Is Bad Doctrine Sin?

Epistemology (theory of knowledge) is a fascinating topic….

Many of us who have grown up in the church are familiar with Paul’s statement describing Eve as the first person to be deceived. Then there are the common interpretations of Paul’s statement: women cannot trust their own judgment, women are so emotional that they cannot think straight, women are emotionally fragile and cannot thrive in a man’s world, etc. Therefore, women should trust men to interpret Scripture, leading to the subtle implication that women should also trust men to define reality. Ironically, these common interpretations don’t leave much room for Christian women to experience the Holy Spirit as Teacher and Comforter in their daily lives as promised by Jesus Christ.

I’m not a theologian, but I have heard that Scripture interprets Scripture.
In Corinthians 10:11, Paul explains the purpose of historical accounts of people and their life experience in the Hebrew Scriptures as examples for us, written for our admonition (I Cor 10:11).
Based upon my own study of Scripture, I believe answers to questions concerning epistemology of women can be found in II Kings 3- 4.

So, Lord willing, I will outline what we can learn from II Kings 4 concerning epistemology of the Shunammite woman from II Kings 4 tomorrow afternoon…..

In 17th century England, the ultimate insult was to call another man a Hobbist (a follower of Thomas Hobbes).

The ultimate compliment was to call another man a scholar and a gentleman.

So thank you Greg (Tiribulus) for your compliment and for your respectful challenge of my epistemology 😉

Truly you are a scholar and a gentleman!

Epistemology (theory of knowledge) is a fascinating topic….
According to the philosopher Nicholoas Wolterstorff, Aquinas and Locke held the complimentarist view of faith and reason whereas Augustine and Calvin held the preconditionalist view of faith and reason.
Locke and Aquinas recognized faith according to reason (light of nature), faith contrary to reason, and faith above reason (light of grace.)

If I used the preconditionalist view to evaluate this woman’s epistemology, then I could be guilty of “playing Holy Spirit.”
For the purposes of this essay, I believe the complimentarist view will be most effective.

A Woman Who Learned to Trust by Lora

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Kings+4%3A8-37&version=NKJV

II Kings 4:8-16
8 Now it happened one day that Elisha went to Shunem, where there was a notable woman, and she persuaded him to eat some food. So it was, as often as he passed by, he would turn in there to eat some food. 9
[Notable…KJV says great…more than likely, woman had wealth and social status-yet had little education?]
And she said to her husband, “Look now, I know that this is a holy man of God, who passes by us regularly. 10 Please, let us make a small upper room on the wall; and let us put a bed for him there, and a table and a chair and a lampstand; so it will be, whenever he comes to us, he can turn in there.”
[Woman says: I know (KJV says I perceive). So I ask: How does she know/perceive?
Did she ask her husband if Elisha was a holy man of God? No.
She did ask her husband if he would agree to a construction project.
Okay, so how did this woman come to this conclusion? Perhaps she realized that Elisha was a nice man (faith according to reason) OR perhaps she realized that Elisha was a holy man of God (faith above reason, from the Holy Spirit) OR it could have been both….

A Woman Who Learned to Trust by Lora

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Kings+4%3A8-37&version=NKJV

II Kings 4:8-11
8 Now it happened one day that Elisha went to Shunem, where there was a notable woman, and she persuaded him to eat some food. So it was, as often as he passed by, he would turn in there to eat some food. 9
[Notable…KJV says great…more than likely, woman had wealth and social status-yet had little education?]
And she said to her husband, “Look now, I know that this is a holy man of God, who passes by us regularly. 10 Please, let us make a small upper room on the wall; and let us put a bed for him there, and a table and a chair and a lampstand; so it will be, whenever he comes to us, he can turn in there.”
[Woman says: I know (KJV says I perceive). So I ask: How does she know/perceive?
Did she ask her husband if Elisha was a holy man of God? No.
She did ask her husband if he would agree to a construction project.
Okay, so how did this woman come to this conclusion? Perhaps she realized that Elisha was a nice man (faith according to reason) OR perhaps she realized that Elisha was a holy man of God (faith above reason, from the Holy Spirit) OR it could have been both….

