a Levite,
and thus was not part of the Aaronic priesthood you spoke of. But let
me ask you, is there a priesthood in existence in the post-
Resurrection of Christ? Your post seemed to imply the answer is no,
while this verse in Romans (so too Revelation 5:10) seems to give the
impression the answer is actually yes.

Therefore, I would ask that you elaborate on your understanding of the
priesthood. Originally I thought you believed there should be no
priesthood today, but you said the priesthood of Melchitsedeq is "the
only legitimate priesthood today," so could you be more clear?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
First off, please list and define the "traditions of the church" for
us all. =A0I await with bated breath.

I do not have an exhaustive list of the Traditions of the Church.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Biblical Christianity maintains that God has left
His Church but one and only one sure source
of authoritative safeguard against error-
the Scriptures, all 66 books.

This would seem to be a tradition of Loren Senders (and other
Protestants). Where in the Bible does it say the one and ONLY source
is the 66 book canon? In fact, where does your canon even list the
canon? It seems that from the very beginning, to even know what books
are part of the Bible, one has to go to some source outside the Bible,
hence the reason I wrote to Catherine that I find Bible-only
Christianity to be logically inconsistent.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is a naive fallacy to think one can
bring these so called "traditions" along
side of the Scriptures

Actually, from 2 Thessalonians 2:15 I conclude that Scripture itself
is a type of Tradition, and, aside from that, there is also an Oral
Tradition. I'm not talking about mere inauthentic traditions of men,
but rather authentic Traditions of the Church. Luke 8:10 gives me the
impression that true understanding was given to the Apostles, hence
the reason we should, rather than just winging it, humble ourselves
and admit the same thing the Ethiopian in Acts 8:31 confessed: we
cannot understand the Scriptures without the guidance of the
Apostles.

Christ did not just hand people the Bible; rather HE BUILT A CHURCH
(Matthew 16:18). This is what separates Catholics/Orthodox on the one
hand, from most Protestants today on the other: the former believes
the Church, and not the Bible alone, is the pillar and foundation of
truth, while most Protestants today seem to think it is the 66-book
canon alone. Where do you stand Loren? Do you accept the Church as the
pillar and foundation of truth? Or do you instead wish to replace the
church with the 66-book canon and hold that up as the pillar and
foundation of truth?

Personally, as per the passage in Thessalonians I quoted above, I
think we are to hold to the traditions of that Church which Christ
built, both oral and written. It seems to me the Bible itself is
telling us that Scripture is not for every fool, cretin and witless
crayfish to make sense of by himself, rather the believers'
understanding of the scriptures is to be guided by the Apostles, whom
Christ gave the true understanding. Humorously, Bible-only
Christianity does not strike me as being very Biblical.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"truncated canon" exposes a bit of hostility! =A0Again, preferring
to be brief, any regenerated man/woman who has matured in
the faith and fed upon the 66 books has no difficulty of
spiritually discerning the inferiority of the Apocrypha &
Pseudepigrapha writings.

With all due respect, this strikes me as an empty slogan. I don't see
on what grounds one would conclude, for example, that Sirach is
spiritually inferior to the Protestant/Masoretic version of Esther.

But I don't think we should trust either my gut feeling or your own on
this matter. To say that you can discern what is and is not Scripture
puts Scripture beneath you. Rather than you submitting to Scripture,
you think yourself able to tell Scripture whether it is correct or
not. This sort of approach has disasterous effects, as on the radical
fringe of the Protestant spectrum, I am meeting more and more anti-
Pauline "Christians" (some fancying themselves some sort of neo-
Ebionites, and all of them thinking it can be demonstrated that the
Pauline epistles are not in harmony with the rest of Scripture). The
canon is not determined by the gut feelings of an individual.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It has been a year or so since I last visited what the 1st & 2nd
century church were enlightened to believe were canonical, but as I
recall my study, though the apocryphal writings were oft referred to,
they were clearly not held up along side what has today become the
Bible outside of the RC faith.

Actually, my own reading of the Ante-Nicene fathers shows several
quoting texts not found in the Protestant canon as sacred Scripture.
Furthermore, one of the earliest canon lists is found in the
Muratorian fragment, and it seems to treat Wisdom as Scriptural.

But what are you saying here, Loren? That you determine the canon
based on a reading of certain Church Fathers or ancient Christian
documents? If not, then what, exactly, is the source of your TRADTION
about the canon being strictly 66 books? This has recently become a
favorite discussion topic of mine, and I would love to explore the
issue with you.

[Catherine Jefferson]

***@geneva.rutgers.edu wrote:

<snip, but read>

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
In my view the Christian Church as a whole had an unsolved problem
left over from its very early days. Church unity had come from a
government that believed doctrinal conformity was politically
important, from Constantine's time. It's only around the 16th Century
that the church had to start facing the question of how to maintain
unity without coercion. And in the beginning it didn't do a very good
job. In the last 50 - 100 years Protestants have started coming to
grips with it. This includes a reappropriation of parts of church
history, and parachurch or ecumenical discussions leading to standards
with fairly widespread acceptance. While there are certainly some
disagreements, evangelical churches agree on quite a substantial body
of theology, and I think have learned to be tolerant in the areas
where agreement hasn't been reached. Similarly the liberal end of
Protestantism.
I prefer this kind of hard-won agreement than living on the
inheritance of Constantine. It's uncomfortable, but I think will lead
to better results. I'm not bothered that there are large areas where
we have to agree to tolerate disagreement. I see little evidence that
Jesus wanted the kind of doctrinal conformity that came to
characterize the church.

Well put, and I think this expresses better than I did what I was trying
to communicate about what I've come to see in much of Protestantism.
This is also much less an absolute view of "sola scriptura" than one
would expect listening only to a few Church of Christ or Baptist
preachers. ;-)

If I'm understanding Charles right, he views sola scriptura, not as an
absolute dogma, but as a corrective medicine applied at a particular
place and time to what he views as the doctrinal errors of the Catholic
Church at that time. (Does that reflect what you were saying correctly,
Charles?) If so, that's considerably closer to my own view of the Holy
Scriptures as the core of Holy Tradition than it is to the "Bible only;
no interpretations" of my old church.

I suspect my thoroughly Evangelical husband would agree with most of
what Charles wrote, as well, and this thoroughly Evangelical man married
me in an Orthodox Church ceremony and comes to church with me on
occasion. :-)

[Catherine Jefferson]

Post by Denis Giron

Post by Catherine Jefferson
That's one of the best descriptions I've ever heard of the
extreme evangelical Protestantism I came out of. <wry grin>
The source surprised me, too; you weren't a believer the last
time I was paying attention. ;-) =A0Whether that has changed
or not, this was nicely said!

Regarding the statement being out of place considering the source, I
would offer one word: evolution. As far as emoticons are concerned,
";-)" indeed!

Or ;P. Out of place it ain't; I just wasn't paying much ongoing
attention in here for a period of a few years. I assume I didn't see
any of the posts you made that would have clued me in to changes.

Post by Denis Giron
In all seriousness, while such has not been too obvious over usenet,
over the last few years I have, first, come to consider theism
rational rather than irrational, and then, more specifically, come to
consider Christianity the more appealing of the major faiths I am
familiar with. Perhaps one can thank the writings of William Lane
Craig for me adopting those two positions.

<noting to go pick up some books by William Lane Craig> That is news
indeed. :-)

Post by Denis Giron
But of course, anyone who is considering Christianity is going to be
forced to decide between the myriad of different groups calling
themselves Christian. Personally, I quickly concluded that all the
sorts of "Bible only" interpretations of Christianity were logically
inconsistent. At this point, I'm standing at the fork in the road
between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I've sort of alluded
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/msg/b78cf6644b0f6417
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/msg/79ff486a916244f8

I'll go read those later, when I can give them the attention they deserve.

During the late 1980s and especially the early 1990s I came to the same
conclusions you did about "sola scriptura", which is probably largely
why I'm an Orthodox Christian. I simply couldn't put the pieces of
Christianity together in a way that made sense overall while holding to
a belief that the source of all dogma and reliable information about God
and His will was the written text of the Holy Scriptures. That belief
made sense to me when I was fourteen, but a lot of oversimplifications
made sense then that quit making sense as I grew up. <wry grin>

Post by Denis Giron

Post by Catherine Jefferson
The attitude you describe is an extreme within Protestantism,
however; it isn't the whole of it. I don't believe it represents
how the majority of Protestants believe, even in the United
States or the Bible Belt.

I'm not sure I agree with you. Aside from a few High Church Anglicans
(or Anglican Traditionalists), it seems to me that almost all
Protestants believe in specifically the 66-book canon (i.e. the 27
book New Testament combined with the Masoretic Text), and further,
that their understanding of that canon is the final bar by which all
doctrines are tested. Now , admittedly, they would not claim their
understanding is mere "private interpretation," but, honestly, that is
what it is.

