Authority of Church Councils: David Lawrence: Our new
doctrine comes from church
councils. We will show that Calvin r
epudiated anyone who goes beyond "that which is written." The Holy
Spirit does not ADD to the Bible but CONFIRMS to the believer that it
is the Word of God. Calvin repudiates CHURCH COUNCILS as having any
authority.
Read a Summary of the Change Agent Methods for
stealing your church.
History: The Christian Connection (Part
1)
By David Lawrence Authority of Church
Councils
David Lawrence:
Recently I had lunch
with a dear friend and brother whom I hadn't seen in some time. We
have shared so much together in our spiritual journeys in the past,
and he wanted to catch me up with where God has led him recently. He
emphasized that one primary concern the Lord had laid on his heart
long ago, and one which still continues to motivate him, is the
concern to know and be
connected with the church throughout the ages. On that point we both heartily
agreed.
One of the mantras against Bible-based churches is
that the are historyless and therefore devoid of all of the rich theology down
through the ages. For instance:
Cecil Hook had to
defend the authority of church councils by accusing others of NOT
paying much attention to church history. Of course, that is the big
lie: Restoration Movement Scholars were keen students of church
history. They knew that John Calvin called his REFORMATION a
Restoration Movement with the intention of restoring the Biblical
pattern.
C. Leonard Allen and
Richard T. Hughes, in their book, Discovering our Roots: The Ancestry
of the Churches of Christ, made a most significant statement on page
8: "If we assume that our roots are entirely sacred and
not
profane, entirely
apostolic and not historical, entirely Biblical and not cultural, then we have elevated ourselves
above the level of common humanity, and, in essence, made ourselves into gods."
Leonard Allen in Restoration Roots
From page 5
"This attitude toward
the past characterized the early movement...
Propelled by such an attitude toward the past, restoration movements
like ours easily develop a kind of historylessness. By this term I refer to the perception that, while
other churches or movements are snared
in the web of
profane history,
one's own church or
movement stands above mere human history. One's own movement partakes only of the
perfections of the first
age, the sacred time of
pure beginnings... This sense of historylessness works in powerful and subtle
ways. In the process it creates exhilarating (and damaging) illusions.
If you need a fiction
writer?
"Among Churches of Christ it
often has meant that we simply discounted eighteen centuries of Christianity as, at worst, a diseased tumor or, at best, an instructive failure. And not surprisingly, the same
attitude has led many people among Churches of Christ to dismiss
their own history as itself irrelevant. For after all, if
our origins come
entirely from the Bible
and our churches are New Testament churches, then we really need not
bother ourselves with the recent past.
These people who cannot
quote from original sources claim that only professionals should
INTERPRET the Scriptures for OUR culture. However,
Scripture gives everyong the liberty and
freedom of belief and of association. In fact, John Locke whom they
despise, risked his life and liberty to give us political and
religious freedom to freely JOIN any association, to condemn it and
to WALK AWAY from it if we choose. Those who IMPOSE something not
essential to the function of the church or synagogue not authorized
by Scripture are clearly by all definitions the SECTARIANS.
Sense and
lust blinded their minds in some, and a
careless
inadvertency in others,
and fearful
apprehensions in most
(who either
believed there were, or could not but suspect there might be,
superior unknown
beings)
gave them up into the hands of their priests to fill their heads with false notions
of the deity,
and their worship
with foolish
rites, as they pleased;
and what dread or craft once
began, devotion soon
made sacred,
and religion immutable. John Locke
David Lawrence:
When we are informed as
to our past, we are able to discern clearly two important
realities:
first, the mistakes we have
made. One historian observed that those who fail to learn the lessons
of history are destined to repeat its failures. That conclusion
applies with great force to the Church of Christ.
Unbelievers taunt us with the
heresies, squabbles, schisms, misunderstandings, and behavior of Christians that
is hardly worthy of the name of Christ.
While we cannot deny the
misbehavior of
Christians nor their failure to understand the will of God, we can
learn and profit by their mistakes and, with the help of the grace of
God, perhaps avoid them in our experience.
The big lie which is part of the Hegelian
Dialectic intends to so taint YOUR past religious views that you will
be ashamed of your "doctrine." Among postmoderns and the Promise
Keepers and all SHEPHERDING cults the goal is to drive you into
schizophrenia. Then, they can pour garbage into your head and make
you part of the commune or "community church." But, the truth escapes
them because THEY DO NOT KNOW HISTORY. The First Great Awakening was
fueled by the Calvinism of the witchcraft era. There was no assurance
and people could easily be manipulated. As a result:
In New England, the
Great Awakening sounded
the death
knell for the
comprehensive Puritan conception of the world.