II Kings 4:11-16
11 And it happened one day that he came there, and he turned in to the upper room and lay down there. 12 Then he said to Gehazi his servant, “Call this Shunammite woman.” When he had called her, she stood before him. 13 And he said to him, “Say now to her, ‘Look, you have been concerned for us with all this care. What can I do for you? Do you want me to speak on your behalf to the king or to the commander of the army?’”
She answered, “I dwell among my own people.”
[Gehazi seems to be serving as an interpreter. Elisha ASKED what he could do for her, without jumping to false conclusions. Elisha speculates that she could be a victim of political oppression. But the woman is honest, stating that she is not a victim.]
14 So he said, “What then is to be done for her?”
And Gehazi answered, “Actually, she has no son, and her husband is old.”
15 So he said, “Call her.” When he had called her, she stood in the doorway. 16 Then he said, “About this time next year you shall embrace a son.”And she said, “No, my lord. Man of God, do not lie to your maidservant!”
[Even though this woman recognizes Elisha as the man of God, she is skeptical and refuses to believe his promise. Could be a simple lack of faith, OR perhaps she has problems with trusting Elisha due to some emotional problem from her past]

II Kings 4:17-23
17 But the woman conceived, and bore a son when the appointed time had come, of which Elisha had told her.18 And the child grew. Now it happened one day that he went out to his father, to the reapers. 19 And he said to his father, “My head, my head!” So he said to a servant, “Carry him to his mother.” 20 When he had taken him and brought him to his mother, he sat on her knees till noon, and then died. 21 And she went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, shut the door upon him, and went out. 22 Then she called to her husband, and said, “Please send me one of the young men and one of the donkeys, that I may run to the man of God and come back.”
23 So he said, “Why are you going to him today? It is neither the New Moon nor the Sabbath.”
[Her husband’s question seems to reflect faith according to reason-based on experience, he knows that his wife goes to man of God on the New Moon and the Sabbath… So why today?]
And she said, “It is well.”
[So this woman does not tell her husband that their son has died. Is she lying to her husband?
Or is she exercising a faith above reason-all will be well once she reaches the man of God.]

II Kings 4:24-28
24 Then she saddled a donkey, and said to her servant, “Drive, and go forward; do not slacken the pace for me unless I tell you.” 25 And so she departed, and went to the man of God at Mount Carmel. So it was, when the man of God saw her afar off, that he said to his servant Gehazi, “Look, the Shunammite woman! 26 Please run now to meet her, and say to her, ‘Is it well with you? Is it well with your husband? Is it well with the child?’” And she answered, “It is well.”
[So this woman does not tell Gehazi that her son has died. Is she lying? Perhaps her statement is related to her emotional problem with trust? Or is she exercising a faith above reason-all will be well once she reaches the man of God.]
27 Now when she came to the man of God at the hill, she caught him by the feet, but Gehazi came near to push her away. But the man of God said, “Let her alone; for her soul is in deep distress, and the LORD has hidden it from me, and has not told me.” 28 So she said, “Did I ask a son of my lord? Did I not say, ‘Do not deceive me’?”
[This woman sounds bitter. And she remembers what she said to Elisha 12 years ago? This woman has the memory of an elephant! Obviously, Gehazi is judging this woman AND he is being very disrespectful towards her.]
Lest I be guilty of Gehazi’s sin, allow me to point out that the woman is distraught due to the death of her son. So then it would be best for me to recall the Scriptural definition of empathy: to weep with those who weep.]
[Reflecting on Micah 6:8 and the Lord’s requirements for us…to DO justly, to LOVE mercy, to WALK humbly before they God…Elisha’s behavior indicates that he understands the Lord’s requirements. Gehazi’s behavior clearly indicates otherwise.]