I'd be careful coming to that conclusion, simply because you're
asserting an ability to read their minds and intentions. Unless you've
got a special gift from the Holy Spirit in that regard, you're limited
to looking at their actions and at the logical consequences of what they
profess rather than at what they actually believe.

I tend to agree with you that any Evangelicalism rooted in Martin
Luther's dogma of "sola scriptura" has the logical consequence of making
each believer ultimately and completely responsible for his own
understanding of what God meant to tell us. I don't think that's what
God intended, or that it works well among human beings. Another reason
I eventually ended up an Orthodox Christian.

But that may not in fact be what any individual Protestant believes.
What people believe often *isn't* logically connected to everything else
that they believe; certainly not everything I believe is logically
connected to everything else I believe. I've known many Protestants
whom I've concluded do not believe that they alone are responsible for
interpreting the Holy Scripture, and do actually believe that God does
so through His Church. They simply don't have the same theological
structure as a foundation that a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would.

Post by Denis Giron
In fact, this method is precisely the reason for the vast amount of
differences and division among Protestants. The point I like to
meditate on is the following: Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians
have been separated from one another for nearly a thousand years.
Protestants and Roman Catholics have been separated for about half
that amount of time. Yet notice how similar Roman Catholicism and
Orthodoxy still are, and constrast it with (A) the major differences
between some Protestant sects and Roman Catholicism, as well as the
vast differences across the Protestant spectrum itself.

Another case in point; compare the theology and liturgical practices of
the Egyptian Copts with those of Orthodox Christians. And the Copts
split off from the main body of the Christian Church less than 500 years
after it was founded, which is over 500 years *before* the Catholic and
Orthodox Churches separated.

I've attended a number of Coptic services, particularly during Holy
Lent. I don't take communion there, of course, but I can pray in those
services with no feeling that I'm visiting something foreign to me. If
you pay attention, Coptic services can be distinguished from Orthodox
services, but you have to pay attention. The theological differences
between the two are real, but considerably less in my opinion than
between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches despite the even longer
estrangement.

Post by Denis Giron
I have a great deal more to say on this issue, but I'll stop here. In
the mean time, I was hoping you could elaborate on what you meant
above (i.e. your understanding of the Protestant spectrum).

I came out of an extreme part of Protestantism: the Restorationist
Churches of Christ, and later an offshoot of them that drifted into
being a cult, with all the attendant weirdness. Both before and after I
became an Orthodox Christian, I slowly came to realize how different my
experience of Protestantism was from many more mainstream Protestants,
and even evangelical Protestants.

First, C. S. Lewis was much of the reason I started reading the Church
Fathers; his work is absolutely steeped in them, and to some extent in
the Holy Tradition itself. Second, as a human rights activist I became
familiar with a number of WWII-era German Lutheran theologians,
including Martin Niemoeller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and I started
reading their works. (I read German, which helped.) Third, I
rediscovered the work of Francis Schaeffer, an American
Presbyterian/Calvinist theologian and Christian apologist. That was fun
-- I both vehemently disagreed with much of his theology, and found his
apologetic work "The God Who is There" one of the most profoundly moving
works of its type I'd ever read. All of this, of course, was mixed in
with reading a much larger amount of work by Catholic writers (Thomas
Merton in the late 1980s, then John Cardinal Neumann and several others
in the 1990s) and (of course) Orthodox Christian writers.

At some point after I'd become Orthodox, I quit seeing Protestantism
primarily through the lens of my own experience because I became aware
of how limited my own experience was and how different much of it was
from *anything* I'd known. Treating it as a single phenomenon isn't all
that useful, I find, because whatever similar roots the different groups
of Protestants have, they're in very different places now.

On a side note, I am in the process of moving about 500 miles this
weekend and in bits and pieces for the next month, so if I'm a little
slow to reply, that's what is happening. :-)


Under His mercy,

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Post by Catherine Jefferson
If I'm understanding Charles right, he views sola scriptura, not as an
absolute dogma, but as a corrective medicine applied at a particular
place and time to what he views as the doctrinal errors of the Catholic
Church at that time. (Does that reflect what you were saying correctly,
Charles?) If so, that's considerably closer to my own view of the Holy
Scriptures as the core of Holy Tradition than it is to the "Bible only;
no interpretations" of my old church.

Of course "no interpretations" is just silly. Nothing is so dangerous
as someone who thinks they're not interpreting, because then they
don't pay attention to precautions against having individuals go off
half-cocked. But the Reformers were never quite so naive as that.

Certainly the way it was expressed had to with the historical context.
But it has permanent value if the term "only" is understood properly.
I.e. Scripture is the only what?

I think the term makes sense if we say that Scripture is from a
practical point of view the only account we have of God's public
revelation. That's important. In the end, we can only know God because
he has revealed himself to us. If we can't trace back our ideas about
him to revelation, we're in trouble.

But Scripture as a text is not the "only" thing we need to pay
attention to. Certainly the experience of Christians in trying to
apply it in the course of their lives is important, as is the role of
the community in interpreting it and living out its teachings
together.

The reason I'm a bit wary of saying that "sola scriptura" as a term is
primarily from one time in church history is because the need that led
to it isn't confined to the past. The Church needs reformation on a
continuing basis. Thus it's important to continue accepting the right
of individuals or small groups to hold the Church to account based on
Scripture. We don't need to emphasize the need to pay attention to the
interpretations currently held by organizations. Organizations are
quite capable of looking out after their own interests without any
further encouragement. It's the right of individuals to play a
prophetic role that needs reinforcement, if we're going to have any
hope of balance. And certainly I do want balance. Half-baked
individual interpretation and unexamined traditional interpretations
both have serious risks that we need to worry about.

[Catherine Jefferson]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Catherine Jefferson

What is "Biblical Christianity"? How do you define it?

I wouldn't mind hearing some definitions of this term from everyone that
uses it.

I don't use the term very often because I like to communicate
effectively and I am always unsure what my hearer will presuppose
"Biblical Christianity" means.
I would use the term to describe a Christianity that accepts nothing
as coming from God except via the Bible.

That is exactly what the Restorationist Churches of Christ believed and
taught when I was in them in the 1970s and 1980s. The thing is, that
rules out *all* of the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, who
definitely believe that the Holy Spirit communicates to believers today,
and many mainstream Protestant churches as well. Some of these churches
would vehemently defend their right to call themselves "Biblical"
because they believe that they believe and teach what the Apostles
taught and was recorded in the New Testament.

Post by DKleinecke
I have read in one
theological work a sentence I remember as "All we know about God is
what we find in the Bible." I thought it was Charles Hodge's
"Systematic Theology", but what I find there under the rubric
"Theology a Science" is nowhere near as pithy, although, as far as I
can tell, it means the same thing. For example, Hodge says "the Bible
contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate,
arrange and exhibit in their internal relation to each other." Whether
or not Hodge actually adheres to his stated standard is a different
question.
I don't think one should lump Hodge, and men (no women, so far as I
know) like him together with redneck TV preachers in an single
derogatory category.

I'm not a big fan of derogatory categories in general. <wry grin> Human
beings are already too prone to despise other human beings whom they
don't understand.

Post by DKleinecke
I will stop here because I am not a fan of what I call Biblical
Christianity and, as a consequence, I not in a position to discuss it
dispassionately.

I guess an "unchurched Quaker" would not be. ;-) Have you ever been to
a traditional Quaker service?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
However if you look at what was really going on, it's clear that the
real question was organizational control over intrepretation of
Scripture.

Of which I have often sought to emphasize when speaking to
presuppositions in reference to methodology. The allegorical
methodology, whether realized or confessed or not, is method of
establishing ecclesiastical rulership. When one stands upon sola
scripture and scripture interpreting scripture, this paradigm is not
necessary.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
The Reformers never intended (or practiced) an unregulated
right of individual interpretation.

But that is NOT what "individual interpretation" or "private
interpretation"
means biblically. Those who have followed the bible study method of
reading, say for instance, Jude, two or three times a day. a sitting-
not for a week, say for a month at the very least, then following up
that regiment with a similar reading of 2 Pet or even 1 Jn which also
emphasizes heresy, after a time realizes just what is meant by
scripture interpreting scripture (assuming that the reader is indeed
regenerate, having the indwelling Spirit). For he begins to recognize
the inter-relationships of one passage, one thought with other books
or even testament. It is a cohesive whole. One need not go to the
Creeds or traditions of the church to establish for himself the
doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of penal substitutionary
atonement, of eternal damnation of the reprobate, etc. Biblical
theology, is study of God as specially revealed. "Faith comes by
hearing and hearing by the Word of God." It is scripture alone which
the Spirit employs to efficacy whether it be to saving faith or it be
to the outward growth of that faith in sanctification.

