Well then prove it. Put up or be quiet and put your head back in the sand.
This is a Christian DEBATE Forum.
Anyone here observe Lent, etc?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by robycop3, Mar 7, 2019.
Page 5 of 8
-
-
-
No sooner has one error been dealt with than another even more subtle appears on the horizon. -
-
-
It seems a bit off to think that one generation could completely root out twelve hundred years of doctrinal influence. -
One of John Piper's main points against N.T. Wright's appeal to revisit the topic of Justification was that Wright was challenging a view/ definition that has been established for over four centuries. While I disagree with Wright, I thought this was a very poor argument (one Piper would have done better to have left out of his book). -
Matthew 13
47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. -
There is a pervasive ignorance among contemporary Christians of the theological work of the Reformers and Puritans. Protestantism traces its roots to the Reformation, not the Patristic age. Reformation-period theologians wrestled with the scriptures, once they had the freedom to do so. They freely debated one another; often separating because of sharp disagreements. The Puritans picked up on where the Reformers left off. By the time we get to the great protestant confessions of the faith, many of the foundational doctrines of Protestant Christianity had been run through the wringer. That is the main difference between the theology of the Patristic age and the theology of the Reformation. I cannot find the exact quote (and if someone can, please post it), but R.C. Sproul famously said that if you come up with a private interpretation of scripture that has escaped the church for the past 2000 years, you should seriously consider abandoning your interpretation. Dr. Sproul was not taking up the view of Rome, he was making the point that after 2000 years of church history, there isn't much in the way of theology that hasn't been settled. Now, does that mean we should not study the scriptures to understand them for ourselves? Of course not! But if preacher-boy Johnny comes up with a doctrinal conclusion that Christian orthodoxy has rejected or never heard of, he would be well-served to reconsider his conclusion. A lot of the new scholarship is departing from Sola Scriptura in order to come up with unbiblical doctrines. A one-time good friend of mine began his doctoral work to prove that the messenger in Mark 1 was not John the Baptist, but Jesus. He was blazing a new trail. His reason? He wanted to take a unique position that would get him published. That is an anecdotal story but reveals some of the suspect motivations of modern scholarship.
Anyway, I am done with my unplanned rant. -
But here's the million dollar question, one that I can't answer either:
Do the dead in Christ pray for the living?
My thoughts are you don't stop being part of the church after you die. There is only one church, and living or dead we serve Christ. -
-
Martin Luther . Cheat's Guide | PBS
And there are more. -
The reformation people are not the heroes you want them to be.
-
One of Piper's objections (the only one that I found flat out wrong) was that Wright should not challenge doctrine that has been established for four centuries. -
-
-
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk -
http://shamelesspopery.com/the-dark-side-of-martin-luther/ -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Page 5 of 8