II Kings 4:29-31
29 Then he said to Gehazi, “Get yourself ready, and take my staff in your hand, and be on your way. If you meet anyone, do not greet him; and if anyone greets you, do not answer him; but lay my staff on the face of the child.” 30 And the mother of the child said, “As the LORD lives, and as your soul lives, I will not leave you.” So he arose and followed her.
[So Elisha tells the woman to go with Gehazi, but she refuses. Oh, no! A woman has disobeyed the man of God! Will he insult her? Will he refuse to help her? Will he tell her that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft? No, the man of God does none of these. Instead, he meets the woman where she is at, subjectively that is. As the man of God, he shows mercy.]
[So let’s look at this woman’s attitude towards Gehazi. Based on Gehazi’s behavior, this woman realizes something that Elisha does not yet realize: Gehazi is NOT a man of God. This woman is exercising faith according to reason. Elisha appears to be exercising faith above reason-that God will work a miracle through the obedience of Gehazi.
31 Now Gehazi went on ahead of them, and laid the staff on the face of the child; but there was neither voice nor hearing. Therefore he went back to meet him, and told him, saying, “The child has not awakened.”
[So now, the scientific experiment is complete. The woman’s faith (and disobedience) according to her own reason is validated, Elisha’s faith in Gehazi’s obedience is contrary to reason]

II Kings 4:32-37
32 When Elisha came into the house, there was the child, lying dead on his bed. 33 He went in therefore, shut the door behind the two of them, and prayed to the LORD. 34 And he went up and lay on the child, and put his mouth on his mouth, his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands; and he stretched himself out on the child, and the flesh of the child became warm. 35 He returned and walked back and forth in the house, and again went up and stretched himself out on him; then the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.
[So now, the scientific experiment is complete. Elisha has exercised faith above reason, validating him as a man of God. Nevertheless, we must remember that miracles AND faith above reason are both gifts from God.]
36 And he called Gehazi and said, “Call this Shunammite woman.” So he called her. And when she came in to him, he said, “Pick up your son.” 37 So she went in, fell at his feet, and bowed to the ground; then she picked up her son and went out.
The woman realized that Gehazi was not a man of God. Ironically, Elisha does not seem to realize that Gehazi is not a man of God. As we read the next few chapters, Elisha gradually realizes that Gehazi is not a man of God. Then, Gehazi is struck with leprosy.
As the man of God, Elisha encouraged this woman to overcome her skepticism. Although she had her trust issues, Elisha respected her faith according to reason. As the woman observed Elisha’s example of faith above reason, she learned to trust God.

Based upon my own study of Scripture, let’s see what we can learn from II Kings 3-4 concerning epistemology of the Shunammite woman tomorrow afternoon….as well as the fascinating contrast between Elisha and Gehazi in their attitude and behavior towards her.

In II Kings 3:9, we read about Elijah asking Elisha: What shall I do for thee, before I be taken away from thee?
Elisha responded: I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me. In verse 15, we read that the sons of the prophets recognized the spirit of Elijah resting upon Elisha.

Throughout II Kings 4, it seems to me that the writer repeats “the man of God” as a literary device to make a point. Whereas Elisha is mentioned by name in verses 1,2, 8, 17, & 32, the writer refers to Elisha as “the man of God” in the 9 other verses.

In II Kings 4 and throughout Scripture, we can observe Elisha’s respectful attitude and kind behavior towards women. Elisha’s attitude and behavior towards women points me to Jesus Christ….

As I reconsider the first paragraph of Michael’s original post Is Bad Doctrine a Sin, I remember statement from the Apostle Paul: God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar. (Romans 3:4a)

Sorry—Comment 70 should have been first in my string….
Please ignore my Comment 63…..

Thanks to everyone for reading 🙂

Throughout II Kings 4, it seems to me that the writer repeats “the man of God” as a literary device to make a point. Whereas Elisha is mentioned by name in 5 verses (1,2, 8, 17, & 32), the writer refers to Elisha as “the man of God”
in the 9 other verses.
This literary device clearly illustrates the difference between Elisha as “the man of God” and Gehazi who is NOT the man of God.

In Corinthians 10:11, Paul explains the purpose of historical accounts of people and their life experience in the Hebrew Scriptures as examples for us, written for our admonition (I Cor 10:11).

Based on my background in fundamentalist churches, I believe it would benefit Christian women to follow the example of the Shunammite woman and exercise discernment between a man of God (Elisha) and (Gehazi) who is NOT a man of God.
Following her example begins with me…..

Returning to the original post—C Michael Patton has misrepresented the woman’s statements.
How do I know? Because I am that woman.