Look at those two "post card" epistles of John, the second and third
and note the repetition and meaning of his employment of "Truth." The
more you remove the Truth from an individual the more you inhibit
spiritual growth. There is no other means of true spiritual
maturation. "Be transformed by the renewing of your mind." The mind
is the primary vehicle of the soul by which to bring the called into
contact with God. The battle is always for the mind. 1 Jn 2:12ff
teaches that children become young men via training in the Truth.
It's about understanding the Truth revealed in Scripture so that the
elect may grow to obey it. Nothing else is going to be causal in
spiritual maturity. No amount of church attendence, no amount of
sacerdotalism, no amount of self-mortification of self, is going to
effect sanctification. It is knowing the Truth, loving the Truth,
walking in the Truth, that one is enabled to abide in the Truth.

When Truth is minimized, error fills the void. As in Jude 3, the
Church would much rather gather to talk about our "common salvation."
However, because some never grow beyond initial faith, they "again
entangle" themselves in erroneous thinking and as a result, living. (2
Pet 2:20). Then the Church must "agonize earnestly for The
Faith." (Jude 3) to seek to re-establish Truth, "building yourselves
up on your most holy Faith," ie. "the words that were spoken
beforehand by the apostles or our Lord Jesus Christ" (v.17).

Tradition has no authority except where it expresses the truth of
Scripture. "Holding fast The faithful Word which is in accordance
with The Teaching (doctrine), that he may be able both to exhort in
sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." Tit 1:9

"Preach the Word" (2 Tim 4:2) which contextual is the "sound
doctrine" of v. 3, namely the gospel according to Paul (cp Tit 2:1).
The exhortation to the Church is to "be diligent to present yourself
approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling
accurately the Word of Truth." (2 Tim 2:14) as "solemn charge." By
this are we able to "retain the standard of sound words which you have
heard from me, in The Faith and love which are in Christ Jesus." ( 2
Tim 1:12)

The spiritual assessment that "not many wise are called" speaks to the
fact that it is by the grace of the Spirit's enlightenment that our
"faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of
god." For it is "by_His_doing you are in Christ Jesus who became to
us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and
redemption.." (1 Cor 1:30).

Why do we take the Genesis record literally (following the principles
of the grammatic/historic hermeneutic), because it is His revelation,
His telling of the story, His paradigm that we are to live by faith,
not by independent human cognition. Child like faith is not child
like thinking.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
However they did believe that it
was possible for churches over time to build up error. If you're going
to fix that, there has to be some ability to challenge current
interpretation.
In fact Lutheran and Reformed churches continued to have tradition.

Not all issues were addressed by Luther or by the Reformation that
followed. Traditions were scrutinized, made to conform to Biblical
Truth, and then stated in creeds, confessions and catechisms, quite
unlike the "traditions of men" which are vague like sandlot baseball
rules that the owner of the ball gets to make up when a situation
arises which he seeks to maintain his dominancy.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Furthermore, they continued to make theological judgements as a
community. They did not intend to have individuals operating
independently.

THIS IS NOT WHAT 2 Pet 1:20 refers to.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
But they did allow individuals the right to call for a
reexamination on Scriptural grounds, and claim that a change was
needed. But this was a call on the community, not a completely
independent thing.
So in practice the Reformers really wanted a balance of community,
tradition, and individual interpretation.

But it must be recognized that even as in the Jewish Testament and its
story of Israel, so in the Church Age -God did raise up certain
individuals at certain time who by their own personal enlightenment by
the Spirit, developed either a deeper understanding of biblical
doctrine or gained a new insight. Dan 12:4 & 9 allude to the fact
that enlightenment in regards to that which has already been revealed,
is progressive. The likes of an Augustine, a Luther, a Calvin, Owen
or Edwards do not come along every generation.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
However they had to
emphasize the right of individual interpretation, because if they
didn't establish at least some level of that, the institution would
rule any demands for reconsideration out of order.

Bingo! And that is exactly what we see historically where the
"church" has wandered off into allegorical and ecclesiastical mandated
exposition. This is precisely what tradition is never held equal to
Scripture but always judged by Scripture.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
The second issue was whether tradition was a separate source of
doctrine. The question isn't whether there could be traditions of
Scriptural interpretation. Protestants certainly have that. Because
circumstances change, and new questions arise out of new contexts,
there are plenty of questions not directly addressed in Scripture,

The key word is "directly." Principally everything is addressed, at
least morally. Certain doctrinal questions are not developed or even
addressed for that matter and where Scripture remains silent, we must
conform to the sovereignty of God and not pursue the secret things.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
and
traditions of how to handle these things. All of this is just fine
for Protestants (as long as people are allowed to challenge them
now and then).
But what I'm talking about are ideas which if true would have to be
known by revelation. The Protestant claim is that Scripture contains
all of public revelation. Tradition can look at how to interpret or
apply it, but tradition doesn't contain any genuinely new revelation.
---------
Things happened in the 16th Cent that the Reformers didn't want.
In my view they happened because by that time, the State was in many
cases either unwilling or unable to enforce doctrinal conformity.
There had always been a wide variety of alternative views. However
they had previously been either coopted or burned at the stake. In the
16th Cent this no longer became possible. Luther and Calvin were able
to operate because of new political situations.

Also because Greek and Hebrew were being taught and learnt.
Manuscript development grew. "Reformation" meant a revisit of
Augustine and other fathers. Next to Scripture itself, Calvin more
often refers to Augustine than to anyone or thing (say the RC error
for instance) else.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
But the same political
changes saw to it that we had not just the Lutheran and Reformed
Churches, but a growing group of others.

While what you write is generally true and profitable, in regards to
the history of the Church in England, it was a bit different.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
And of course in the US the
political situation was even more favorable.
In my view the Christian Church as a whole had an unsolved problem
left over from its very early days. Church unity had come from a
government that believed doctrinal conformity was politically
important, from Constantine's time.

But this was extra biblical. The NT paradigm established no supreme
ecclesiastical governor other than the authority of Scripture rightly
divided. None of the Pauline epistle's refer to such. RCism doesn't
have an answer as to why Peter, i.e. "1st Pope" is not mentioned in
Rom. 16. John's apocalypse, the last written book of canon portrays
the 7 representative churches as being independent except in
relationship to Christ. The universal Church was never by Christ nor
the apostle's taught be under one single ecclesiastical government.
The establishment of such an entity, therefore, was work of man, a
fleshy enterprise. It is the mustard seed that grew abnormally into a
great tree of which the black birds came to roost in.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
It's only around the 16th Century
that the church had to start facing the question of how to maintain
unity without coercion.

And so we are back to Jude 3.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
And in the beginning it didn't do a very good
job. In the last 50 - 100 years Protestants have started coming to
grips with it.

At least you have it partly write. It *is* the Protestant
representatives who have had to make the concessions, not the RC
organization. Vatican II made no doctrinial compromises. And lets be
fair, this Protestantism is not classical Reformed Protestantism, but
rather liberal Protestantism. It is revisionary. Rom 1 and PCUSA is
perfect example of this. The present Archbishop of Canterbury is
another excellent exhibition of the erosion away from "things which
make sound doctrine."

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
This includes a reappropriation of parts of church
history, and parachurch or ecumenical discussions leading to standards
with fairly widespread acceptance.

"widespread?" The remnant has always been small.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
While there are certainly some
disagreements, evangelical churches agree on quite a substantial body
of theology,

I don't know what you've been smoking but it has led you off chasing
imaginary white rabbits. The sole doctrine of sola fide jettisons all
such thoughts of "substantial." At it is this doctrine which had many
Protestant leaders who were part of that assembly, later recant and
attempt to clarify why they signed the agreement. J I Packer is the
first to come to mind.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
and I think have learned to be tolerant in the areas
where agreement hasn't been reached. Similarly the liberal end of
Protestantism.

ONLY the liberal end has become tolerant because doctrine divides.
This was the whole point of the Reformation. Either man is totally
depraved (as the doctrine is qualified) or he is not. Either man MUST
be regenerated first inorder to "see the kingdom of God," hence,
incapable of self-orientation, self-resurrection, or his is not.
Either its "all from Him, through Him and to Him," or it is not.
Biblical Christianity is not flexible at these foundational points of
The Faith. Roman has other ideas, however.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I prefer this kind of hard-won agreement

The only thing that was essentially agreed upon when all the dust had
settled what to disagree. That is, except for the liberal camp which
has so devoured the meaning of Scripture that it doesn't really matter
what they do or don't believe. They just make it up as they go. But
Christ was adamant that acceptable worship must be in Truth and in
Spirit. The worldly "church" ignores that decree.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
than living on the
inheritance of Constantine. It's uncomfortable, but I think will lead
to better results.

