This was originally supposed to join all the other comments under Josiah’s Mel Gibson post, but I figured it would end up being unshort enough to put over here.
First, to Bill: Josiah’s explanation of the passage “to the Jews first” was not primarily meant to explain the extent of the term “Greeks.” Yes, we are all in agreement that “Greeks” equals the rest of the world. The extreme bit of exegesis comes in assuming that Paul’s description of his own ministry should serve as a paradigm for our understanding of the role of the Bible today, as though Jews were currently in some privileged position to receive its message first. The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets; consequently, apostolic practice is not always an example to be emulated but is often a foundation upon which to build. Paul’s ministry reflected the historic progression of God’s people from the particular nation of Israel to the universal church. He lived in a period of transition when there still existed those Jews who, although not Christians, were still saved. They believed the OT prophecies of the coming Messiah. All Paul had to do was tell them about the existence of Jesus and that he was, in fact, this Messiah. Only after Paul had fulfilled his duty toward the believing remnant of Israel could he then go about the task of bringing the gospel to the Gentiles.
I, too, share many of your concerns about the Roman Catholic Church; however, I would like to limit these to the points under dispute in the Protestant Reformation. Your contention that “the Catholics rarely use the Bible for the basis of anything they do” is a demonstrably untrue generalization. The problem within Catholicism comes, not from their lack of regard for scripture, but from their equal, if not greater, regard for their own tradition. I am not denouncing tradition as such. Tradition, as Nick as pointed out, is authoritative. But this is only true insofar as its source is authoritative. Paul commands the Thessalonians to withdraw themselves from every brother who does not walk “after the tradition, which he received from us.” Again, he is not using himself as an example whereby future leaders in the church may now develop their own traditions to be followed. He is claiming the unique right of the Apostles to establish the traditional foundation for the church. This tradition is nothing more nor less than their practice and teaching, which has been recorded in scripture.
We are agreed on the possibility of knowing what the Bible means. Still, I disagree with your individualistic approach (either that, or I am not clear on your position). Your rhetorical question on how we come to know this, “From a professor at a Christian institution/university or by the Holy Spirit?” evidences a false dichotomy. The Holy Spirit illuminates scripture through the ministry of the church. This means Apostolic Tradition, which is reflected in Ecumenical Creeds and Councils, Confessions of Faith, the counsel of elders, or the sermons of a pastor. If a professor at a Christian University, or any one else for that matter, is in line with that teaching, then they are also included among the instruments that the Holy Spirit uses to explain his word. You may have been including some or all of these under the Holy Spirit, but, if you meant to suggest that the Holy Spirit shows you things apart from these means, well, no he doesn’t. I do not deny the Holy Spirit’s raw ability in this matter, since this is pretty much what he did for the Apostles and Prophets. However, the revealed nature and function of the Church precludes any possibility that he would continue to act in such a manner. There is no need to rebuild the foundation.
Josiah, you may be right that we should be able to learn from the Baptist tradition despite the fact that many within it, having missed the point of the gospel, are ungracious and unloving. But this does not translate into doing the same thing for the Roman Catholic Church. The difference is this: the Baptists that you encountered were largely influenced by a sociological phenomenon intersecting their religious tradition. The Baptist religion, considered in itself, is faithful to the gospel. The Catholic religion is not. The Council of Trent, insofar as it codified Rome's disagreement with the Reformers, essentially defined the gospel out of existence.
As to your charge that Baptists weren’t around during the Reformation, some may not agree. Modern day Baptists do not claim a single heritage. Some claim to be descendents of the Anabaptists, who were around at the time. This is especially prevalent among a group that denies the existence of the universal church. They are known as the Landmark Baptists, or “Baptist Briders” (I was a member of two of these churches and once held to the position). Basically, Baptists are not viewed as Protestants because, supposedly, they never broke away from the Catholic Church. Instead, these Baptists trace an unbroken lineage back to John the Baptist (yes, Jesus had to be baptized into his own church). Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans- your average paedobaptists, are seen as wimpy Catholics.
While I think I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying about treating other Christian religious viewpoints with humility, I’m not sure if I like the way it’s coming across. It sounds like, “Sure, Biblical truth is important, but, since no one can nail down just what that truth is, we should all be humble about each other’s points of view and learn from them.” Biblical truth was intended to be understood. We can and should know it well enough to recognize error. The exercise of humility would then come in how we deal with that error. Like I said, we are probably in agreement, but, having been one, I can say that the way you are making your point is playing right into the dispensational Baptists’ hands. Their literal interpretation of scripture is characterized by a Euclidian precision. And, as you may guess, anyone following this hermeneutical principle would not see any validity in the distinction between Biblical truth and the subjective understanding of that truth.