As I stated earlier:

Scripture is clear that men AND women inherit original sin. Anyone who says otherwise is engaging in false teaching.
The statement was also made that Mary had original sin because she had a human father.

Actually, the question is: Do both genders pass original sin onto their offspring? Romans 5 (verses 12, 17, & 19) clearly says that by ONE [Adam] MAN’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one [Jesus] shall many be made righteous.

Eve is not mentioned in this passage one single time.
God clearly stated that Messiah would come from the woman’s seed, that is, the ovum of Mary. Is it possible that the ovum of Mary was without sin?
In light of Romans 5, is it possible that sin is not genetically passed from the mother to the child, but passed genetically from the human father to the male child as well as the female child?

Thinking is not a sin.
Introducing questions from a different perspective is not a sin.

Sometimes people misunderstand one another, then they jump to false conclusions.
Broadcasting a false conclusion (without clarifying it) is a form of sin.

My book is titled Natural Law and Calvinist Political Theory.
My book does not discuss any issues concerning woman’s seed or whether or not women are sinful.

Furthermore, I have only seen C Michael Patton twice and I have never handed any book to C Michael Patton.
His false statements concerning my visit to the Credo Coffee House of Theology reflect the disrespectful behavior of Gehazi.

As I consider his title for this post Is Bad Doctrine a Sin….. I can’t help but wonder—–Focusing on “bad” doctrine as sin while ignoring one’s own sinful behavior seems to reflect statement from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ—straining at gnats and swallowing camels (Matthew 23:24)

Since this is a public offense, I will be waiting for a public apology from C Michael Patton.

Hi Michael!
I would pose the question, “why do we need doctrine at all”?
Doctrine is at the centre of all division within the church – and in many cases it is merely a product of man-made speculation and human reason.
Whats wrong with a faith which is based only on Christs own words recorded in Mark 12:29?

Blessings
John

Hi Greg

“Another might be Jesus promise of sending the
Holy Ghost to teach us all things, many of which
He himself declated He had not taught. This is
called Doctrine…”

Sorry if I appear ‘slow’ but are you suggesting that we are to accept Doctrine which cannot be determined from the scriptures?

Blessings
John

Dear Fr. Greg
Perhaps I should tell you that I come from a Protestant fundamentalist background – and the striking images I have of earlier years was continuous fragmentation based on doctrinal division.
This left a lot of ‘bruised’ people in its aftermath.
I have therefore been very attracted to writings such as Mother Theresa’s “A simple path”.
Not much doctrine there!
I must also confess to an “Erasmian’ disposition – and in order to get as many ‘good’ men in the boat’ one should define as little as possible.
This contrasts sharply with my upbringing which was one of ‘exclusivism’.
In an earlier post you mentioned ‘hellbound Muslims’-
I would suggest that if they PRACTICED Mark 12:29, the world would be a better place!
By the way , I failed to mention in my first post that apart from Mark 12:29 one has to be aware of the power of the Holy Spirit which dwells within us.
Muslims and Jews are seemingly unaware of this blessing.
Every Blessing
John B

Hi Fr. Greg
I’m afraid that Ihave problems with man-made constructs.

My experience is that where there is much doctrine there is little love.

The good men I would ‘have in the boat’ with me are those who love God and try to do what is pleasing to him. That includes loving ones neighbour as ones-self.

I am suspicous of those who might corrall me into their spiritual ‘box’.

At the root of evil is love of power and money.!

“Flock building is considered good, ‘sheep stealing’ is a capital offense!!

So sorry!
Every Blessing
John B

Fr Greg
I am defining ‘good men’ in a way which I’m certain would have satisfied Christ.
“Men who love God and their neighbour” per Mark 12 vs 29-33.
Blessings
John

Fr Greg
You will notice that I defined ‘good men’ as men who love God, and their neighbour.
I did not say ‘perfect men’ because we all fall short and are saved by God’s grace.

Once we start defining things too ‘tightly’ then we start excluding people- and if one continues the process, one ends up with an ‘exclusive’ cult-witth which I am eminently familiar.

My comments regarding ‘defining as little as possible’ are not in the Bible but dervive from my (and others) observations regarding human behaviour.