Sure, it is going to lead to a one world organization which is going
to unite all the religions under one roof. Churchianity, Muslems and
Jews will all be united under the Man of Lawlessness. And this is
exactly what you are left with when you discard the Scriptures as you
have.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I'm not bothered that there are large areas where

"large areas?" Now that is the understatement of the new millennium!

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
we have to agree to tolerate disagreement. I see little evidence that
Jesus wanted the kind of doctrinal conformity that came to
characterize the church.

And if there is no such "doctrinal conformity" then there is Truth and
there is Error, i.e. "doctrines of demons." The Truth never
commingles with anything less. There can be no leaven in the dough.
The is the majority emphasis of the NT epistles. Doctrinal purity.
Biblical Christianity is adamantly exclusive to the religion of man.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Denis Giron
But of course, anyone who is considering Christianity

Isn't going to do anything apart from the leading of the Spirit. God
is still sovereign despite liberalism.

Post by Denis Giron
is going to be
forced to decide between the myriad of different groups calling
themselves Christian.

The decision involves whether or not they want a deeper, personal
relationship with God. For the most part, that leaves out most
catholic churches. When I was an Anglican, I always considered myself
catholic. We were "high" church people as well. We followed the old
prayer book as far as bible reading was concerned but I never remember
an expositional bible sermon. It wasn't until I became a
Dispensational Fundamentalist and began reading a wide variety of
christian authors, that I realized that the Anglican church had had
preachers of the likes of Ryle. I'd still be an Anglican if his type
had been the norm and not the exception. If one has truly been born
again, if nurtured correctly, he isn't going to care so much about
this church or that church as he will be about being fed by a
reasonable reading of the Word.

Post by Denis Giron
Personally, I quickly concluded that all the
sorts of "Bible only" interpretations of Christianity were logically
inconsistent. At this point, I'm standing at the fork in the road
between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I've sort of alluded

Then the Bible is really a nothing to you. You do not regard it as
the infallible Word of God, inspired dictation that God chosen authors
pleasured in writing the revelation of the unknowable God.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by Catherine Jefferson
The attitude you describe is an extreme within Protestantism,
however; it isn't the whole of it. =3DA0I don't believe it represents
how the majority of Protestants believe, even in the United
States or the Bible Belt.

I'm not sure I agree with you. Aside from a few High Church Anglicans
(or Anglican Traditionalists), it seems to me that almost all
Protestants believe in specifically the 66-book canon

Every "high" church I attended only used the Protestant canon. There
is an absolutely excellent English Church history book by the title,
"Anglicans Not Angels." Be careful as there is another book by that
title which a waste of money. My 1789 and my 1945 Prayer Books only
added 1st & 2nd Esdras to the canon.

Post by Denis Giron
(i.e. the 27
book New Testament combined with the Masoretic Text), and further,
that their understanding of that canon is the final bar by which all
doctrines are tested. Now , admittedly, they would not claim their
understanding is mere "private interpretation," but, honestly, that is
what it is.

When is someone actually going to theologically express the correct
understanding of "private interpretation" in the context of Pet.? It
does NOT mean that one man cannot arrive at the Truth by himself apart
from some human agency. What it scripturally means that the
interpretation is void of opinion. It's not like the church secretary
that keeps the notes of meetings and then types up and turns in what
he/she thinks should have been said at the meeting. That is what is
commonly interpreted "private interpretation" to mean. But that is an
uneducated, first look, assumption. It simply means that scripture is
to interpret scripture (i.e. no doctrinal inconsistency) that
audience/ readership, context immediate and broad, culture and word
usage in context and in scripture as a whole, etc. are all involved
in a reasonable reading of the text. It has nothing to do with one
man or one local church arriving at a doctrinal conclusion.

Post by Denis Giron
In fact, this method is precisely the reason for the vast amount of
differences and division among Protestants.

No, the differences, the major differences, have to do with
hermeneutics. Other differences come into play due to
presuppositional differences between liberal and conservative.

Post by Denis Giron
The point I like to
meditate on is the following: Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians
have been separated from one another for nearly a thousand years.
Protestants and Roman Catholics have been separated for about half
that amount of time. Yet notice how similar Roman Catholicism and
Orthodoxy still are, and constrast it with (A) the major differences
between some Protestant sects and Roman Catholicism, as well as the
vast differences across the Protestant spectrum itself.

Doctrine divides. What more need anyone say.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Denis Giron

Post by Steve Hayes
I can't speak for lsenders, but when the Roman Catholic Church
was established is a moot point, and you are likely to get different
answers depending on who you ask.

Greetings Mr. Hayes.
I agree that the answer will differ depending on whom you ask, and I
think you are approaching the subject from the complete opposite end
of the spectrum from which Loren Senders was approaching the issue. I
would think your approach is more informed in terms of Christian
history, and perhaps a bit over my head at this time.

Condensing, in order not to quote too much, I do indeed view the matter from
an Orthodox point of view, and I find it difficult to discuss such things with
Mr Senders, because he makes wildly inaccurate assertions and refuses to
substantiate them. I'm not an expert in all aspects or every period of
history, but I have enough training in the discipline to want historical
statements substantiated in some way, and not based on mere assertion.

When i say that this is a moot point, I mean that I believe it is worth
discussing, because there are all kinds of different assertions floating
around, and a reasonable discussion might achieve greater clarity.

I'm not sure when the term Roman Catholic Church first began to be used. I
suspect (and this is one of the things worth discussing) that it first began
to be used when the popes of Rome began propagating the idea of universal
ordinary jurisdiction (if you don't know what that means, look it up on
Google).

An that is certainly one of the things that the other ancient churches --
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem -- disputed, and it was one
of the disputed points in the schism of 1054.

Post by Denis Giron
Does the beginning of the RCC roughly coincide with the existence of a
Christian priesthood and a belief that a type of sacrifice is
presented on the altar at mass? I suspect you might say no, but Mr.
Senders seems to clearly be saying yes.

Well perhaps Mr Senders could explain what he means by that, because I
certainly don't know what that means. Firstly he would need to define what he
means by priesthood and sacrificial system, and then show from historical
evidence how it coincided with the establishment of a body called the "Roman
Catholic Church".

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Denis Giron

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"catholic" as in "catholic epistles" i.e. "general epistles".
"catholic" as in "universal"
a. universal: =3D all believers in all ages
b. universal: =3D all believers today, around the world

Regarding points (a) and (b) above, the RCC absolutely teaches that
its teachings are for all believers in all ages, including all
believers today, around the world. I am confident that you do not
actually think otherwise. So where is the alleged contradiction?

The contradiction lies in the RC writings which clearly state that
unless one is a member of the RC organization, one is outside of the
"universal church" and in danger of his very soul being lost. Don't
even try to dismiss this accounting because I have been reading their
stuff for too many years and talked to way too many priests, bishops
and debated at their seminaries to be told otherwise. RCism is NOT the
biblical paradigm of the Church. It is an inverted pyramid teetering
on a false presuppositional interpretation of Mt 16:18.

Hey, most of my wife's family is RC. Most of my friends are RC way
back to childhood days. I love them and take solace that a few of them
actually have come to know Christ in a meaningful way despite their
continued RC enslavement. Yes, I too cringe at using such strong
terms, but it is experientially true. They simply cannot free
themselves from the overbearing indoctrination that the RCO places in
people from earliest childhood memories, that to leave the RCO is to
place one's self outside of the will of God.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by l***@hotmail.com
For one, it denies all other Christian
denominations.

What is the other option? Recognize all other Christian denominations?

Well isn't that the whole underlying premise of the WCC? Wasn't the
hypocritic intent of both Vatican's?

That aside, the NT epistle account is one of allowing for non-
fundamental differences because people and cultures are different.
Though there is only One Way, there are many different body parts and
each has a different relation to the head. This is not only due to
our dignified differences as ordained by God's special creation of
each and everyone of His children, but also due to sin. There is only
one Vicar of the Church and He sits at the right hand of God. There
is no earthly high priest countering the Aaronic paradigm. The new
paradigm has but one High Priest who lives forever to intercede
forever. To establish yet another priesthood and then to roughly glue
"apostolic succession" to it is nothing less that sheer fallen
humanism. It is man operating out of the flesh, operating out of the
mentality of meritorious acceptance, out of the fallen inclination due
to participation in the fruit of good and evil.

Post by Denis Giron
It seems plainly obvious to me that there is one truth. Either a
Church is teaching the truth, or it is not. Either you're part of the
Church built by Christ, or you are not. Why should any church
recognize "denominations" which teach contrary to its own doctrines?

Because it depends whether or not one is true to the fundamental
doctrines while being distinguished on non-foundational teachings.
For instance, a denomination might be in complete agreement with the
fundamentals listed by the Fundamentalist of the Bible School era, but
not be inagreement with eschatological doctrines. Is that a test of
fellowship? Hardly.

