Bread Worship

The personal attack here is unwarranted. It reminds me of the debate going on in one of the Baptist forums concerning Dave Hunt. In a debate James White accuses Hunt of being ignorant of the writings of the reformers, and thus not qualified to debate the subject of Calvinism. Hunt replies that he doesn't have enough time to read through all the voluminous works of the Reformers but a good knowledge of the Bible is enough (my paraphrase).
Hunt of course is right. One does not need to read through all of Calvin's Institutes to be able either to refute or defend the the basic tenets of Calvinism. Suppose I don't believe in Calvinism, then I should be able to refute each point with the Bible. It doesn't matter whether I have read the work or not. The same holds true with ECF.

I don't have to do a thorough study on the Koran to refute the Muslims. A knowledge of the Bible is good enough.
I don't have to do a thorough study on the Book of Mormon. A knowledge of the Bible is good enough.
I don't have to do a thorough study of the "Granth Sahib" to refute the Sikh. A thorough study of the Bible is good enough.
The same is true with the ECF. I was long enough in the RCC to know that transubstantiation is a heresy.

Since I have already both expounded and exegeted the passage in question, why should it be fun. I already did the work for you.

Not really. Only if you really twist the word to try and make it mean something that it is not supposed to mean because you come to the Word with blinded pre-conceived ideas. Sure the word means "participation" just like fellowship. We participate in fellowship. The words are the same or similar in meaning. If we have fellowship with each other, then we also participate with each other on the basis of his shed blood.

Chapter 11 speaks about profaning the Lord's Table as a whole, not just the blood. You need to read the entire context. Before they celebrated the Lord's Supper they had a love feast. At that love feast they were very carnal. They associated together in their various cliques. The rich got together with the rich and the poor with the poor; each with their own social class. The result was that some were gluttonous and even drunk, while others went away hungry. Coming to the Lord's Table in a drunken state, was not the way to celebrate it. Celebrating it with all the other carnal sins that they had been committing was just as wrong.

1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
--God had physically judged them for it--even with death. This was a serious service and to be taken seriously.
The carnality was that which was being rebuked.

No one was "taking part in the blood." You can't get that out of that passage. It just isn't there. You are the one that has to do the mental gymnastics.

1. You don't know what a church is, or have the proper definition of a church.
2. Your application of the blood and the church is wrong.

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Prove your assertion. It is a verse which speaks of the Lord's Table. The cup that is partaken of represents the blood of Christ. That which is in the cup (the wine) is symbolic of the blood, as Christ said it was. It is a picture and that is all. We all partake of it. And the bread; we all partake of it. It also is a picture of the body of Christ. I agree: participation is a better word. We partake of the elements of the Lord's Table as they symbolize the blood and body of Christ, even as Christ Himself said that they did.

 

mrtumnus,

1st of all, the issue at hand...in the scriptures we were speaking of...was not whether His sacrifice for us was beneficial (at the time it had not taken place yet), but rather whether or not his followers were going to have to eat Jesus to have eternal life. He made clear that the answer is NO. He told them "The flesh profits nothing, it is the Spirit that gives life"

The most important thing about the crucifiction was that our sins were placed upon him, and He took the death penalty that we deserve upon Himself....

Praise God forever more for His great work on our behalf!

And to think that we can access this great salvation through faith alone...

And we can be made alive and empowered for service by faith alone as well...

GLORY TO GOD! \o/

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Doubting Thomas,

Christ wasnt speaking to that in the passage in question. He told them they would have to eat Him to have everlasting life. The response was "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" and "This is a hard saying! Who can understand it?"

The issue wasnt whether He was going to die for our sins or not, but whether Christ expected them to literally EAT Him.

He said...

Of course it did. And He then explained....

And later, He cleard it up even more...

And even later Paul clears it up even more...

Not by eating Jesus, for "the flesh profits nothing", but through the indwelling Holy Spirit...by faith of course.

Praise the Lord!

I said...

And you said...

Doesnt matter. The scriptures teach that even at the very beginning of the church evil decievers were already infiltrating the body.

As DHK has shown many times, the early church knew which books were the scriptures and which ones that werent long before the ECF's came along. And regarding "coming to agreement", the Catholic Church as one example has non-inspired false books in "her" canon even 1700 years after the RCC came to be.

