Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: No really, PONDER it, seriously.

Expand Messages
  • kalvin_lives
    like in the case of justification by faith, where even in Roman Catholicism you may find traces of it in the teachings of Augustin KL: Traces of
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      like in
      the case of justification by faith, where even in Roman Catholicism
      you may find traces of it in the teachings of Augustin


      "Traces" of Justification by Faith in the teachings of Augustine. I
      wonder if Augustine had enough traces of JBF to be saved.

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "raging_calvinist"
      <ragingcalvinist@c...> wrote:
      > > If the "logic" of your argument is valid on why
      > > Steve Schlissell is wrong regarding the RP, then
      > > it is also valid when the same logic is used to
      > > refute Luther's view of Justification by Roman
      > > Catholics.
      > I'm afraid your not seeing the underlying logic. You seem to be
      > thinking that I am saying that because the majority missed it, then
      > it cannot be true of one guy figures it out -- which is not what
      > saying at all.
      > Line up Luther, Calvin, Ursinus, Knox, et all on one side, and
      > Schlissel on the other, and I'm having no problem which team I'm
      > lining up with. Fat chance Schlissel has more insight into
      > proof than the greatest teachers God gave the Church since the time
      > of the Apostles. And it's not just that most "got it wrong," like
      > the case of justification by faith, where even in Roman Catholicism
      > you may find traces of it in the teachings of Augustin and other
      > early church and medieval fathers, but according to Schlissel, they
      > ALL, to the man, missed it. But that's not the only issue here...
      > We have the Regulative Principle of Worship held forth in the
      > Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformed Churches, which means
      > the dissenting view is not to be considered to be merely a
      > yet no less valid, opinion. Nor are we to consider it merely an
      > error. A divisive position which dissents from the universal
      > biblical position of the Church is heresy.
      > "Heresy is neither to be so far taken at large as to be extended to
      > every error which may be confuted by scripture, although, happily,
      > such an error be too tenaciously maintained; nor yet is it to be so
      > far restricted as that no error shall be accounted heretical but
      > which is destructive to some fundamental article of the Christian
      > faith; if, by a fundamental article, you understand such a truth,
      > without the knowledge and faith whereof it is impossible to get
      > salvation.... But if you understand by fundamental truths all the
      > chief and substantial principles (I do not mean only the first
      > rudiments, or A, B, C, of a catechism, which we, first of all, put
      > new beginners; but I mean all such truths as are commonly put in
      > confessions of faith, and in the more full and large catechisms of
      > the reformed churches; or all such truths as all and every one who
      > lives in a true Christian reformed church are commanded and
      > to learn and know, as they expect, in the ordinary dispensation of
      > God, to be saved), in this sense I may yield that heresy is always
      > contrary to some fundamental truth." -- George Gillespie.
      > "The name of heretics and schismatics is applied to those who, by
      > dissenting from the Church, destroy its communion. This communion
      > held together by two chains, viz., consent in sound doctrine and
      > brotherly charity. Hence the distinction which Augustine makes
      > between heretics and schismatics is, that the former corrupt the
      > purity of the faith by false dogmas, whereas the latter sometimes,
      > even while holding the same faith, break the bond of union,
      > Lib. Quaest. in Evang. Matth.)" -- John Calvin.
      > In all of this, do not forget that no truth can be determined
      > by polling theologians. Scripture is our rule.
      > Scripture CLEARLY states that we are not to add things to worship
      > that God Himself has not commanded:
      > "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not
      > add thereto, nor diminish from it." -- Deuteronomy 12:32.
      > (See also Num. 15:39-40; Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:5,6; I Kings 12:32-33;
      > Jer. 7:24,31; 19:5; Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:7-13; Col. 2:20-23).
      > All the Reformed Churches, in contra-distinction to Papal
      > who sets himself up as God, saw this principle in Scripture. So do
      > Schlissel does not.
      > > Well, since Luther believed in the Regulative Principle, will you
      > > be singing "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" next Sunday?
      > No, we won't be singing anything other than what God gave us to
      > sing. Don't confuse the issues here, Matt. You yourself have
      > conceded that the issues of the Regulative Principle and of
      > are not one and the same, but that one can hold to the Regulative
      > Principle, and still not necessarily conclude that only Psalms are
      > be sung. I would argue that those people are in error and cannot
      > find positive sanction for singing anything other than inspired
      > but that does not mean that they deny outright the Regulative
      > Principle of Worship as Mr. Schlissel does.
      > And besides, in a recent post, I gave reason why I'm not sure
      > necessarily intended his hymns to be sung in formal public worship
      > anyway. Perhaps you didn't see that post.
      > gmw.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.