Post by Denis Giron
Do you recognize all denominations? Do you recognize the RCC, or deny
it? What about the Greek Orthodox church? What about the Mormons,
Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Black Israelites and
members of the Creciendo en Gracia cult? What are the limits to
reognizing or denying other denominations.

But now you have entered into the arena of organizations which do not
adhere to the fundamentals. As stated earlier in this thread,
doctrine divides, and in some cases, rightly so. If you don't believe
in the Deity of Christ then right out of the gate you are in error.
If you do believe in the Deity of Christ and yet have a false,
unbiblical view of what was accomplished in the atoning work of
Christ, then again, you are called into question. Or what about those
who accept Christ as very God and even hold some aspect of the
biblical view of what was actually accomplished on the cross but
adhere to a works related, legalism? At best all we can say for such
is that there are "little children."

The limits are simple, sola fide, sola gratia, sola Christos all based
upon sola scriptura.

Post by Denis Giron
In all honesty, I have no idea what you have in mind with such an
objection above. Romans 16:17 seems to make it clear that one is to be
wary of recognizing those who divide themselves from the Church or
teach contrary to the Church.

Because to be of the opinion (and that is all it is) that v. 18 is a
reference to the Church being established in the apostolic primacy of
Peter is ludicrous from an reasonable exegetical point of view.
Besides, when does one build dogma, especially foundational dogma, on
dubious texts? All one has to do is look at 1st & 2nd Peter and
analysis his evaluation of just who the Rock actually is, even as the
OT clearly taught, to realize that the RCO has its house built on
sand. Now these are not trivial matters. They are of a substantial
import because the whole RC organization is but a superstructure built
off of its opinion concerning this one verse.

Post by Denis Giron
In fact, 1 John 2:18-19 seems to make it
clear that those who separate from the Church are antiChrists.

But you are presupposing that we have established a right definition
of just what or who the Church actually is.

Post by Denis Giron
Do you
think a body which considers itself the Church should ignore such
verses, and recognize those who separate from the Church, cause
divisions, and teach doctrines contrary to the Church?

And this is why the Reformers protested the RCO. There is no
"universalism" in RCism. It does not recognize the universal
character of the Body of Christ as does the NT teachings.

Post by Denis Giron
Your objection is perplexing, as it seems give the impression that you
think a Church is automatically false if it is intolerant of groups
which teach different doctrines. Galatians 1:8 comes to mind, so I
would ask that you please elaborate on what you had in mind above.

I think I've done enough of that in this reply already.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The 39 articles of the Anglican Church came out of
the same reformational base as did the Westminster
Confession. =3DA0They correctly use the term "catholic".

Interesting. Could you be more specific? Just recently I started
reading about the notion of "brance theory" employed by certain High
Church Anglicans in the 19th century, but it is a subject I am not at
all familiar with, hence the reason I asked you to elaborate.
Also, don't some High Church Anglicans call themselves "Anglo-
Catholics"? How is the Church of England being Catholic not a
contradiction, while the Vatican being Catholic is?

To answer all of this would take a fair amount of time to educate you
in the historical flow of the Church of England. I believe have
already referenced "Anglicans Not Angles" a $60 book that is worth
every penny.

Post by Denis Giron
Finally, on this portion, note that I have not specifically said the
RCC is the Church. I'm open to the possibility that it is not, and
that rather one of the Orthodox Churches is. But then I look at the
Anglican communion today, with their openly gay bishops, their
openness to contradictory approaches to doctrine, and their ArchBishop
who writes books attempting to overturn ancient notions of heresy
(e.g. does Rowan Williams believe the heresy of Arius is still a
heresy today), et cetera. If I was comparing the RCC and/or Orthodoxy,
on the one hand, and the Anglican communion, on the other, I can't see
by what stretch of the imagination I would conclude that the latter is
the Church built by Christ (or even a part of it).

Nor am I defending all fundamentalist. That term has taken on bad
connotations which it doesn't deserve when one looks at the history of
it. I could never be an Anglican today apart from the likes of Ryle.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Hard dates are hard to determine.

Fine, you don't have to give a hard date. You can give a general span
of years, decades or even centuries. Judging by what you wrote next...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Roman ecclesiastical unit was made the religion
of the state for a time before the pagan religions
won back their prominence, only to lose it again once
and for all.

=A0...I'm still wondering if you're thinking of the RCC starting some
time around the time of Constantine. Surely, if that is your position,
I imagine the Orthodox readers/contributors of this newsgroup would
raise an eyebrow at such. So, again, when is it that you believe the
RCC began? I'm not asking for a hard and fast date, but try to be
specific. I want to see what, exactly, it is that you're claiming.

When do I actually believe the RC system was established would be a
better question. That is believe was established in Babylon. Having
pursued that end for many, too many years, I don't foresee me ever
recanting. Four years in Egyptology, three in the Assyrian and
Babylonian mystery religions. Sometimes I view as a waste, others as
a fundamental reason for viewing life from the Divine perspective.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now, later you as about "biblical Christianity." =3DA0The bible
teaches of only two accepted priesthoods as established
by God.

Romans 15:16 gives the impression that Paul was a sort of priest. Now,
he was a Benjaminite, not a Levite, so obviously he was not a Levite,
and thus was not part of the Aaronic priesthood you spoke of. But let
me ask you, is there a priesthood in existence in the post-
Resurrection of Christ? Your post seemed to imply the answer is no,
while this verse in Romans (so too Revelation 5:10) seems to give the
impression the answer is actually yes.

Hey, just let me ask you this one question -and it can then be applied
to a host of other objections - that question is this.... If what you
are supposing is true, do you not think that there would be a radical
establishment of it in the writings and the history of the NT? I ask
this also of those who maintain that Gal 6:16 teaches replacement
theology. These things would be so radical to the mind of the 1st
Century Jew who had been freed from the legal system and who held the
immutability of God's promises that to have it be otherwise would take
deliberate teaching from Christ and His representative apostles. But
we dont see that do we? NO doctrine is based upon one verse, let
alone an entire ecclesiastical system.

Post by Denis Giron
Therefore, I would ask that you elaborate on your understanding of the
priesthood. Originally I thought you believed there should be no
priesthood today, but you said the priesthood of Melchitsedeq is "the
only legitimate priesthood today," so could you be more clear?

I really don't have the time. But let me say this, may like to run to
1 P 2:9 but always without first taking into account of the
specificity of readership established in 1:1. This is true of James
as well. IF the Church, that is those believers who are called into
the Body of Christ to become the Bride of Christ, that believing
remnant from the time of Pentecost to the Rapture, actually are a
priesthood as the OT paradigm illustrates, then it is a heavenly
priesthood and not some earthly, worldly re-establishment of a novel
approach of application.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by l***@hotmail.com
First off, please list and define the "traditions of the church" for
us all. =3DA0I await with bated breath.

I do not have an exhaustive list of the Traditions of the Church.

Indeed there isn't any. It's open ended. So you place a subjective
ideologue over the Divinely oriented Scriptures. Ya, that is the way
of man.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Biblical Christianity maintains that God has left
His Church but one and only one sure source
of authoritative safeguard against error-
the Scriptures, all 66 books.

This would seem to be a tradition of Loren Senders (and other
Protestants). Where in the Bible does it say the one and ONLY source
is the 66 book canon?

That it was the OT canon was accepted by Christ is enough for that
aspect of the debate. As for the NT, that it was the specific task
given to the Apostles to write down God's dictative revelation.
PLEASE understand the theological meaning of dictation. John ends the
canon in both a narrow and broad comprehending statement that nothing
more was to be added.

Post by Denis Giron
In fact, where does your canon even list the
canon? It seems that from the very beginning, to even know what books
are part of the Bible, one has to go to some source outside the Bible,
hence the reason I wrote to Catherine that I find Bible-only
Christianity to be logically inconsistent.

The Scriptures are inspired. The recognition of the canon was
illuminated under the auspice of the providential care of an all
sovereign God. i.e. men discovered, had it revealed to them,
recognized by means of the Spirit the canonical books. There is also
the fact that we weren't given Corinthians 3 and possibly 4 along with
other writings of the apostles and their 1st C disciples such as Luke,
Jude and the author of Hebrews.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is a naive fallacy to think one can
bring these so called "traditions" along
side of the Scriptures

Actually, from 2 Thessalonians 2:15 I conclude that Scripture itself
is a type of Tradition,

Don't confuse definition. This sort of mind set is illustrated by
those who likewise confuse the narrow and broad definition of the Day
of the Lord or that when used "all" means precisely that without any
qualifiers. Naivette?