We can all be ‘horrible’

We crave certainty and the scriptures do not give us the ‘certainty’ that we all crave -as Erasmus observed..

Take any good scholarly Bible and read the Preface and Footnotes to each Book- they are a ‘literalists’ worst dreams come true.

So we are back to ‘the spirit’,and not the law.

We come back to men and women who are doing their best to love god and their neighbour.

I live in a part of the world where ‘fear’ is ingrained, perpetuated by state sponsored violence. I fought in a war with Special Forces – believe me, I am no ‘cissy’-
but I do love the good I see around me in ‘good’ men and women. I am certain that God loves imperfect mankind and appreciates their falling and striving to rise again.

Blessings
John

Fr Greg
NO Fr. Greg -IT AIN’T SO!
You are implying that any set of observations with the application of some logic to try to deduce what is going on, is a ‘human construct’.
This is as bad as the protestant evangelicals I meet who claim that anyone who does not agree with their doctrine is ‘a rationalist’!
The latter is particularly pathetic because an impartial bystander would have to agree that the ‘gymnastics’ they indulge in, are the ultimate in rationalisation.
As they say ‘It takes one to know one”!

All very sad!

So, its back to Mark 12 vs 29-33

I now enjoy the most profound sense of peace and freedom which I never experienced while living in a ‘man made box’.!!!

Blessings
John

Rene Descartes wanted certainty…he wanted to prove the existence of God once and for all to atheists. And he wanted to do it without using the Bible.
Good understandable motive….

But he went too far- exalting his own mind to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit.
Referred to as solipsism…the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

People who fall into solipsism tend to be very lonely inside their self-constructed box…so they desperately try to get others to join them in their box.

For this reason, I try to keep words of John Locke in mind:
Since religious enthusiasm may interfere with both learning and teaching, the individual must not sacrifice the “plain and clear dictates of reason” in order to embrace “the contrary opinion, under the pretense that it is a matter of faith.” Locke believed that a clear understanding of the separation between faith and reason would prevent people from confusing faith with the false teachings of religious authorities.
When teaching, the church leader must recognize the deception of enthusiasm in order to avoid becoming a false teacher.
Locke used the language of Acts 20:30, Philip. 1:16-17, and I Cor. 11:16 to describe a false teacher who may “appear contentious, abounding in his own sense rather than in love, and desirous to draw followers after himself. [W]e judge him not to have learned Christ as he ought, and therefore not fit to be a teacher of others.” In conclusion, Locke deplored an unexamined faith and condemned any “imagined infallible person” [who] “dictates and demands assent without inquiry.”
Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 2.23.17 & 4.18. 1, 2, & 6.

SO “its back to Mark 12 vs 29-33”

True, so true.

Thank you John B 🙂

Fr Greg
Erasmus pointed out that certainty was an elusive target – in view of the nature of the scriptures .

He pointed to multiple texts, text selection and a myriad of other ‘issues’

If you read the NAB Bible, you will note in the prefaces to chapters and footnotes that authorship of many texts is unknown. That some scriptures were not found in any ancient text.
John Chapter 8 verses 1-11 is an example – there is no Greek or Aramaic text ! It was a later addition.

My ‘literalist’ friends whine ‘so do we scrap the whole Bible”? THe answer to them is “Grow up, get real, use your God given faculties!”

‘Scriptural certainty, fear and guilt have been traditionally used to ensnare good men and women in ‘boxes’.

(please don’t lecture me about the word ‘good’ again)

Worse, brother has ended up killing brother!
I think that in a period of 100 years half of the population of Germany was killed in religious wars.

Even today, Gods Christian Warriors, Gods Islamic warriors and Gods Hebrew Warriors are preparing to fight to the finish. To fight in the final battle, which will be so terrible that God will be forced to intervene on the side of ‘his’ people , whoever that may be. Each ‘side’ believes it to be his!

I attended the Middle East Summit held in the Royal Palace in Casablanca nearly 20 years ago and really appreciated interacting with ‘the children of Abraham’.
As a ‘Gentile’ I saw that we all had three things in common
-belief in one God
-a common ‘moral framework’
..and because we all fall short
– God’s good grace and mercy.