Posted by kcourter at agosto 5, 2003 08:25 PM | TrackBack
"The problem within Catholicism comes, not from their lack of regard for scripture, but from their equal, if not greater, regard for their own tradition. I am not denouncing tradition as such."
We're mincing words here. Having a greater, as they do, regard for their tradition than scripture, by default, shows maybe not a lack, but certainly a dangerously lesser regard for scripture.
"Like I said, we are probably in agreement, but, having been one, I can say that the way you are making your point is playing right into the dispensational Baptists’ hands."
A statement like this makes it sound as if dispensational baptists are maniacal, evil beings, and you are an all-knowing counselor against their evil ways. I know it doesn't say that, but the attitude of the statement leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
You appear saying is that you were once a dispensational Baptist, but your education "cured you of it."
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I hope I am.
"Your rhetorical question on how we come to know this, “From a professor at a Christian institution/university or by the Holy Spirit?” evidences a false dichotomy. The Holy Spirit illuminates scripture through the ministry of the church. This means Apostolic Tradition, which is reflected in Ecumenical Creeds and Councils, Confessions of Faith, the counsel of elders, or the sermons of a pastor. If a professor at a Christian University, or any one else for that matter, is in line with that teaching, then they are also included among the instruments that the Holy Spirit uses to explain his word. You may have been including some or all of these under the Holy Spirit, but, if you meant to suggest that the Holy Spirit shows you things apart from these means, well, no he doesn’t. I do not deny the Holy Spirit’s raw ability in this matter, since this is pretty much what he did for the Apostles and Prophets."
Yes, if a teacher is in line with scripture, then the Holy Spirit will teach through him. Again, though, MY experience is that MANY teaching in "Christian" universities are more in line with being an intelligent teacher (in earthly terms) than being a witness. And because the term "Christian," in today's WORLD, applies to anybody who believes in God, but isn't Jewish (or Hindu, Buddhist, etc.), doctinal lines are blurred, and a "One World Gospel" is preached according to prevailing sensibilites, desires, and, more importantly, distortion of the true Gospel....Just as the Bible says...
"Anyone following this hermeneutical principle would not see any validity in the distinction between Biblical truth and the subjective understanding of that truth."
Who is the gatekeeper between the two truths? It almost sounds like you need more than the Bible to understand the Bible.
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Have a swell day.
A couple of quick things, 'cause I think my wife is home:
Kevin, I'm aware there were ancestors of modern day Baptists around during the Reformation, I was attempting to be somewhat succinct, and didn't feel the need to delve, especially given that tradition and theological/denominational geneology isn't something Baptists put any effort into. I felt it was acceptable to point out that what we consider "Baptist" today didn't really exist in the same form during the Reformation (and certainly not with the political, cultural, or theological power they wield today).
And Bill, its not so much that you "need" something other than the Bible to interpret the Bible, its that you DO use things other than the Bible to understand the Bible. I could go into others, but the Holy Spirit is essential to understanding the truth of the Bible.
The question is: how does the Holy Spirit help you understand the Bible? Is it just during our personal times, alone, in our rooms? Or does He do it through books of theology, our elders and pastors, heck, even one another in this discussion right now!
Posted by: JosiahQ at agosto 6, 2003 02:28 PMBill, Welcome. I don't believe that we are mincing words. If you ask anyone who knows me, "pro-Catholic" would not be among my top ten descriptors. However, while I would not defend the Catholic religion, I do think that all criticisms about them, or any other group with which we disagree, should be in line with the facts about them. It is not true that they have little or no regard for scripture.
What do you mean by "a dangerously lesser regard for scripture"? Lesser than what? If you mean than our regard for scripture, then the argument does not follow. Certainly a greater regard for tradition implies a comparatively lesser regard for scripture; nevertherless, the question of whether this lesser regard is dangerous is debatable. A higher regard for tradition as such will not affect one's adherence to scripture unless a particular portion of that tradition contradicts scripture. It is also important to distinguish between wrong tradition and a wrong interpretation of scripture. The latter has nothing to do with one's regard for scripture.
Sorry about the perceived attitude. I assure you that I do not perceive dispensational Baptists as maniacal or evil. Part of the problem may just be my writing style-I like to use words and phrases outside of their expected parameters, which, admittedly, can lead to misunderstanding. This can become a problem in a case like this where we don't know each other. For instance, when I read something that Josiah has addressed to me, I can fill in the voice inflections and gestures to get a more accurate depiction of what he's saying. With you, it's different. You end your response with, "Have a swell day." How should I read this? Is it a genuine wish or a sarcastic jab? A charitable reading requires that I assume the former; however, the fact of the matter is that I just don't know. I can't hear you saying it. Another problem is that it is very difficult to keep separate what I know about dispensational Baptist beliefs in general and your beliefs. Please forgive me if I am inadvertantly lumping you into the wrong category.