Post by Denis Giron
and, aside from that, there is also an Oral
Tradition. I'm not talking about mere inauthentic traditions of men,
but rather authentic Traditions of the Church. Luke 8:10 gives me the
impression that true understanding was given to the Apostles, hence
the reason we should, rather than just winging it, humble ourselves
and admit the same thing the Ethiopian in Acts 8:31 confessed: we
cannot understand the Scriptures without the guidance of the
Apostles.
Christ did not just hand people the Bible; rather HE BUILT A CHURCH
(Matthew 16:18). This is what separates Catholics/Orthodox on the one
hand, from most Protestants today on the other: the former believes
the Church, and not the Bible alone, is the pillar and foundation of
truth,

rationalistic humanism devoid of the Spirit as the history of these
church quite easily illustrates. Yes, the same could be held of all
Christian assemblies but how many declare themselves to be the ONE
true church. I don't know any Protestant assembly or denomination who
ever so claimed such a title. "Servant of servants" and yet when he
eats, he eats on a diest (or however you spell it) or when dressed in
all his finery has to be lifted up. Ya, we got the pope-mobile now
but I remember him being carried on the backs of men. "Servant of
servants" such a lofty title but only a guise for ecclesiastical
power.

Post by Denis Giron
, while most Protestants today seem to think it is the 66-book
canon alone. Where do you stand Loren? Do you accept the Church as the
pillar and foundation of truth? Or do you instead wish to replace the
church with the 66-book canon and hold that up as the pillar and
foundation of truth?

Do away which the over arching authority of Scripture and you are left
with what safe guard over error? Come on, be a bit of a realist.
Men, left to themselves, are not going to establish Absolutes. Only
God can accomplish that. What assurance does anyone have that a group
of men, and this first of all presumes that they are 1) actually
regenerate men and 2) they are under the leading of the HS and there
capable of manifesting absolute truth?
sorry, all I have time for....

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Catherine Jefferson
If I'm understanding Charles right, he views sola scriptura, not as an
absolute dogma,

but only in denying his own denominational heritage. He hold Calvin
in high regard, yet he fails to learn from him. Edward's "Freedom of
the WIll" grew out of this debate and to large measure, has
relationship to the doctrines of the incomprehensibility of God (and
hence His will) and the sovereignty of God (ibid). Theology is
systematic regardless of what certain people and denominations wish.

Post by Catherine Jefferson
but as a corrective medicine applied at a particular
place and time to what he views as the doctrinal errors of the Catholic
Church at that time.

Then fall out of such a synopsis is that it manufactures a system of
engineered manipulation. Scripture is either the Word of God or it
isn't. If it truly what it claims to be, able to parse to bone and
marrow, then it is absolute, timeless and a living part of the
infinite God. It is not something that can be pulled out of a hat
when a crisis arises.

Post by Catherine Jefferson
=A0(Does that reflect what you were saying correctly,
Charles?) If so, that's considerably closer to my own view of the Holy
Scriptures as the core of Holy Tradition than it is to the "Bible only;
no interpretations" of my old church.

Interpretation is required.
Opinion must be shelved.
Application must be distinguished.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by DKleinecke
I would use the term to describe a Christianity that accepts nothing
as coming from God except via the Bible.

That is exactly what the Restorationist Churches of Christ believed and
taught when I was in them in the 1970s and 1980s. =A0The thing is, that
rules out *all* of the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, who
definitely believe that the Holy Spirit communicates to believers today,

But to bring these two into the discussion is to introduce extremism
which often is a stratagem which hopes, whether cognitively or not, to
dismiss the argument by overstatement.

In the last 40 yrs I have left 3 churches over this very issue. In
one church, after being there for a time, no being involved in
leadership but in teaching, the "elders" of the church wisked me off
one weekend for a supposed spiritual retreat. Little did I know that
it was actually an attempt to indoctrinate me into the mindset of the
leaders. BTW, they were all younger than I was by a good 10-15 yrs.
But they believed in an open text and that the Spirit still talked to
men who were willing and trained to listen to Him. So for them, the
Bible was pass=E9 and too confining. I shredded their arguments by
quoting them Scripture. We returned late Sat night and on Sunday
morning the pastor used his bully pulpit to come out of the closet as
a tongues speaker and that in future sermons he was going to allow the
Spirit to speak through him directly. Well, that was, needless to
say, my last Sunday there. The congregation was great. Some of my
closest Christian friends came out of that time. But they were all
biblically naive to put it kindly.

And this is the heart of the problem. When you have a clergy, whether
it be in the catholic elitist sense or in one of the Protestant
governmental arrangements, that elevates itself by some superior
scholastic stance, it denies the possibility of the Spirit speaking
through a congregational member. In many Protestant churches, someone
who has a formal and continued training in scriptural and doctrinal
exegesis is looked upon as a trouble maker and is usually scuttled off
into some corner or simply handed his hat. The congregations today
are so devoid of both of these that they truly are like dumb sheep led
to the slaughter. Here tradition is of no use or avail. Just look at
USAPC. What effect in stemming the tide has either had in adverting
such doctrinal erosion? It's exactly as VanTil first taught and the
Schaeffer popularized, "If you have no absolute by which to judge
society, then society is absolute." And the assemblies are no less a
society than the nation at large. Humanity, even reformed humanity is
fallen therefore it needs a sure word of Truth. Traditions can never
rise to this level. Only Scripture is not only inerrant, but the
vehicle through which God Himself has given man whereby to know Him
and His will.

Post by Catherine Jefferson
and many mainstream Protestant churches as well. =A0Some of these churche=

s

Post by Catherine Jefferson
would vehemently defend their right to call themselves "Biblical"
because they believe that they believe and teach what the Apostles
taught and was recorded in the New Testament.

But of course we know they're fools, right? There is no scholasticism
in Protestantism let alone Evangelicalism esp. those of the
fundamentalist persuasion. They are ignorant and unlearned, fools who
driven by every breeze this way and that.

Post by Catherine Jefferson
I guess an "unchurched Quaker" would not be. ;-) =A0Have you ever been to
a traditional Quaker service?

and yet you write....

Post by Catherine Jefferson
The thing is, that
rules out *all* of the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, who
definitely believe that the Holy Spirit communicates to believers today

strange.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Condensing, in order not to quote too much, I do indeed view the matter f=

rom

an Orthodox point of view, and I find it difficult to discuss such things=

with

Mr Senders, because he makes wildly inaccurate assertions

such as>

and refuses to substantiate them.

Not at all. Most of what is present in such forums as these NGs goes
largely unsubstantiated. For one, when references are given, they are
dismissed off hand without so much as an investigation in either what
they specifically address in regards to the topic at hand or their
validity in the conclusions reached . For another, these types of
discussions are not of a seminary level wherein documentation of
position is actually necessary. NG rebuttals have no such conviction
of investigation of Truth. They are more a venting of opinion. After
a while the poster learns that it is all a waste of time so why
bother? I've been posting in this NG since the late '80's and have
always been the minority view -conservative, bible believing, Reformed
-dispensationalist.

I'm not an expert in all aspects or every period of
history, but I have enough training in the discipline to want historical
statements substantiated in some way, and not based on mere assertion.

quid pro quo

Post by Denis Giron
Does the beginning of the RCC roughly coincide with the existence of a
Christian priesthood and a belief that a type of sacrifice is
presented on the altar at mass? I suspect you might say no, but Mr.
Senders seems to clearly be saying yes.

Well perhaps Mr Senders could explain what he means by that, because I
certainly don't know what that means.

Then you don't know RC theology. Certainly Calvin understood, even
better than Luther. If Luther had actually known Calvin's position he
wouldn't have vain heartedly held to consubstantiation which is really
little different from transubstantiation. Zwingly held to
representation but it was Calvin who actually exegeted the full
biblical teaching as being dynamic. Transubstantiation is biblical
heresy.

Firstly he would need to define what he
means by priesthood and sacrificial system, and then show from historical
evidence how it coincided with the establishment of a body called the "Ro=

man

Catholic Church".

I have -for nearly 20 years, right here.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by DKleinecke

What is "Biblical Christianity"? How do you define it?

I would use the term to describe a Christianity that accepts nothing
as coming from God except via the Bible.

That is exactly what the Restorationist Churches of Christ believed and
taught when I was in them in the 1970s and 1980s. The thing is, that
rules out *all* of the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, who
definitely believe that the Holy Spirit communicates to believers today,
and many mainstream Protestant churches as well.

Which is exactly why I think poorly of what I call "Biblical
Christianity". It seems to me that an honest Biblical Christianity
would have to deny efficacy to prayer in any form. They seem to me to
be in a less comfortable position than even the deists. Both groups
have a God so utterly remote that, from my point of view, they have no
God at all.
They would argue, no doubt, that they have a lot of information in the
Bible and the deists have nothing but the bare fact of creation. I
don't see that as an improvement.

Post by Catherine Jefferson
I guess an "unchurched Quaker" would not be. ;-) Have you ever been to
a traditional Quaker service?

Many. In a way I know I belong there, but I never joined. If I ever
start going to church again, I will go the Universalist-Unitarians. I
am, after all, both a Universalist and a Unitarian - even if the UU's
aren't any more.