Its immediate
impact was to divide the Puritan churches into four more or less distinct groups.
Proponents of revival were
known as "New Lights,"
but this broad
designation covered at least two
distinct
groups.
Jonathan Edwards represented
the moderate New
Lights who wished to
remain within estalished Congregationalism, but who did not mute
their evangelistic zeal, their renewed Calvinism, and their belief in
pure churches.
To the left of these Edwardseans was a more radical camp. Many who had been quickened by revival found
the established church sterile
and oppressive. Such people ohen broke away to form
"Separate" churches.
Historian C. C. Goen has painstakingly identified
321 separations of one kind or another by
these New Lights. Some
of these splits were healed rapidly. Others led to the continuation
of "Separate Congregational', churches.
But most eventually became
Baptist congregations.
Baptists like Isaac Backus ofien appreciated Edwards and his
theology.
But they grew
convinced that the state had no business in the church and that the
baptism of adult believers was the proper way to testify to God's saving work.
In the face of this
ecclesiastical fragmentation, the older Puritanism had no chance. The New Lights, Edwardseans and Separates, urged individuals to turn in repentance to Christ.
- They urged those who heeded
their message
to purge the churches of all who were not
converted. Awakening
Effects.
There are still 146 separate BAPTISTS
DENOMINATIONS. Therefore, to call the RESTORATION MOVEMENT fragmented
is to IGNORE HISTORY.
David Lawrence:
Second, we can discern
the hand of God at
work with his people,
guiding them, teaching them, maturing them, and sanctifying them.
All of these matters were
indistinct to the earliest church that had to devote their energies simply to
survival from persecution.
Heresies gave the impetus to the early church scholars to search the
Scriptures and define correct Christian doctrine. We are the
beneficiaries of their efforts today, but we know of these great
accomplishments only through history.
Look how far God has BROUGHT
US! The early church was CONVULSED about so many matters
that have been defined
in the course of history as God has led his people with his Holy
Spirit.
Then Christ THE Holy Spirit
DID NOT guide the apostles into all truth. TRUTH is not based on
culture: if David jumps off a tall building which existed in the time
of Paul he will find that the truth of the law of gravity has not
changed--even though the insanity of "postmodernism" says that it
has.
Rubel Shelly and John York: Neither
is there anything that challenges the divine order in creation by having
women partner with
males in serving
God.
So isn't it at
least
possible that there
could be cultural
conditioning at work in
some of the statements about how men and women function in the life
of the church?
And couldn't Christians
disagree in good faith about the interpretation of these statements
without any party to the discussion jettisoning a high view of Scripture as the Word of God?
Carrol D. Osburn "...but another step must be taken if the text would
actually become Scripture and that is to engage the text in dialogue
to ask, 'Now that I understand the meaning of this text for today,
can I accept
this" (p. 47).
He says,
"Paul's arguments carried weight in his day even though they may not necessarily be convincing
by today's standards" (p. 135).
Rubel Shelly and John York:
John: Remember, our fundamental conviction is that the Bible is the
story of
God,
a dramatic narrative that announces and reveals
and invites us into
participation and relationship with God and one another.
Every scene in that story has been set in some historical human context.
Those
cultural
settings always have
been
changing and
changeable.
When I hear about the discovery that CULTURE
changes I just go into a charismatic fit and yell WOW!
The loss of the love for the
Words of Christ which He defined as SPIRIT and Life leads one into
the delusion that the modern believer, just like Jesus, was
INCARNATED with the Holy Spirit. Jesus identified the Father within
as instructing what to put into Words. The Spirit had been with the
Apostles and would be IN them later. The ANOTHER COMFORTER Jesus
identified by saying I WILL COME TO YOU. (John 14:18)
When the LORD appeared to Paul
He said I am JESUS of Nazareth. He appeared to Paul as an apostle
born AFTER THE APOSTLE SEASON to focus on th Gentiles. He promised to
guide Paul as He promised the TIMELY BORN apostles. Therefore, to use
the COERCIVE power of the claim to be LED by the Holy Spirit to
reveal dogmas not contained in the Bible is the claim, as some do, to
be the Christ for this church.
