The Church creeds of past centuries were designed to root out doctrinal error and confirm the cardinal doctrines of Christianity. This was a noble cause, however creeds have serious problems that need to be addressed. First century believers focused on the commands of Christ and resolved doctrinal error in a “one accord” council (Acts 15).
1. Christ’s commands are inspired, church creeds are not
This is an important factor. The commands of Christ which He received directly from His heavenly Father deal with all areas of faith and practice. Man’s creeds deal only with the doctrinal issues that the writers thought were important. As a result, some important truths are left out and truths of lesser importance are emphasized.
2. Christ’s commands are balanced, church creeds are not
For every Biblical truth there is a balancing truth. For example, Paul stated: “In me, that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing” (Romans 7:18). But David stated: “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). We are not saved by works but “we were created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Ephesians 2:8-10). We are to “cease from our labors.” Yet we are to “labor to enter into God’s rest” (Hebrews 4:10-11). Truth out of balance leads to doctrinal heresy!
3. Christ’s commands lead to unity, church creeds lead to division
The fervent prayer of Jesus was that all believers would “be one, as you Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21). When doctrines are removed from their moral settings, they become argumentative. For example, Christ’s return is to motivate us to purify ourselves (I John 3:3). Instead, creeds focus on when Christ will return and we argue over pretribulation vs. post tribulation, premillennial vs. postmillennial vs. amillennial! The same is true of communion. Rather than “examining ourselves” we argue over consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation vs. a memorial celebration.
4. Christ’s commands appeal to our heart, creeds appeal to our head
Thousands of churches recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth…” There are at least two major problems with this beginning: First, “You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe and tremble” (James 2:19). Second, there is NO mention of love in this entire creed! Jesus commanded, “You shall love the Lord your God…” (Matthew 21:37).
5. Christ’s commands are our message to the world, not creeds
When Jesus gave His great commission to His disciples He did not say “Go ye therefore and teach all nations church creeds.” Rather, He said “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 29:19-20).
Bill Gothard, Ph.D EmbassyUniversity.com
of the three one-page meditations of Bill you have published here, this one is the worst and most bizarre.
Bill cannot quote anyone or writings from “1st Century Christians” because there is nothing from the “1st Century Christians to support his claim that “1st Century Christians” only cared about commands of Christ and not doctrine. The Apostles Creed is called that because it is from the time of the Apostles, some of the earliest written copies of it come from 200’s in Rome. To claim that creeds cause divisions is so out there, is it just unbelievable. The Apostles and Nicene Creed have guided and defined what is orthodox Christian beliefs about triune God, about Christ, about the virgin birth, about the resurrection etc. People that claim we don’t need creeds, we just need Jesus or the Bible usually end up falling into error. Christianity Today published a recent survey of Evangelicals and it showed that an alarming high percentage of those that answered the survey were Arian in their views about Jesus, Bill obviously wants to throw out creeds because he has fallen into errors. The word creed comes from the Latin word Credo which means “I believe”. I am not sure what is in either the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed Bill doesn’t believe in.
Rich Mullins was a contemporary Christian musician. His is most famous for the song “Our God is an Awesome God”. He was raised as a Quaker which do not believe in creeds or even sacraments like baptism. He bounced around different Churches and became acquainted with the poetry of St. Francis of Assisi. He began to change where he took a vow of poverty and gave away most of his income from his music to others. One of the last songs he wrote is called Creed. The chorus line is this. “And i believe what I believe, is what makes me what I am, I did not make it, no it is making me. It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man, I believe it, I believe.”
I honestly cannot read any more of these one-page meditations from Bill. He obviously has some deep heretical ideas which the above Creeds work against.
We concur with Bill that there NO human writings, no dogmas that are even in the same arena with the Word of God. It is interesting that you condemn the “Arian” perspective, not a Bible word, a set of doctrines from one sect of Christianity. I see problems with “Arian” and I see problems with “Calvin”, generally regarded as the opposite. I would not identify with either.
“Heresy” is generally “truth out of balance”. We climb on one pinnacle of light and build our world around it. Every schism with its creed falls short to some extent, either by out of balance principles, or omissions of things the Lord considers really important. It is our job to keep our eyes on Jesus, test every spirit to see whether it is approved of God.
1 Corinthians 11:19 “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”
Arianism was an ancient dispute about the begetting of Christ. That was settled at Nicaea.