My family had a quarrel with the meeting before I was born (the
quarrel was in 1843, to be exact). My great-grandfather married a
Methodist lady and the meeting asked him to apologize for marrying
outside of meeting. But my great-grandfather said that if he had done
something wrong he would apologize - but that he had done nothing
wrong. He never went back to meeting, but they did let him be buried
in the Friend's burying ground. Since then my family has sort of
wandered to and fro. I was raised as a Presbyterian because we lived a
long way from any meetings. So I became a Calvinist flavor of a
Quaker.

Each of us finds God by following our own path.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <xoYCk.1577$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, ***@geneva.rutgers.edu
says...
[snip]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Certainly the way it was expressed had to with the historical context.
But it has permanent value if the term "only" is understood properly.
I.e. Scripture is the only what?

For that matter, is "sola scriptura" nominative, or ablative? We can't write the
difference in net ASCII, unless we cheat by writing the macron as a circumflex
-after- the affected vowel, and write, "sola^ scriptura^".

[snip]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
The reason I'm a bit wary of saying that "sola scriptura" as a term is
primarily from one time in church history is because the need that led
to it isn't confined to the past. The Church needs reformation on a
continuing basis.

Well, well! At least you are well-read enough that it should not come as a
surprise to you: some of us believe even the very notion of "The Church needs
reformation" is already a disastrous misunderstanding the the Church.

Think, for example, of St. John of Damascus's words from his On the Holy Icons
about how disastrous it is to suppose that the Church has ever been in error.

[snip]

[l***@hotmail.com]

I can't speak for lsenders, but when the Roman Catholic Church was establ=

ished

is a moot point, and you are likely to get different answers depending on=

who

you ask.

lsenders would say that the Roman catholic organization came into
existence at the moment the legitimate local church in Rome failed to
head either the Petrine or the Judain exhortation to agonize over The
Faith in order that the common, i.e. catholic, salvific faith might
remain pure. However, it is evident that because we have no second
epistle to the Romans, the apostles had long disappeared from the
scene when the present ecclesiastical monolith established itself.
For it is quite clear to those to whom the mercy of God has granted
them enlightenment according to the revelation of God's will as
entered in Scripture, that "false teachers arose among you who will
secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the High Lord
who bought them [offered them an atonement], bringing swift
destruction upon themselves. And many of whom will follow their
plastic sensuality and because of them The Way of the Truth [Acts
24:14] will be maligned..." [2 Pet 2:1-2]

How ironic for the ecclesiastical monolith which claims Petrine
headship to be deserving of his deliberation. "But these, like
unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and
killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction
of those creatures also be destroyed, suffering wrong as the wages of
doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They
are [semen] stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as
they carouse with you; having eyes full of adultery and that never
cease from sin, enticing unstable souls [children], having a heart
trained in greed, accursed children [tekna]; forsaking the right Way
they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of
Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness.... speaking out arrogant
words of vanity they entice [deceive] by fleshly desires, by
sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error."

Is this not the historical report concerning Roman and her
priesthood?

"But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith
without works [of divine righteousness] is useless?"

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <woYCk.1572$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, Denis Giron says...
[snip]

Post by Denis Giron
This would seem to be a tradition of Loren Senders (and other
Protestants). Where in the Bible does it say the one and ONLY source
is the 66 book canon? In fact, where does your canon even list the
canon?

Loren has no good answer to either of these questions. I and others have put
them to him often enough before.

Post by Denis Giron
It seems that from the very beginning, to even know what books
are part of the Bible, one has to go to some source outside the Bible,
hence the reason I wrote to Catherine that I find Bible-only
Christianity to be logically inconsistent.

You are not alone in this regard.

[snip]

Post by Denis Giron
Christ did not just hand people the Bible; rather HE BUILT A CHURCH
(Matthew 16:18).

Ah, yes. Because the Roman Church has insisted on interpreting that verse as
founding the Papacy, both Orthodox and Protestant have been reluctant to use
this verse:(

But you are right: both Orthodox and Latin recognize that this passage shows
that Christ came to built the Church.

[snip]

Post by Denis Giron
With all due respect, this strikes me as an empty slogan. I don't see
on what grounds one would conclude, for example, that Sirach is
spiritually inferior to the Protestant/Masoretic version of Esther.

Good example!

[snip]

Post by Denis Giron
But what are you saying here, Loren? That you determine the canon
based on a reading of certain Church Fathers or ancient Christian
documents?

I would not be too surprised if he thinks that is exactly what he does. But this
then leaves unexplained, of course, why he comes up with the same result as the
many other people following the same tradition he does.

The real explanation, of course, is that they are all doing it under the strong
influence of that same tradition. But since they profess "sola scriptura", they
cannot admit theis, even to themselves.

[snip]

[Steve Hayes]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Denis Giron
Does the beginning of the RCC roughly coincide with the existence of a
Christian priesthood and a belief that a type of sacrifice is
presented on the altar at mass? I suspect you might say no, but Mr.
Senders seems to clearly be saying yes.

Well perhaps Mr Senders could explain what he means by that, because I
certainly don't know what that means.

Then you don't know RC theology. Certainly Calvin understood, even
better than Luther. If Luther had actually known Calvin's position he
wouldn't have vain heartedly held to consubstantiation which is really
little different from transubstantiation. Zwingly held to
representation but it was Calvin who actually exegeted the full
biblical teaching as being dynamic. Transubstantiation is biblical
heresy.

It must be emphasized, once again, that the notion of level of
grammaticalness can be defined in such a way as to impose a general
convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Clearly, a descriptively
adequate grammar is not subject to the requirement that branching is not
tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. On our
assumptions, any associated supporting element is not quite equivalent to
the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. So far, the descriptive
power of the base component cannot be arbitrary in the levels of
acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)).
Let us continue to suppose that a case of semigrammaticalness of a
different sort does not affect the structure of irrelevant intervening
contexts in selectional rules.

I realise that that paragraph doesn't have much to do with the question, but
neither did anything you wrote.

Now will you please try to answer the question: WHEN do you think the Roman
Catholic Church began, and why do you think it began then?

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Steve Hayes
Firstly he would need to define what he
means by priesthood and sacrificial system, and then show from historical
evidence how it coincided with the establishment of a body called the "Ro=

man

Post by Steve Hayes
Catholic Church".

I have -for nearly 20 years, right here.

Not that I've noticed, if the evasions you wrote above are any indication.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

I can't speak for lsenders, but when the Roman Catholic Church was establ=

ished

is a moot point, and you are likely to get different answers depending on=

who

you ask.

lsenders would say that the Roman catholic organization came into
existence at the moment the legitimate local church in Rome failed to
head either the Petrine or the Judain exhortation to agonize over The
Faith in order that the common, i.e. catholic, salvific faith might
remain pure. However, it is evident that because we have no second
epistle to the Romans, the apostles had long disappeared from the
scene when the present ecclesiastical monolith established itself.
For it is quite clear to those to whom the mercy of God has granted
them enlightenment according to the revelation of God's will as
entered in Scripture, that "false teachers arose among you who will
secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the High Lord
who bought them [offered them an atonement], bringing swift
destruction upon themselves. And many of whom will follow their
plastic sensuality and because of them The Way of the Truth [Acts
24:14] will be maligned..." [2 Pet 2:1-2]
How ironic for the ecclesiastical monolith which claims Petrine
headship to be deserving of his deliberation. "But these, like
unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and
killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction
of those creatures also be destroyed, suffering wrong as the wages of
doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They
are [semen] stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as
they carouse with you; having eyes full of adultery and that never
cease from sin, enticing unstable souls [children], having a heart
trained in greed, accursed children [tekna]; forsaking the right Way
they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of
Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness.... speaking out arrogant
words of vanity they entice [deceive] by fleshly desires, by
sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error."
Is this not the historical report concerning Roman and her
priesthood?
"But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith
without works [of divine righteousness] is useless?"

A consequence of the approach just outlined is that this
analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features can be defined in
such a way as to impose a stipulation to place the constructions into
these various categories. I suggested that these results would follow
from the assumption that the descriptive power of the base
component is not quite equivalent to the extended c-command
discussed in connection with (34). Nevertheless, a subset of English
sentences interesting on quite independent grounds delimits the
strong generative capacity of the theory. However, this assumption
is not correct, since a case of semigrammaticalness of a different
sort is rather different from the system of base rules exclusive of the
lexicon. Thus the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
inaccessible to ordinary extraction may remedy and, at the same
time, eliminate a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity
has been defined by the paired utterance test.