I am saying that I was a dispensational Baptist and, since you mention it, "cured" is just as good a word as any. But it had nothing to do with my education, at least not formally. It was probably a number of factors. As far back as I can remember, I had always been one of those dispensational anomalies who are also 5 point Calvinists. In a way, the Reformed faith is just taking this to a consistent and logical conclusion. Another influence was when I moved back to Michigan for a while and rejoined the church that had sent our family out as missionaries. It had changed drastically- still Baptist and largely dispensational, but it had shed any vestiges of fundamentalism. It was well on its way to becoming one of those seeker-sensitive mega-church things. While I don't agree with this approach, I was able to get to know many of the people. It was the first time I had ever run across non-fundamentalists who really cared about serving Christ. An Epiphany. You don't have to be anal to love Jesus. This essentially got me out of my "don't confuse me with the facts" mode of thinking. Another major influence would be the aftermath of memorizing Hebrews. I could not get its teaching to match up with a literal reading of the OT , so I changed my approach to the OT to be more in line with literary genres. As I soon found, it is virtually impossible to maintain a dispensational perspective without the corresponding literalism.
So yes, I am not a dispensational Baptist and I believe that their teaching is in error, nor am I afraid to say so. This belief, like your own, is based on a high regard for scripture and the objective truth contained therein. The problem comes in our interpretation of that truth. Only a maximum of one of us can be right.
I may have misunderstood your reference to the Christian professors. I was taking this to be representative of any human means to know scripture as opposed to the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit. My point was that this direct testimony no longer happens. We do need more than the Bible to understand the Bible. I think you would agree with this- we both recognize the necessity of the Holy Spirit. Our difference comes in how he primarily works. It looks like you want to make it a direct work in the heart of the individual believer. I see the Holy Spirit working through other individuals within the context of the visible and universal church.
I hope you enjoy the rest of your day (really).
Kevin Courter played hours and hours of piano on the hall in which I was his RA. I loved him. I tried to find him a home. He shunned me for it...
Posted by: JosiahQ at agosto 6, 2003 07:01 PMI did mean to really have a swell day, and I do appreciate your response. Lol!
I am a very laid-back person, who loves to discuss all things, especially Christ, with hopes of learning and teaching at the same time.
Some things about me:
1. I am saved by the blood Jesus Christ.
2. I read a Scofield King James Bible, as well as books by Spurgeon, Larkin, McGee, and others. Larkin's "Dispensational Truth," though not 100% perfect, was the first bible-related book to blow me away, and I re-read it often.
3. I did not grow up in ANY church.
4. I work with people who are "sucked into" the charasmatic movement, and my soul aches for them because their particular churches are teaching NOTHING of scripture - simply signs and wonders and feel-good stuff.
5. I attend a baptist church simply because I have been directly taught by the Holy Spirit through the pastor, and becuase it was close to my house.
6. Though, I attend this church, I don't label myself anything but a Christian. It just happens to be Baptist. When it ceases to be in line with scripture, I will leave.
7. My wife's grandfather is a retired Baptist preacher who used to be heavily involved in the occult, as well as the Holiness movement. He has been saved since 1975, and is now the most spiritual man I know, and just happens to be my wife's grandfather. We have often had home church meetings with him, and his teaching has influenced my interest in prophecy, and increased knowing of the Word, in general.
These are just some things...
I need a selected verse-by-verse description of your denouncement of dispensationalism, so I better understand.
And as far as Catholicism is concerned, I just attended a Catholic wedding, and the path to salvation was not mentioned.
Now it's the bride and groom's choice, obviously, but, come to think of it, I have never heard the path to salvation preached ever in a Catholic service. I am not simply going to defend their cult for the sake of a minute amount of Catholics who might actually be saved. The majority of that faith, according to the Bible's terms, is lost. I don't care how it's dressed up historically, or where it went wrong, or whatever. It's 2003, and they are leading people to Hell.
My point about scripture with them is, putting ritual and tradition above scripture says, "This is what's REALLY important to us."
" A higher regard for tradition as such will not affect one's adherence to scripture unless a particular portion of that tradition contradicts scripture. It is also important to distinguish between wrong tradition and a wrong interpretation of scripture. The latter has nothing to do with one's regard for scripture."
Their traditions are borne out of contradiction, and a lack of adherence to scripture.
1. Worship and bowing down to images.
2. Worship of Mary.
3. Sacrifices for sin other than what's contained in the Word of God.
4. The existence of the priesthood.
5. Works instead of Faith.
6. The existence of the pope.
7. Purgatory.
8. No assurance of salvation.
...and many others...
Bill,
The discussion of Christ. This is one of the chief joys of Covenant theology, that it presents Christ with a profundity greater than anything else out there.