We are not to be concerned with whether its a consensus or not. History has shown that many times the "consensus" was nothing but a "consensus" of error".

Our scriptural admonition is to "test all things"...by the scriptures of course...and "hold fast to that which is good"

God bless,

Mike

 

Hebrews 10:1-18

[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Then said[/FONT][FONT=&quot] I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But this man[/FONT][FONT=&quot], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; [/FONT][FONT=&quot] From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin” [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Hebrews 10:1-18).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Now, as we come to Hebrews 10:1-18, the scene before us is the great impotency of the Mosaic Covenant sacrifices to do anything about the sin problem. Therefore (10:1) it was also impotent to “make the comers thereunto perfect” regardless of how often the came.

The only basis for a relationship/fellowship with God is on the foundation of sinless perfection and the Law could not provide that. All the Law could do was to give a promise from God of the future true/actual redemption that would come to them in Messiah. The basis for this redemption and forgiveness lay in the reality of Messiah’s actual sacrifice. Therefore, the impotency of the Old Covenant lay in the impotency of their typical sacrifices (10:1). The Mosaic Covenant sacrifices were only shadows. They could not and did not embody the perfection that was to come in the sacrifice of Messiah.

Moral perfection could come only on the basis of a perfect sacrifice. The perfect sacrifice would be once for all;never needing repetition and would “by grace through faith” effectually make the person perfect before God (Hebrews 10:10). Hebrews 10:14-18 essentially says there are no more shadows. This is the potency of the reality of the New Covenant in Christ’s Blood.

If the Mosaic Covenant sacrifices were not able to make the “comer perfect” “would they not cease to be offered” (Hebrews 10:2)? The very notion of a perfect sacrifice was that only one sacrifice (once for all) would be required. This one, once for all sacrifice would completely “purged” believers of the condemnation (judgment) of sin. Here is the only purgatory (purging place of sin) in the Bible:

“For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins” (Hebrews 10:2).

“Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Hebrews 1:3).

When the concept of the once for all nature of the sacrifice of Christ is missed, lost, or denied the reality of the New Covenant is missed, lost, and denied and it is reduced to the empty shell of Apostate Judaism. The very fact that the sacrifices were repeated over and over was only a reminder (remembrance) every year after year of their own inadequacy and incompleteness (Hebrews 10:3).

It was not only “impossible. . . with those sacrifices [of the Mosaic Covenant] which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect;” those sacrifices was never intended to do so (Hebrews 10:4). If that reality was even a possibility, why (“wherefore”) would be the necessity of Messiah’s coming to die (Hebrews 10:5)?

“6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, 8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart” (Psalm 40:6-8).

It is almost as if apostate Israel had lost the truth of Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 about the purpose of the coming of the suffering Saviour.

The very fact that Christ came and died on the Cross (v 9) is substantiation that the Mosaic Covenant sacrifices were powerless to provide complete propitiation of God and perfect forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 10:5-9). If God could save or forgive on the basis of animal sacrifices, don’t you think He would have done that? The perfect sacrifice required a “body” prepared by God himself; sinless and perfect in itself. Nothing less would do.

“1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:1-3).

This perfect sacrifice not only needed to be perfect in Himself He had to do the will of God perfectly (Hebrews 10:7). Hebrews10:10 actually ends with the word “once: (for all is italicized). “Sanctified” in Hebrews 10:10 is in the perfect tense in the Greek. This is a very important fact to understanding the meaning of this verse and Hebrews chapter ten. The perfect tense in the Greek describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, and never needing to be repeated (this is the reason the translators added the clarify words “for all”).

The “cry of the cross, “it is finished” is a perfect example of the perfect tense. It emphasizes the fact that the propitiation of God has been accomplished completely once and for all time. Contradistinctively, this emphasizes just how blasphemous the continual offering (as a sacrifice for sin) the misrepresentation of the Lord’s Supper is. It is a complete denial of that positional sanctification that is the possession of every born again believer.