I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that an
important property of these three types of EC cannot be arbitrary in the
levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg
(98d)). Summarizing, then, we assume that the descriptive power of the base
component appears to correlate rather closely with the requirement that
branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. We
will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the theory of syntactic
features developed earlier delimits a descriptive fact. To provide a
constituent structure for T(Z,K), the systematic use of complex symbols raises
serious doubts about the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. A
consequence of the approach just outlined is that the notion of level of
grammaticalness is, apparently, determined by a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories.

You see, two can play at that game.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Steve Hayes
I can't speak for lsenders, but when the Roman Catholic Church was
established is a moot point, and you are likely to get different
answers depending on who you ask.

lsenders would say that the Roman catholic organization came into
existence at the moment the legitimate local church in Rome failed to
head either the Petrine or the Judain exhortation to agonize over The
Faith in order that the common, i.e. catholic, salvific faith might
remain pure.

So many errors in one sentence! If only they were all as small as your
spelling errors. You must have meant 'heed', not 'head'!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
However, it is evident that because we have no second epistle to the
Romans, the apostles had long disappeared from the scene when the
present ecclesiastical monolith established itself.

This is a whopper of a non-sequitur. No such implication follows. You
are not even close to correct.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
For it is quite clear to those to whom the mercy of God has granted
them enlightenment

That would not include you.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
according to the revelation of God's will as entered in Scripture,
that "false teachers arose among you who will secretly introduce
destructive heresies, even denying the High Lord who bought them
[offered them an atonement], bringing swift destruction upon
themselves. And many of whom will follow their plastic sensuality
and because of them The Way of the Truth [Acts 24:14] will be
maligned..." [2 Pet 2:1-2]

"Plastic sensuality"? Where did you get this nonsensical translation?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
How ironic for the ecclesiastical monolith which claims Petrine
headship to be deserving of his deliberation. "But these, like
unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and
killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the
destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, suffering wrong as
the wages of doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the
daytime.

Just as you "count it a pleasure" to slander Rome?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
They are [semen] stains and blemishes,

There is no word in the Greek original that could possibly be
correctly translated as 'semen' here. You must be revealing your own
obsession with impurity.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you; having eyes
full of adultery and that never cease from sin, enticing unstable
souls [children], having a heart trained in greed, accursed children
[tekna]; forsaking the right Way they have gone astray, having
followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of
unrighteousness.... speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice
[deceive] by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape
from the ones who live in error."
Is this not the historical report concerning Roman and her
priesthood?

It is not. It is instead a witness to your love of vicious
slander. How did you miss all the Scriptural condemnations of slander
and the slanderer? How will YOU escape the "wages of wickedness"
referred to in the very passage you just quoted (2 Pet 2:13)?

It is also a 'witness' to your own condemnation in 2 Pet 2:10-12,
since you too, "despise authority (2:10)" and "revile in matters in
which you are ignorant (2:12)".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith
without works [of divine righteousness] is useless?"

Speaking of "historical report", what "historical report" do you think
THIS gives on Protestantism, that you have to tamper with Scripture to
make your point? Or were you really hoping we would not recognize you
are tampering with James 2:20, which REALLY reads:

Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works
is barren? (Jam 2:20 RSVA)

And yes, you are tampering with it. There is no justification for your
parenthetical interpretation, "of divine righteousness" in this
verse. It is surreptitious eisegesis.

So in one short post, you have resorted to slander, dishonest
tampering with scripture, biased and/or incompetent translation,
patently false claims to superior knowledge, hypocritical condemnation
of others for sins you yourself indulge in...

Now after seeing all that, just HOW do you think you are different
from the "foolish fellows" who "revel in deception"?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

the wages of doing wrong. =A0They count it a pleasure to revel in the
daytime.

Just as you "count it a pleasure" to slander Rome?

I often find it of interest to note who often people comment without
recognizing just how much of their own thought processes are
revealed. You make such an accusation, not because it is indicative
of my heart, but your own. I have mentioned how many family members,
friends and acquaintances are RC with the supposition that I does NOT
pleasure me that so many have been led astray. We're not talking here
about philosophical differences but about the eternal destiny of
souls.

Matthew, I find in your responses the same thing that I find in RC
ecclesiastical order and doctrine, that is, a lacking of the Spirit
and His grace of gifts. Calvin (4:3:4) was not wrong in his
assessment of the fundamental error of the RC system or any other
system that operates without the impartation and application of the
gifts of the Spirit. And to a greater degree, John Owen expressed the
reality of this. Without gifts, the church is a mere shadow of
itself. The round of worship becomes sterile, for gospel ordinances
are found to be fruitless and unsatisfactory, without the attaining
and exercising of gospel gifts. The church falls into the ditch of
formalism and the mire of superstition. Unconcern about gifts

Quote

... was that whereby in all ages, countenance was given unto apostasy
and defection from the power and truth of the gospel. THe names of
spiritual things were still retained, but applied to outward forms and
ceremonies, which thereby were substituted insensibly into their room,
to the ruin of the gospel in the minds of men. As the neglect of
internal saving grace, wherein the power of godliness doeth consist,
hath been the bane of Christian profession as to obedience... so the
neglect of these gifts hath been the ruin of the same profession as to
worship and order, which hath thereon issued in fond superstition.

elsewhere, but under the same subject

.... We have an instance in the Church of Rome, what various,
extravagant, and endless inventions the minds of men will put them
upon to keep up a show of worship, when by the loss of spiritual gifts
spiritual administrations are also lost. This is that which their
innumerable forms, modes, sets of rites, and ceremonies, seasons of
worship are invented to supply, but to no purpose at all; but only the
aggravation of their sin and folly.

end of quote.

The spiritual man appraises all things. Let the regenerate spiritual
appraise these things for it applies not only to monoliths such as the
RC organization, but local and independent assemblies as well who love
to have their "ears tickled" by the imaginations of those who merely
profess having a "word from God."

Post by Matthew Johnson

They are [semen] stains and blemishes,

There is no word in the Greek original that could possibly be
correctly translated as 'semen' here. You must be revealing your own
obsession with impurity.

I put in brackets as an indicator of how it applies to the RC system,
especially in the US with its hundreds if not thousands of sexual
predatory cases. A bad tree cannot produce good fruit and because the
RCO is a monolithic ecclesiastical order, such things are
representative of the whole.

Post by Matthew Johnson

reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you; having eyes
full of adultery and that never cease from sin, enticing unstable
souls [children], having a heart trained in greed, accursed children
[tekna]; forsaking the right Way they have gone astray, having
followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of
unrighteousness.... speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice
[deceive] by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape
from the ones who live in error."
Is this not the historical report concerning Roman and her
priesthood?

It is not. It is instead a witness to your love of vicious
slander. How did you miss all the Scriptural condemnations of slander
and the slanderer? How will YOU escape the "wages of wickedness"
referred to in the very passage you just quoted (2 Pet 2:13)?

As pertaining to "vicious slander", the historical record is replete
with collaborative witness of what I have noted.

It always somewhat surprises me how quickly you run to the defense of
a system which you are always so careful to distinquish yourself
from.

Post by Matthew Johnson
It is also a 'witness' to your own condemnation in 2 Pet 2:10-12,
since you too, "despise authority (2:10)" and "revile in matters in
which you are ignorant (2:12)".

Do you bow the knee to the Roman see? Or, as you accuse me of, do you
"despise authority"?

Post by Matthew Johnson

"But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith
without works [of divine righteousness] is useless?"

Speaking of "historical report", what "historical report" do you think
THIS gives on Protestantism, that you have to tamper with Scripture to
make your point? Or were you really hoping we would not recognize you

The point was as the context directly applies to the Jews, that a
system devoid of the spiritual gifts is sufficient evidence of an
assembly at the very least under a degenerating apostasy. THis
applies across board of all assemblies who would place themselves
under the guise of being God's faithful representative here on earth.
Again, a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, can it?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works
is barren? =A0(Jam 2:20 RSVA)
And yes, you are tampering with it. There is no justification for your
parenthetical interpretation, "of divine righteousness" in this
verse. It is surreptitious eisegesis.
So in one short post, you have resorted to slander, dishonest
tampering with scripture, biased and/or incompetent translation,
patently false claims to superior knowledge, hypocritical condemnation
of others for sins you yourself indulge in...

As Hans Solo once quipped to Luke, "Gee, I must have hit pretty close
to mark to get her all riled up like that!"

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now after seeing all that, just HOW do you think you are different
from the "foolish fellows" who "revel in deception"?

The gifts of the Spirit grant unto the assemblies its inward organic
life and outward visible form. However, one need not have the Spirit
to produce merely the outward visible form, hence Christ's own
illustration of the "painted sepulcher." Along with all reformers, we
strive against false structures, dead formalism and unspiritual
disorder. The mechanical religious routines and barren professions of
faith all have direct reference to being first of all, barren of the
Spirit. It is simply, humanistic religion where man tries to
manufacture an edifice of peace by his own contrivances.