KJV only or just personal preference? I used to own a Scofield (misplaced it several years ago, I think somewhere in Texas). This is the single book most responsible for the popularization of dispensational thought. I grew up in the Baptist church. We were missionaries and my father was a Baptist preacher (he himself still is, just no longer a Baptist preacher since both of my parents eventually followed me into the OPC).
Before selectively denouncing dispensationalism, I'd like to set up some parameters for what it is so that we're both agreed on what's being argued. Dispensationalism is, at its core, the belief that the church is a distinct entity from Israel. The church age began at Pentecost and will end at the pre-tribulation rapture. The church is the bride of Christ and includes only those who are saved during this time period. Other people, both before and after the church age, have been or will be saved, but they are in a different group. Basically, there are two different peoples of God. God's first plan was with Israel; however, when they rejected their Messiah, he put this plan on hold and turned to the church. The church is a mystery: it was never prophesied in the OT. Once the church has been raptured, God will once again turn to working with Israel. The first seven years will be a time of tribulation in which they are persecuted by the anti-Christ. Then, Christ will come back in judgment and set up a thousand year kingdom in which Israel will be the chief nation. This kingdom will exist in fulfillment of all of the OT prophecies made to Israel.
Some will limit the dispensations to only two: the church age and everything else. Others see as many as seven: Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Grace, and Millenium. The chief dispensations are Law and Grace. Although many, if not most, dispensationalists are moving away from this, the classic teaching has been that these dispensations differ even down to the mode of salvation. Under Law, one is saved by the atonement of the animal sacrifices and by keeping the Law; it is possible to lose your salvation. Under Grace, one is saved by the blood of Christ. This happens by believing in him and praying the sinners prayer. Salvation is eternally secure and is unrelated to repentance. Now, if you can tell me where you fit into all of this, if anywhere, I can provide a better informed refutation.
On to Catholicism. You know, there's really nothing wrong with not hearing the path to salvation at a wedding. That's not why people have them. As to the whatever of Catholic history, perhaps you should care; that is, if you want your disagreement with the Catholic religion to extend into a meaningful dialogue with its people. Anyone is much more likely to listen if you've invested the time to understand them.
Now, what about your list of traditions?
1. This one definitely contradicts scripture.
2. Ibid. Catholics distinguish three types of worship. Latria, reserved for God alone; hyperdoulia, for Mary as chief among created beings, and doulia, for saints. The hyperdoulia has, for all practical purposes, evolved into latria with a different subject. Doulia is different and there is a scriptural basis, however misguided. Doulia is basically the same respect and honor that you would give to your elders, pastor, or another more mature Christian. In itself, this is scriptural. Where the Catholics go wrong is in assumming that this relationship extends beyond death.
3. A reference to the mass. The bloodless resacrificing of Christ again and again. Scipturally, Catholics would probably want to trace this back to the OT sacrifices, claiming that it no more takes away from the cross than those did. In the doctrine of transubstantiation, the elements actually become the body and blood of Christ. This is taken from a literal reading of Jesus own words, "This is my body, this is my blood." However, even this is not the real problem with the doctrine. In transubstantiation, the elements actually turn into God and are to be honored with the worship of latria.
4. This one, though inaccurately interpreted, is scriptural and represents an extension of the OT priesthood.
5. Be careful on this one. Catholics do believe in the necessesity of both faith and grace for salvation. The issue is not Faith v. Works, but Faith Alone v. Faith plus Works. Catholic doctrine teaches that grace is infused at baptism. At this point, all original sin is washed away. However, when an individual sins, works are necessary to be restored to a state of grace.
6. The evolution of the papacy has been guided by tradition; however, its existence does have a scriptural basis. It all depends upon the validity of an Episcopalian form of church goverment, which is rule by bishops.
7. This one is tradition. It's tied into the idea of works to regain a state of grace. Normally, acts of penance will do. However, should one die before the requisite work is done, these sins have to be purged before entry into heaven is granted. Purgatory is only for venial sins. Mortal sins, which kill grace altogether, result in hell.
8. Not necessarily. Perhaps no assurance of escaping purgatory, but even then, they still believe that they will end up in heaven. The problem is, they have no basis for this assurance. Martin Luther recognized this before he left the Catholic church. He reasoned that if the greatest commandment was to love God with all of your heart, soul, and mind, then the greatest sin was not to do this. Nobody does this and so purgatory cannot be escaped. However, even there the commandment would still apply. Luther realized that he would never get out. The view of sin in Catholic theology is too low: they don't have a proper conception of the holiness of God.
Dangit, this is why I love that you have a blog Kevin. I'm now going to go wash the dishes, and chew over all that good stuff you just gave out.
Posted by: JosiahQ at agosto 13, 2003 05:26 PMA good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.
Posted by: Blinn Anne Isacowitz at dezembro 10, 2003 08:30 PM