Somehow we manage to ‘dress’ this ‘skeleton’ with every form of ‘exclusivism’ that I’m certain that God must ‘shake his head’ in despair!

Fr Greg, I’m not so naive to belive that I have the answer or that you have the answer to all of the questions which have pre-occupied mankind since the beginning.

I have found peace on the simple path..
Blessings
John B

All
I am NOT saying that my ‘simple path’ is for everyone.

Humanity is diverse and what may suit one person may not suit another.
Many people require ‘demonstrations ‘ and ‘miracles’ to reinforce their faith.
A greater number require ceremonies, feasts, prohibitions, chanting, incantation, tradition, exclusions, to practice – and give reinforce their sense of belonging.

Many people want a ‘big brother’ to see them through this world and into the next.

Good ‘shepherds’ tell me that they offer a ‘warm fireplace’ round which their flocks may take comfort.

“Bad shepherds’ use guilt and fear to ‘imprison’ their subjects. I always think of butterflies pinned to a board.

At the end of the day we must surely be judged by how much ‘light’ we emit in a dark world. But that’s just my subjective assessment.

Thank goodness that only the awesome God can judge!
Blessings
John

John,

I have been reading a good share of this thread but have not participated in the comments for quite a while now.

May I jump into this conversation for just a moment and ask you a question? I think if my memory is correct, your answer may throw some light on the conversation at the moment.

Not too long ago someone on P and P, and I’m thinking it was you, made some remarks that seemed to make it clear that they did not believe that Jesus was/is God. Is my memory playing tricks on me, or am I right about that?

If my memory is failing me, I apologize for having you confused with someone else. But if I am correct, your answer will help me at least to better understand where you are coming from

Erasmus, and the simple way? That’s an oxymoron for sure! Desiderius Erasmus was a Christian humanist and scholar, he influenced some of the most powerful and bright men of his age, as well as most of the Protestant Reformers who were trained as humanists. Btw Erasmus was a Roman Catholic.

This might be helpful? Erasmus was a true scholastic type, just wrong on the essence of the doctrine of God. Note however his sexuality was in question. Just the history of the man.

http://www.tlogical.net/bioerasmus.htm

All
I like Erasmus–,
cursed by Luther for being ‘over cautious’
cursed by the Pope who thought he had left the Church.
The two parties then proceeded to kill each other by the hundreds of thousand as Erasmus had feared.!
You may attack his nature based on speculation -but that is a cheap shot Fr. Robert!
Erasmus was a Christian humanist in his time but so was Martin Luther!
I like this man!
John B.

Not a cheap shot at all! I kinda like Erasmus, but we must always see the real men of God for what they are, mere men in themselves (redeemed sinful beings)! And this includes too Luther and Calvin! As our theolog’s today! But just who are the real “theolog’s” today is the great question!

John B,

I would really appreciate it if you would answer the question I asked you last night. I certainly don’t want to have you confused in my mind with someone else. And what a person believes about the nature of Jesus is an issue that has implications for everything else.

@cherylu: I have chatted some with this “John B” in my blog past, and as he told me, he is a Unitarian! Of course there are many stripes of these people today, but most surely Jesus Christ is NOT “the” GOD “Incarnate” In Christ for them! And surely NO Triune and Trinity of God for them either! At least not the biblical and historical One, the Nicene “homoousios”, who is at the centre!

But I guess we should hear again from the man himself!

Thanks Fr Robert.

And yes, John, it would still be good if you would clarify this for all of us here. Is this still where you stand on this issue?

It can be very difficult to have a conversation with someone if you are assuming that they come from the same place as you do on this very important issue when in fact they are coming from a totally different place.

All
I profess that there is one supreme God and Christ is his Son.

I profess that Christ is precisely who he says he is ,as is shown in John 20:17 and Matthew 16vs 15-17.and so many other clear and explicit verses.

I profess that none of the so-called ‘proof verses’ can ‘trump’ these verses – except in the minds of extreme rationalists a.k.a Trinitarians.

I profess that I an an ‘heretic’ with respect to orthodoxy

I guess that the hungry ‘dogs’ are licking their chops now and getting ready for the ‘kill’ so I shall bow out now.
Greg and Robert your intolerance and smug self-righteousness is distressing! I’m glad we don’t have The Rack these days!
Blessings
John B.