“Sanctified” means the believer is positionally set apart and made holy, righteous and perfect before God. That is the potency of the New Covenant. That is the “power” in the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

1. One sacrifice (Hebrews 10:12)
2. One offering (Hebrews 10:14)
3. No more offering for sin (Hebrews 10:18)

Underline these verses; highlight them; memorize them. They are three very important verses if you want to persuade those calling themselves Christians, but who deny the finished sacrifice of Christ by their participation in the sacraments of sacramentalism. There is (v 18) “no more offering for sin.” If you believe there is, you miss the whole point of the gospel and the very foundation of New Covenant truth. Sadder than missing the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, you are denying the work of Christ and your own salvation. False beliefs also manifest unbelief.

 

Warning!!!

“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God”(Hebrews 10:26-31).

After reading the text, read Hebrews 10:9-10 again.

“Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Before we study Hebrews 10:26-31, it is absolutely essential that we remember the context of the epistle to the Hebrews as a whole to understand the context of Hebrews chapter ten. The simple rule is, “Any text out of context is pretext” (a pretext is a false reasoning used to hide the real one).

The great theological problem detailed in the epistle to the Hebrews continues into present Church history. It answers the question; Can a person continue as an Old Covenant practitioner and be a New Covenant believer?This is the problem of the majority of Reformed Theology. They transpose the sacerdotalism and sacrifices of the Old Covenant upon the New Covenant, distorting it and perverting it. They take the sacerdotalism (God working only through a Priesthood) and transpose that concept into a New Covenant priesthood of clergymen. They take the Old Covenant sacrifices and rituals and transpose them into sacraments.

As we will see from the warning in Hebrews 10:26-31, the answer to the question, Can a person continue as an Old Covenant practitioner and be a New Covenant believer is no, absolutely and irrefutably, no! To remain as Old Covenant practitioner in the New Covenant is a complete denial of the very basis of New Covenant faith, i.e., the finished work of Christ. According to Hebrews 10:26, the ultimate contradiction of the Old Covenant practices against the New Covenant faith is what do we do about sins committed “willfully after” we have trusted in Christ.

What did the Old Covenant believer do about cleansing or forgiveness of sin after salvation? They would offer another sacrifice for sin. The great contradiction of the Theology (vs. 26) between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is that, in the New Covenant, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” Why, because “He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second” (Hebrews 10:9)

According to Hebrews 10:26, Old Covenant practices contradict the received “knowledge of the truth” of the New Covenant. That is what Hebrews 10:10, 12, 14 and 18 have confirmed. These verses purport a complete contradiction against the Old Covenant practices or any transposition of those practices into the New Covenant. These verses detail what the words “knowledge of the truth” refer to. It is the “knowledge of the truth” of the New Covenant of a finished, “once for all,” never needing repetition or perpetuation (especially vs. 18). There are no more sacrifices in the New Covenant because none are needed.

So what is the warning of Hebrews 10:26-31? The warning is that you cannot be an Old Covenant practitioner and at the same time be a New Covenant believer. To be an Old Covenant practitioner is a denial of the essential truths of the New Covenant and the Gospel of a “finished” work of redemption through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ. To offer another sacrifice for the forgiveness sins (vs.26) is out of the question, revealing a complete ignorance and misunderstanding of the Gospel and of the purpose of the sacrifice of Christ and what that sacrifice accomplished (I John 2:2).

Therefore, to use the Lord’s Supper as the perpetual sacrifice of Christ for forgiveness of sins is an Old Covenant practitioner’s adaptation (corruption) of a New Covenant ordinance, denying the essential truths of the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:10, 12, 14 and 18). The person that believes in this corrupted way cannot look forward to forgiveness of sin, but rather the opposite (Hebrews 10:27). People that believe in this corrupted way are not really believers at all. God views them as “adversaries” (enemies of the cross). Who else is the “adversary” of God and of true believers? (See I Peter 5:8).

According to this text, the kind of corruption of the gospel warned about in Hebrews 10:26-31 is one where God views Old Covenant practitioners in the New Covenant as the comrades of Satan. Yes, God goes so far as to call them Antichrist (II John 1:7-11) in that they have perverted and corrupted the “doctrine of Christ.” (See (II John 1:7-11.)

II John 1:9 is an emphatic truth and an emphatic warning. We had better heed it carefully. The “doctrine of Christ” is everything the book of Hebrews discusses. Hebrews is a New Covenant Christology (“doctrine of Christ”). Hebrews teaches us more about Christ than any other book of the Bible. The epistle of Romans tells us what Christ did. Hebrews tells what He did and tells us who He is.