David Lawrence believes and
teaches and proselytes in the belief that the CHURCH COUNCILS
developed these new views. He attempts to further FRAGMENT churches
of Christ by teaching a Calvinism he simply does not
comprehend:
David Lawrence: Look at what the early CHURCH COUNCILS accomplished in DEFINING Christian doctrine, such as the nature of Christ,
the TRINITY, and the doctrines of SALVATION by GRACE.
ALL of these matters were
INDISTINCT to the earliest church that had to devote their
energies simply to
SURVIVAL from persecution.
Like Peep stone Joe Smith,
Rubel Shelly claims NEW GLASSES to get a NEW
VISION for the church.
He further claims that we should hear AUDIBLY the voice of God. I
wonder how David Lawrence grasps that something is a new revelation
or an old lie?
Heresies gave the
impetus to the early church scholars to search the Scriptures and
define
CORRECT Christian
doctrine. We are the beneficiaries of their efforts today, but we
know of these great accomplishments only through history.
History notes several heresies:
the "first one largely pervading the church" was the selection of the
Precentor or clergy "song leader." Other heresies which divided the
church was adding non Biblical songs and much, much later the
addition of musical instruments. No one doubted that baptism was FOR
or IN ORDER to the remission of sins. Sprinkling, however, was added
fairly early. Another heresy was the budding view of the trinity and
the baptism of people into THREE NAMES. This, naturally, led to
triune baptism.
Rubel Shelly and
John York:
John: In the
first
century, the community
of faith -- the body of Christ -- was, to use Paul's phrase to the
Philippians, "working
out their salvation" as
God
himself was
working and willing
his good pleasure through them (Phil. 2:12-13).
The conclusion which you
DEPRIVED YOUR BUDGET to receive directly from humans helping divinity
to reveal:
Therefore, because
the WORD was based on the Culture.
Cultures are still
changing.
You must allow US to help God define the NEW TRUTH. That is confessed by the words
postmodern or narrative theology.
Rubel Shelly: "This
is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we
know that his testimony
is true.
But there are
also many other
things that Jesus did;
if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world
itself could not contain the books that would be written"
(21:24-25).
John York: I know that's a bit of overkill on something quite insignificant! But there are
other double
meanings here that are
significant.
IF #
1: What if the
testimony that is
true, that to which "we" bear witness does goes beyond John to his original audience --
IF # 2: and even to us?
IF # 3: What if the many other things done by Jesus
not written in this book
are to be
heard as the
ongoing
activity of Jesus
in the life of
those Spirit-filled
followers?
Eusebius: Why
need we speak of him who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus, who has
left us one Gospel,
though he confessed
that he might write so
many that the world
could not contain them?
And he wrote also the
Apocalypse, but was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven
thunders. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also
a second and third; but not all consider them genuine, and together
they do not contain hundred lines."
Matthew Henry: Those that argue from this against the
sufficiency of the scripture as the rule of our faith and
practice, and for the necessity of unwritten traditions,
ought to show what
there is in the traditions they pretend to be
perfective of the written word;
we are sure there is that which
is contrary to
it, and therefore reject them.
By these therefore let us be
admonished, for of making many books there is no end, Eccl. 12:12. If
we do not believe and improve what is written, neither should we if there had been much
more.
That GOD IS ONE and the name
(singular) of Father, Son and Spirit is Jesus Christ. God makes the
test TOUGH by insisting that if you want to come to the SPIRIT God
you have to approach Him as He lives in a body prepared for me. To
reject the Words and demand a direct revelation from the SPIRIT is to
deny that Christ was fully revealed in the flesh.
However, the dogma of the trinity has caused
probably more discord than any other thing. However, this was not a
COUNCIL DERIVED addition to the old, incomplete Bible. ALL scholars
define the trinity which ABSOLUTE repudiates David Lawrence, Rubel
Shelly derived trinity. The church Fathers insist that the God head
is NEVER separated and CANNOT be a Shellyite Family of Gods,
independent with their own dispensational skills. Trinity is almost
always defined as Father is THOUGHT, Son is WORD and SPIRIT is BREATH
which blows the word out between the lips or double-edged sword. The
church scholars got that idea from God who inspired Psalm 33:
For the WORD of the
LORD is right; and all HIS works are done in truth. Psa 33:4
By the WORD (1) of the LORD (2)
were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the BREATH
(3) of his MOUTH. Psa 33:6
Mouth: Peh (h6310)
peh; from 6284; the mouth (as the means of blowing)
Breath is SPIRIT: Ruwach
(h7307) roo'-akh, roo'-akh; from 7306; wind; by resemblance breath.
by resemblance SPIRIT, but ONLY of a RATIONAL BEING (includ. its
expression and functions)
The Pope claimed to have the
power to change the rules of the church, or how the Bible would be
APPLIED in their church. However, only fanatics give themselves the
power to claim the HOLY SPIRIT by slicing Him off from the Father and
Son to reveal NEW truths. For instance, NEITHER John Calvin nor
Luther ever saw the spirit giving anyone power to CHANGE the
word.