@John B., That almost sounds like the statement of a guilty man! Lighten-up mate! And in reality you are the one intolerant to God’s Word and Truth, and its historical manifestation, in Creedal definition! And that’s God’s “righteousness”! Ouch! Truth hurts!

But no rack these days, darn! 😉

John B,

Thank you for your answer. And please don’t feel like you need to run away!

You must of been aware, however, that this blog is an evangelical blog which means that the blog owners believe that the doctrine of Jesus divinity is of extreme importance. (See the posts on “Essentials and Non Essentials”). And so do many of us that regularly comment here.

Which of course means that we are looking at things from two totally different perspectives on this issue that affects so much. A conversation assuming we are on the same footing in this area when we are not can lead us to lot of inaccurate assumptions.

And I am quite sure no one here has any interest in torturing you on the rack, burning you at the stake, or any other such thing! 🙂

Sadly “Heresy” never really runs away, but it always really stays, for Satan is alive and well on planet earth! He is the “god” of this age! (2 Cor. 4: 4)

Btw, the Incarnation is an “essential”, as too really the Triune nature of God, (Eph. 2: 18).

And here bad doctrine really is sin!

Cherlyu
Well, you certainly ‘smoked me out’ but in the process I smoked out these two ‘beauties’ – Greg and Robert.!!

Greg opened up in post 78 when he called Muslims ‘hellbound’ – and Robert is just Robert! Yet again. “Bad doctrine sin”!! I said NO doctrine or other man made constructs!
Problem is that both these ‘gentlemen’ think they are fighting for God against the gates of hell- and it’s rather pathetic!
We’ll see how long their ‘brand’ lasts!
Blessings
John B

John,

I kind of think you “smoked yourself out” in that comment thread here a while back that I happened to read where you said that you didn’t believe Jesus was God! However you phrased it back then.

I must ask you something though. You say you believe what the Bible says about Jesus in certain verses you listed above. So I assume you are taking the Bible as authoritative. What then do you do with Jesus telling us that He, “is the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me?” Do you see the Muslims as coming to the Father through Jesus? If not and assuming you believe that hell exists, how do you see them as not being “hell bound?”

And “we” will ALL last or stand at the Bema-Seat of Christ! I will stand, as I do now, with the Reformation and the Reformed doctrine/divinity, i.e. Luther..Calvin, etc. And I believe too with the Pauline “Christ my Righteousness”! Make no mistake, I am a “churchman” and Evangelical Anglican! So many others have gone this way before me, I am but another here, and very small. But my GOD In Christ is Great!

Cherylu

The Bible tells me that it is by God’s good grace that we are saved.
The whole of humanity will be judged and saved or lost by this means.

I personally regard Christs as mediator between God and man – something like an advocate in a court.
This is partly why the Christian way is ‘the more excellent way’.
Seventy percent of humanity will be judged by God depending on what is in their hearts.

Regarding ‘hell’ there is a wide diversity of opinion on this subject. I personally believe that the absence of good (God) is ‘hell’.. but that is a personal view and I am very familiar with the other arguments.

Regarding ‘the Way’ – I’m sure you are aware that it was
(i) The name given to the beliefs of some Essenes-‘the way to God’
(ii) The name given by the disciples to their faith “They discussed the Way…” etc. As the NAB Bible footnotes state “a designation of Christianity in Acts 9:2, 19 etc.
(iii) Christ is said to have called himself ‘the way’ ‘the Truth” (posessing the truth), the ‘bread of life’ etc.
These statements are surely allegorical.?
I certainly believe that Christs WAY is THE way.
But Christ himself told us what is important in Mark 12:29-32. surely this is the Way?
I certainly do not believe in all those ‘blood sacrifice’ stories in which the price has been paid for our future sins.
Regrettably many people still do. I live in close proximity to men who have committed genocide and intend doing something similar in the very near future… and they tell me they are ‘saved by Christs blood’ !
(they are terrified by the words “The Hague”!!)

We will see!

