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

      KL:

      "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
      I'm
      > 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
      Scripture
      > 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
      in
      > 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
      that
      > the dissenting view is not to be considered to be merely a
      different,
      > 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
      that
      > 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
      to
      > new beginners; but I mean all such truths as are commonly put in
      the
      > 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
      required
      > 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
      is
      > 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,
      (August.
      > Lib. Quaest. in Evang. Matth.)" -- John Calvin.
      >
      > In all of this, do not forget that no truth can be determined
      merely
      > 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
      Antichrist
      > who sets himself up as God, saw this principle in Scripture. So do
      I.
      > 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
      Psalmody
      > are not one and the same, but that one can hold to the Regulative
      > Principle, and still not necessarily conclude that only Psalms are
      to
      > be sung. I would argue that those people are in error and cannot
      > find positive sanction for singing anything other than inspired
      song,
      > 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
      Luther
      > 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.