The same "scholars" love to
make false
claims for Thomas Campbell, claiming that he believed that you needed a direct
operation of the Holy Spirit in order to understand Scripture which
the Holy Spirit inspired to make understandable. Of course, that is a
lie because scholars rest their false charges on reading "scholarly"
views of scholarly views and NEVER read men like John Calvin and John
Locke or Thomas Campbell.
The same people who lie about
the Restoration Movement being ignorant of historical developments
within the church also marginalize themselves by proving that THEY do
not understand their own Calvinistic history.
John Calvin has some ugly
words for fanatics who believe that the Holy Spirit guides them apart
from the WORD:
1.The fanatics wrongly
appeal to the Holy Spirit
Those who,
REJECTING Scripture,
IMAGINE that they have
some peculiar way of penetrating to God, are to be deemed not so
much under the influence of error as MADNESS. For certain GIDDY
men have lately appeared, who, while they make a GREAT display of the SUPERIORITY of the Spirit,
reject all
reading of the Scriptures themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who only delight in what they call the
dead and deadly
letter.
But I wish they would tell me
WHAT SPIRIT it is whose inspiration raises
them to such a sublime height that they dare DESPISE the doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish.
If they answer that it is
the Spirit of Christ, their confidence is exceedingly ridiculous;
since they will, I
PRESUME, admit that the APOSTLES and other believers in the primitive
Church were NOT
illuminated by any other Spirit.
David Lawrence:
ALL of these matters
were INDISTINCT to the earliest church that had to devote their
energies simply to
SURVIVAL from persecution.
NONE of these thereby learned to DESPISE the
WORD of God, but every one was imbued with greater reverence for it, as their writings most clearly
testify.
And, indeed, it had been so
foretold by the mouth of Isaiah. For when he says,
My SPIRIT that is
upon thee, and my WORDS which I have put in thy MOUTH, shall
not
depart out of thy
mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy
seed's seed, saith the Lord, from HENCEFORTH and FOR EVER,
he does not tie down the
ancient Church to EXTERNAL DOCTRINE, as he were a mere teacher of
elements; he rather shows that,
under the reign of
Christ, the true and full felicity of the new
Church will consist in their being ruled not less by the Word than by the Spirit
of God.
Hence we infer that these
MISCREANTS are guilty of fearful SACRILEGE in tearing asunder what the prophet joins in
indissoluble union.
Add to this, that Paul, though
carried up even to the third heaven, ceased not to profit by the
doctrine of the law and
the prophets, while, in
like manner, he exhorts Timothy, a teacher of singular excellence, to
GIVE ATTENTION to
reading, (1 Tim. 4:
13.)
This is Paul's unique word for
worship in Spirit and in Truth: give attention or give heed. This is
the same word in Hebrew used by David when he worshiped and sang
songs upon his bed and meditated in his heart.
And the eulogium
which he pronounces on Scripture well deserves to be remembered,
viz., that
it is PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for
instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be PERFECT, (2
Tim. 3: 16.)
What an
INFATUATION of the DEVIL,
therefore, to fancy that Scripture, which conducts the sons of God to
the final goal, is of TRANSIENT and temporary use?
Again, I should like those
people to tell me whether they have imbibed ANY OTHER Spirit than
that which Christ PROMISED to his disciples. Though their MADNESS is
extreme, it will
scarcely carry them the length of making this their boast.
But what kind of Spirit did our
Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself, (John 16: 13,)
but suggest and
INSTILLS the TRUTHS which he himself had delivered through the WORD.
Hence the office of the Spirit
promised to us, is not
to form NEW and unheard-of REVELATIONS, or to coin a NEW FORM of DOCTRINE, by which we may be
led away from the received doctrine of the gospel,
but to SEAL on our
MINDS the very doctrine which the GOSPEL recommends."
John Calvin said that If the WORD is dead then
the SPIRIT must also be Dead.