According to Hebrews 10:27, what does an Old Covenant practitioner living under the New Covenant have to look forward to? That person can expect the judgment of God and His indignation (punitive zeal).

“But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Romans 2:5).

The warning of Hebrews 10:28 is that those that believe this way will die without mercy. We really cannot understand the concept of dying “without mercy.” Let me give an example of the indignation of God.

“And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb” (Rev. 14:9-10).

What is this great sin of the Old Covenant practitioner living under the New Covenant that Hebrews 10:29 refers to? It is the denial of the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ. It is the denial of His absolute, once for all, propitiatory sacrifice. The word “propitiation” means that God’s judgment (the death sentence upon all humankind) has been satisfied through the “once for all” substitionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary. What are Old Covenant practitioners living under the New Covenant actually doing when they attempt to offer another sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins? They “Trod under foot the Son of God” and equate (counts) the blood of the (new) covenant (the blood of Christ ; 10:19) of equal value to the common Old Covenant animal sacrifices.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] The result of this corruption of the Gospel though perverted practice is an insult (“done despite”) against the spirit of grace in salvation. When the Old Covenant practitioner reduces the sacrifice of Christ to the same level as Old Covenant animal sacrifices (needing constant repetition and perpetual offering), he insults the very grace of God that seeks to save him. This is a serious matter as defined by Hebrews 10:30-31. God will not stand for such an insult against His son, His sacrifice, and His gift of grace (salvation).

If you deny and reject the complete satisfaction of God’s judgment of sin, self, and Satan in Jesus Christ by denying the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, you literally fall into the hands of judgment and the vengeance of the living God. It is one thing to lose your soul, as horrible a thought as that is, it is also a serious problem to be cast into eternal hell (God forbid that is your case and destiny), but the greatest horror in the Bible is to “fall into the hands of the living God.”

“He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on Him” (John 3:36).

What is our responsibility when faced with Old Covenant practitioners who deny the finished, once for all sacrifice of Christ with their false practices? We need to love them enough to warn them just as Paul does in the book of Hebrews. We need to love them enough to tell them of the consequences of their false beliefs and practices. We need to love them enough to be straightforward with them about the truth of the New Covenant faith and the truth of the Gospel. We need to love them enough to encourage them to abandon Old Covenant, Christ denying practices and come to resting/saving faith in the once and for all finished work of Jesus Christ.

 

Christians aren't supposed to repeatedly request God to forgive their sins?

I take it you're not a proponent of praying the Lord's prayer on a regular basis either?

 

A litttle sensitive aren't we? It was not meant to be an attack. I do find it funny that you try to refute something when you don't even know what it is. How do you ever hope to actually be able to address the issue in the way the other side will understand if you do not take the time to understand them? These men are very influential in forming the world views of people today, even if a good number of our contemporaries do not realize their influence. If you do not recognize this you are not going to be able address issues very well.

I do not have to twist the word. To participate in, means to take part in and or/have a part in or share in (Merriam-Webster). If they are sharing in Christ's blood they are doing more than having "fellowship" they are sharing in it. This made all the more clear by the fact that they are pointed to a physical element. In referencing the cup he is reminding the people of Christ's promise in the institution that this is his blood given for the forgiveness of their sins. On top of that this all occurs within a discourse of eating and drinking this adds into the idea of taking part in by emphasizing that which they are eating and drinking, the body and blood of Christ. If this were a question of fellowship there would be no need for this reference, however, it is there which means there is more than fellowship taking place.

While the people were engaged in bad fellowship practices, these practices were merely a symptom as Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit correctly surmises. If this were a case of fellowship abuses then it would have been more logical for Paul to engage the problem as he did with the issue of gifts but he doesn't. Instead, he reminds them that they which they are receiving is Christ's body and blood, hence the warning against profaning it. Note that it is the profaning Christ's body and blood that is the reason why so many were falling a ill and asleep.

What an unsubstantiated assertion. The church is the body of Christ, the gathering of the saints in his image. It is never described as Christ's blood.

The single largest problem with your statement is that Christ himself calls the cup his blood. He does not say this represents his blood. He states that it is. To claim that Christ means symbolic is to put words in his mouth and make dangerous assertions. As the gospels indicate Jesus generally prefaced statements that he meant metaforically. He does not do this in the Words of Institution. Paul referencing the cup is bringing the people back to these words, reminding them of Christ's promise.

