I don’t…
…think baptism is just a sign
…think New Testament writers thought and wrote in our 21st century Evangelical, American categories
…think non-Protestant churches are apostate and hell-bound
…think the church was apostate from AD 100 until the 1500s
…think appealing to tradition is bad
…think the Westminster Confession of Faith was inspired
…think God can be described as precisely, exactly, accurately, or wholly as I wish
…think being non-Confessional is equal to heresy
I do…
…think we should take Jesus seriously when he said his spirit would lead the Church into all truth
…think Protestants can learn much from other Christian traditions
…think apostolic succession is darn cool
…think tradition (“the faith once delivered unto the saints”) is very important
…think theology progresses and “grows-up” in expression, though remains the same in essence
…think the three ecumenical creeds are important and authoritative
…think something cool and mysterious happens at the Eucharist
…think charging someone with heresy is extremely serious
…think all of us hold to at least some bit of wrong thinking about God
…think the bounds of orthodoxy should be generous
…think “In essentials unity, in doubtful things liberty, but in all things charity”
…think the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church still exists today, but is not under one single ecclesiastical authority
Josh, I’m a bit worried by the walk down the road to Rome you appear to be taking these days.
I hope you’ll see this as the friendly inquiry it is and not as an attack.
“I don’t think New Testament writers thought and wrote in our 21st century Evangelical, American categories”
Could you explain what you mean a bit more here?
“I don’t think non-Protestant churches are apostate and hell-bound.”
Could you elucidate a bit on this as well? What do you mean by saying that the churches aren’t hell-bound? Is that to say that every member of the church isn’t going to hell? Or is that to say that the official doctrine of the church isn’t apostate? I hope it is the latter, given Rome’s clear heresies.
“I don’t think the church was apostate from AD 100 until the 1500s”
This isn’t intended to imply that one who thinks that Rome is apostate now is required to think that the church was apostate from AD 100 until the 1500s, is it? Because that really looks like what this is supposed to be implying. But of course, I don’t think the former entails the latter at all.
“I don’t think appealing to tradition is bad”
Does anyone think that appeals to tradition per se are bad? Probably not. The problem is with appeals to tradition as inherently as authoritative as Scripture, or appeals to “tradition” that contradicts Scripture.
“I don’t think the Westminster Confession of Faith was inspired”
I’m pretty sure no one in the world believes that. This was supposed to be a joke, right?
“I don’t think being non-Confessional is equal to heresy”
Well, it all depends on what won’t be confessed, right?
“I do…think we should take Jesus seriously when he said his spirit would lead the Church into all truth”
OK. What exactly does that mean, then?
“I do…think Protestants can learn much from other Christian traditions”
Such as?
“I do…think apostolic succession is darn cool”
False, unsubstantiated claims to tyrannical authority over the Church of Jesus Christ are cool?
“I do…think tradition (“the faith once delivered unto the saints”) is very important”
What is this “tradition” of which you write, exactly?
“I do…think the bounds of orthodoxy should be generous”
How generous?
“I do…think “In essentials unity, in doubtful things liberty, but in all things charity””
OK, what does that mean, exactly?
For example:
How charitable ought we to be with those who deny Sola Fide?
How charitable ought we to be with those who deny that homosexuality is a sin?
How charitable ought we to be with pedophiles?
How charitable ought we to be with those who deny the deity of Christ?
And, what, exactly, does “charity” mean practically with respect to how we ought to behave towards them?
You see, I think this is one of those slogans that might sound nice, but it doesn’t really mean anything, or at least the meaning is so elastic that it could mean anything. This is a problem because it’s easily misunderstood as a result.
Comment by Travis White — July 6, 2006 @ 11:20 am |
Travis asked some very important questions.
Furthermore, I would HIGHLY (I cannot emphasize it strongly enough) recommend that you listen to this:
http://www.cmfnow.com/Download/gb1432.mp3
I know you’re a fan of Bahnsen, so I hope this touches you.
Comment by Keith — July 21, 2006 @ 6:45 pm |
Actually, two more things:
When Christ refers to the spirit leading the disciples into all truth, I believe He was talking about the disciples alone, meaning that everything they wrote under inspiration would be sufficient for doctrine, instruction in righteousness, etc. (2 Tim. 3:16). If the Spirit leads ALL believers into ALL truth then you have a massive task before you of explaining why so many theological chasms are present.
Second, Jude 1:3 isn’t talking about tradition—it is talking about the essentials of the Christian faith, namely the gospel. I use this verse when I talk to Mormons and others who believe that God continues to give us revelation to better our Christian walk.
Comment by Keith — July 21, 2006 @ 6:51 pm |
Brosef
Suprising what…or who…you can find online. Stumbled across this while looking up people’s names randomly on google.
I’ve actually read several of your post and had a a few questions. Actually, I’ve never really talked much theology with you, despite living right across the hall from you for a year.
Out of curiosity, what *do* you believe about the Eucharist (or Communion)? I guess I’ve read some stuff here but can’t really find what you believe set down in a straight up statement.
And who knows, maybe this is a faster way to get you to respond than e-mail!!
A week and a half left…
-Luke vdH
Comment by Luke vdH — August 2, 2006 @ 1:40 pm |