And I will pray the
Father, and he shall give you another (fuller) Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; John
14:16
Even the Spirit
of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him;
for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. John 14:17
I
will not leave you
comfortless: I will come
to you. John 14:18
Jesus as SON or WORD spoke only
what the FATHER or Thought revealed to Him. He delivered it by His
breath or Spirit. Because He was FULL DEITY that which He spoke from
eternity WAS spirit.
>
It is the
spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words
that I speak unto you, they are spirit,
and they are life.
Jn 6:63
> Searching what, or what manner of time
the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified
beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should
follow. 1 Pe 1:11
> Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where
the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Cor 3:17
But we all, with
open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed
into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the
Lord. 2 Cor 3:18
> And I fell at his feet to worship him.
And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and
of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for
the testimony of Jesus
is the spirit
of
prophecy. Rev 19:10
That is why Calvin agrees that
those who look for FURTHER revelation or a direct Holy Spirit change
to the Word INSULT THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Whether you buy all of Calvin's views he makes
it clear, as will looking at all of the early scholars, that the
spirit works through the Word. That is the meaning of A holy spirit
following faith, repentance and baptism or A clear conscience which
we REQUEST when our bodies are washed.
In Calvin's Institutes: of the Knowledge of
God
1. Before proceeding farther,
it seems proper to make some observations on the authority of Scripture, in order that our minds may not only
be prepared to receive it with reverence, but be divested of all doubt.
When that which professes to be the Word of God is
acknowledged to be so,
no person, unless devoid
of common sense and the feelings of a man, will have the desperate hardihood to refuse credit to the speaker.
But since
no daily
responses are given
from heaven,
and the Scriptures are the only
records in which God has been pleased to
consign his truth to perpetual remembrance,
the full authority
which they ought to possess with the faithful is not recognised,
unless they are
believed to have come from heaven,
as
directly as if God had
been heard giving
utterance to them.
This subject well deserves to
be treated more at large, and pondered more accurately. But my
readers will pardon me for having more regard to what my plan admits
than to what the extent of this topic requires.
A most pernicious error
has very generally
prevailed; viz., that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church;
as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men.
With great
insult to the Holy
Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the
Scriptures proceeded from God;
who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our
times;
who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list,
did not the Church
regulate all these
things with certainty?
On the determination of the
Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and
the books which are to
be admitted into the canon.
Thus profane men,
seeking, under the
pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled
tyranny, care not in
what absurdities they entangle themselves and others,
provided they
extort from the
simple this one
acknowledgement, viz., that there is nothing which the Church cannot
do.
But what is to become of
miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance of eternal life, if all
the promises with regard to it have no better support than man's
judgement? On being told so, will they cease to
doubt and tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is
our faith subjected - into how great suspicion is it brought with
all, if believed to have only a precarious authority lent to it by the good will of
men?
2. These ravings are admirably refuted by a single expression of an
apostle. Paul testifies that the Church is "built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets," (Eph. 2: 20.)
If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of
the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter
began to exist.
Nor is there any
room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first
beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles
and prophets, until
her judgement is interposed.
Calvin on Church Councils
Wherefore, though our opponents
should name councils of
thousands of bishops it
will little avail them; nor will they induce us to believe that they
are, as they maintain,
guided by the Holy
Spirit, until they make it credible that they assemble in the
name of
Christ:
since it is as possible for
wicked and dishonest to conspire against Christ, as for good and honest bishops to meet together in
his name.
Of this we have a clear proof
in very many of the
decrees which have
proceeded from councils. But this will be afterwards seen.
At present I only
reply in one word, that our Saviour's promise is made to those only
who assemble in his
name.
How, then, is such an assembly
to be defined? I deny
that those assemble in the name of Christ who, disregarding his command
by which he forbids
anything to be added to
the word of God
or taken from it, determine everything at their own pleasure,
who, not contented with the oracles of
Scripture, that is, with the only rule of perfect
wisdom, devise some
novelty out of their own
head, (Deut. 4: 2; Rev.
22: 18.) Certainly, since our Saviour has not promised to be present
with all councils of whatever description, but has given a peculiar
mark for distinguishing true and lawful councils from others, we
ought not by any means to lose sight of the distinction.
The covenant which God
anciently made with the Levitical priests was to teach at his mouth, (Mal. 2: 7.)
This he always required of the
prophets, and we see
also that it was the law given to the apostles. On those
who violate this
covenant God bestows
neither the honour of the priesthood nor any authority. Let my
opponents solve this difficulty if they would subject my faith to the
decrees of man, without authority from the word of God.