 

Unless you are arguing that Jesus' actual blood was in the cup (which would be slightly insane), then Jesus is speaking metaphorically. The wine was not actually, physically his blood, thus he had to be speaking figuratively.

Now we can all disagree if Jesus meant that his blood was in some non-physical way present in the wine. But that's a different issue.

 

Actually that is exactly what I am arguing and it is not insane. Jesus is God after all, he is quite capable of making his blood present along with the wine.

 

I'm not saying that perhaps in some spiritual or other non-physical sense that Jesus' body and blood are present. What I am saying is that the language that Jesus uses is metaphorical unless someone argues that his actual physical body and blood were consumed (which, of course, is ridiculous since both are no-no's for Jews: canibalism and blood consumption).

 

You are correct Brother Matt!

It is also commanded against in the NT (Acts 15: 20 & 29).

Would Christ give one command and then contradict it in another verse?

ØThe Law of Contradiction

Since God is immutable, He must be consistent in the revelation of Himself and in the revelation of truth. Any conclusive concept or idea that is contradictory to another concept or idea must be rejected as in error or a misinterpretation because God is consistent in truth (I John 2:21, II Timothy 2:13 and Titus 1:2). Since all truth interrelates, all systematizing of truth must be congruous (in harmony).

Both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation must be wrong because they are incongrous with so many other statements in Scripture.

 

I wouldn't say that consubstantiation is against Scripture. One could argue for a non-physical presence in the elements. I don't; but I think its possible.

 

One "could argue for" just about anything (and in these forums, they often do), but Consubstantiation, like Transubstantiation, is nonsensical and out of harmony with New Covenant truths.

 

I am saying His body and blood are physically present and the rules for cannabilism and blood consumption do not apply. Why? Because cannabilism and blood consumption were a way pagans sought to better or renew themselves apart from God. Where as God gave his body and blood for the express purpose of our renewal.

 

At least you are a TRUE Lutheran, for Luther always believed in the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation and sacramentalism/sacerdotalism (the conference of grace through the sacraments as administered through the hands of ordained clergymen).

 

I just don't see it, especially since in every instance that I have taken Communion the elements have remained bread and wine (or juice). Jesus' language clearly (to me at least) is metaphorical and the reaction (or lack thereof) by the disciples supports this (surely, as Jews, they would have protested or at least been shocked enough to ask for an explanation).

Paul seems to understand Jesus language metaphorically (and perhaps Luke's language was influenced by Paul?), though 1 Cor 11.27 seems to say the opposite (could it be that Paul amped up his rhetoric here to make sure the the believers in Corinth were taking worship seriously?). And "sinning against the body and blood" doesn't have to be understood unmetaphorically.

I know that I'm not going to convince you, and I likely will stick with my tradition as well, but I do appreciate the give and take here!

 

HP: Now here is a paragraph loaded with truth that we should all write permanently upon our minds and utilize in the development of our theology and philosophy, and worth pinning to our study walls.:thumbs:

My position is that truth originates from God regardless of the source. God grants to man truth via nature, truth via consciousness and truth via Scripture, Our duty as theologians is to harmonize truth from every possible avenue God grants to us, and see if in fact we err as theologians or as philosophers. Either one or both are always a possibility to be examined carefully and prayerfully.

 

Realted to Dr Ketchems statement another quote comes to mind. I believe it was Algernon Sydney that stated something along this line. “True fortitude of knowledge consists in not allowing the things we do not understand to confuse the things we with certainty know.”

I would see this as related in the following manner. We all have questions in many areas of our theology. Just the same, God grants to us some truth , some self evident principles of justice and reason, that to reject or forsake them would be to cavil at understanding any semblance of truth. Rather than to simply throw out what we do know of certainty because some question interrelated arises, I try to work from the solid truth to the more difficult truth, allowing those basic rock solid intuitive principles to be used as a guide in the attempt to understand the darker and more complex issues.

 

Brother,

What you are describing is known as the Inductive Methodology that builds a Systematic Theology from harmonious exegetical and dogmatic statements from Scripture. The more concrete the number and clarity of Scripture statements, the larger the weight of evidence and the more dogmatic the conclusive statement can be.