As you will have observed I am not a Bible literalist -hence my apparent mushiness. I do not believe that John Chapter 8 vs :1-11 or the “Father forgive them’ statements were in any early Bible. Certainly not in Greek or Aramaic texts . Latin transcripts yes.

I think I must ‘bow out’ now.

I apologise for any offense I…

John,

Thanks for clarifying what you believe. I appreciate that.

I know you have said that you must bow out now. But in case you are still reading here or change your mind, 🙂 I will add a few thoughts of mine. Obviously there is a great deal we disagree on.

I agree with the importance of the verses in Mark that you mentioned above. The trouble is, none of us can do that as we should. And that is why I, and many others, believe that the blood sacrifice in the death of Jesus was/is needed to cover the guilt for all that we have done that didn’t live up to God’s expectations in Mark, and all that we didn’t do that we should of done that caused us to be guilty of “sins of omission.” I am sure that you are aware of all of that too. And I believe it because I believe that is what the Bible tells us.

I don’t have much time here this a.m, so that will have to be my short answer for now anyway.

Salvation is dependent from top to bottom on GOD In Christ! Indeed the “doctrine/teaching” of God In Christ is simply everything, and here the Incarnation is just central! (John 1: 14; 18)

“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (John 1: 18, NASB)

See also 1 John 4: 1-2-3

Btw, here’s a quote I have on my on blog, which I like and I think applies to the idea of Heresy, it is by the grand Western Father Augustine:

“Errare possun, haereticus esse nolo” – ‘I may be mistaken -in error- but I have not the will to be heretical.’ (Augustine)

Indeed when we press our wills against the historical doctrine of God’s Triune Revelation, here we are indeed touching “Heresy”! And the Incarnation is right in the centre!

Bad doctrine is a sin when it is promoted for self serving purposes, that’s for sure. Also, personally, I believe that the 3rd Protestant/ 2nd Catholic Commandment is pretty clear on taking God’s name in vain-which, in my estimation is a assuming that we have the right to twist scripture to suit our fancy (including fancy doctrine).

Dear Cherylu
I agree with you entirely that we all ‘fall short’ and believe that is where God’s grace comes in .

The scriptures tell us that we are saved by Gods grace.

Where we differ in this case is on the issue of ‘atonement’.

You will recall that the Apostles were talking to people who were often Hebrews and they were at pains to point out that what they were preaching was not so very different what what they were already familiar with.
Their reference to the ‘slain lamb’ and ‘blood sacrifice’was allegorical.

So, in this case, they were familiar with the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb to attone for sin.

There were two great Hebrew feasts at which sacrifices were made.
-The “Paschal Lamb’ was sacrificed at a feast of thenksgiving.
-The ‘Yom Kippur’ sacrifice was to attone for sins

We are interested in the second feast , but note
-Atonement was mainly for sins of omission
-Atonement was for a limited range of offenses
-Atonement was never for sins to be committed in the future.

You may care to visit a synagogue and talk to someone knowledgable
– The definition of an ‘acceptable sacrifice’ is based on six conditions. A lamb with broken skin- or a human sacrifice were not permitted
– the range of offenses and the appropriate penalties were strictly regulated.

The concept of ‘blood atonement’ was useful but used allegorically in this instance.

The idea of having our sins ‘washed away’ is enormously attractive and humans tend to see what they want to see -I’m afraid!

The depiction of Judgement Day contained in the Gosple with the separation of the sheep and the goats is more meaningful to me.

You will scarcely believe me, but when I mentioned Mark 12:29 to a Baptist minister recently he screamed the “W” word at me !! (Works)

A sad indictment on our humanity!

WE really are ‘feeble and frail’ as the hymn writer says!!
Blessings
John B.

Hi John,

I just typed a response to you and it dissappeared. Am typing on a small tablet, so it is slow going for me.

I’m sorry but because of the time involved to retype all of it, I would just like to urge you to read Hebrews chapters 7 through 10, taking note of what is said about Jesus once for all blood sacriifice of His body in death obtaining eternal redemption and sanctification for us.

Father Robert:

Incidentally, BTW may refer to: “By the way”, popularized in Internet slang; and or the British Traditional Wicca, the original, initiatory form of modern Wicca. I assume you mean the former. 🙂