PETER'S OPINION
SIMON Peter, a
servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained
like precious faith with us through the righteousness of
God and our Saviour
Jesus Christ: 2 Pet 1:1
Simon Peter, a servant and
apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
have received a faith as precious as ours: 2 Pet 1:1NIV
Grace and peace be multiplied unto you
through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 2 Pet 1:2
According as his divine power
hath given unto us all
things that pertain
unto life
and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 2
Pet 1:3
Whereby are given unto us
exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine
nature, having escaped
the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 Pet 1:4
And beside this, giving all
diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; 2 Pet
1:5
Peter continues:
Wherefore I will
not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be
established in the
present truth. 2 Pet
1:12
Yea, I think it meet, as long
as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in
remembrance; 2 Pet
1:13
Knowing that shortly I must put
off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
2 Pet 1:14
Moreover I will endeavour that
ye may be able after my decease to have these things alway in
remembrance. 2 Pet 1:15
WHY REJECTING THE TEXT BLASPHEMES
GOD
For we have NOT
followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the
power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of
his majesty. 2 Pet 1:16
For he received from God the
Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the
excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 2
Pet 1:17
And this voice which came from
heaven WE HEARD, when we were with him in the holy mount. 2 Pet
1:18
We have also a MORE sure word
of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye TAKE HEED, as unto a LIGHT
that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the DAY STAR
arise in your hearts: 2 Pet 1:19
We WORSHIP whatever we GIVE ATTENTION TO.
People hate the Bible and warn of idolatry for trusting the ONCE
DELIVERED WORD. However, to give heed to God we must give heed to His
Word:
Proserchomai (g4334) pros-er'-khom-ahee; from 4314 and 2064
(includ. its alt.); to approach, i.e. (lit.) come near, visit, or
(fig.) worship, assent to: - (as soon as he) come (unto),
come thereunto, consent, draw near, go
(near, to, unto).
WHY IS IT THAT WE SHOULD REJOICE IN SOLA
SCRIPTURA? It is either the words of Lord Jesus Christ through an
inspired Apostle or it is through a SELF-PROCLAIMED LATTER DAY
APOSTLE. Peter speaking for Lord Jesus Christ gave NO ONE the right
to INTERPRET the Word. The command of the Word is to "teach the Word
as it has been taught" without trying to INJECT false dogma by
claiming to be the SECOND INCARNATION. What happened the FIRST
TIME?
Knowing this first,
that no prophecy of the scripture is of any PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. 2 Pet 1:20
Because Peter said
Searching what, or
what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did
signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and
the glory that should follow. 1 Peter 1:11
INTERPRETATION IS
Epilusis (g1955) ep-il'-oo-sis; from 1956; explanation, i.e.
APPLICATION: - interpretation.
Epiluo (g1956) ep-ee-loo'-o; from 1909 and
3089; to solve further, i.e. (fig.) to explain, decide: - determine,
EXPOUND.
What was Paul saying when he DEMANDED that the
elders (as the pastor teachers) "teach that which has been taught"
and "refute those who contradict it?" Do we need a COMMUNE with a
GROUP MIND to explain what Peter meant?
For the prophecy
came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Pet 1:21
BUT there were false prophets also among the
people, even as there
shall be false teachers
among you, who
privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even
denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift
destruction. 2 Pet 2:1
And many shall follow their
pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil
spoken of. 2 Pet 2:2
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth
not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 2 Pet 2:3
For if God spared not the
angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them
into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Pet 2:4
Peter made it very clear but the Phds for which
there was no "certificate of need" have to turn the Bible upside down
or go down in history as taking from the poor. There is NO community
which can with a straight face claim that THE AUDIENCE is incompetent
and the GROUP MIND--led by the GROUP LEADER--must INTERPRET the Bible
which needs little interpretation unless you INTEND to repudiate
Jesus as the Living Word who supplied the Written Word.
Calvin has to be HANDLED WITH DISHONESTY to
force him to say what modern Calvinists want him to say. He certainly
did not invent the idea of Predestination: the Jews felt
predestinated and could not be lost. Therefore, Augustine and Calvin
tackle TULIP but they try to explain what is not in their heart and
what they DID WRITE is distorted just as his views of Baptism.
Reformation Index
Home
Page
Counter added 11/12/04
Authority of Church Councils, David
Lawrence, Engedi Ministries, Engedi.org, John Calvin