Compared to that, disputes between John Calvin and Jacob Arminius were mere froth. They agreed more than disagreed. Both were Protestant reformers whose differences were debated at the Synod of Dort. Both Calvinists and Arminians affirm the Nicene Creed.
Are creeds defective because they are men’s creeds? Whose creeds would they be if not men’s? Only men can believe. Jesus commanded men to believe, so our creeds affirm that we have obeyed him.
Rob’s defense of our creeds is correct.
Is the Apostles’ Creed defective because it is silent about love? Talk is cheap. Why, the Bible itself rebukes excessive chatter about love! St. John commanded us to love “not in word, neither in tongue but in deed and in truth.” Christ himself commanded us to let our light so shine before men that they might see our good works. Shining a light of good works matters more than talking about love.
The purpose of a creed is to confess faith. Is our confession of faith real or phony? Again we find the answer in our Bibles. Jesus commanded us to shine a light of good works among men. St. James reminds us that authentic faith is made manifest by works of love.
Every evening during family prayer, I lead my family in reciting the Apostles’ Creed, using the style I once learned from visiting my local Presbyterian church. During Sunday service the pastor would ask from the pulpit, “Christian, what do you believe?” In response, we would recite the Apostles’ Creed in unison.
The creed was no rival to the truth we heard from the pulpit, but rather an affirmation of it. It was like saying amen to truthful words uttered in prayer or preaching. As a good wife complements her husband, so our creeds complement and affirm the truth we receive from God. As good response compliments good initiative, they are partners instead of rivals.
Do creeds promote unity or division? peace or sword? By design, they promote each. The ancient church councils produced the creeds partly for the purpose of sorting heresy from orthodoxy and wheat from tares. They unify sheep and alienate goats.
As for words of Christ vs. words of men, consider what the Lord said in the gospel according to Luke. After the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin, the Lord said that likewise, “there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”
Is there joy among angels when we recite the creeds? Possibly, but joy is guaranteed when a sinner repents.
Heresy is beliefs or opinion contrary to orthodox (especially Christian) doctrine. It is not truth out of balance. I realize that is the definition Bill gave in the seminars but it is totally understandable inaccurate.
Arianism is not the opposite of Calvinism. Arianism is the idea that Jesus was created by God, not co-eternal or co-existing. Current Arianism is found in some parts of the world of Calvinism is the form of ESS which is very much debated by different Calvinists. ESS is the eternal submission of the son.
Bill has no authority to declare creeds that have been affirmed and used by Christians null and void and declaring them works of men.
There is no Biblical definition of “orthodox”. As you know much of what is called “orthodox” is considered heresy by evangelical Christians. So that definition is not helpful for most of us.
Why does not Bill have the authority to declaring them null, void, and works of men?
1 Corinthians 2:15-16 “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. “For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”
THAT sounds like a lot of authority.
Orthodox is the term which evolved to label “mere” or consensus Christianity. It is a safe and helpful term. Among Christian denominations, we agree more than we differ, so our beliefs are “orthodox.” Compare the Apostle’s Creed to any evangelical statement of faith or indeed the IBLP statement of faith and you won’t find any conflicts. All are orthodox and also works of men.
That is not authority, nor does Bill any of it. You cannot point to one thing in either Apostle’s or Nicene Creed that is “man made”. Creeds define what orthodox Christian beliefs and doctrine are. Those that want to throw them out do so because they have departed from: “I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ his only son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontus Pilate, crucified, died and was buried, he decended into hell, the third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven and sits on the right hand of the Father where he will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting”.
Bill claims on his own web site named after him that the founding of our country started with Jesus and the Apostles. He made that claim. He has no evidence for that totally bizarre statement yet he can turn around and now state that creeds are man made, creeds that have been in use since the Apostle’s time. Bill seems to be unable to connect the dots in this and other statements he is making on his web site and in these one page zingers. I just saw his one page on Charles Spurgeon where he basically threw him under the bus for struggling with depression. So unbelievable. One man shows are a clear sign of serious problems. No balance here, he isn’t having other check his writings. He clearly isn’t connecting the dots.
Most evangelicals would be skeptical that the “creeds” were generated by the Apostles. Believing that the only inspired Word of God is found in the Bible.
What I quoted is most definitely “authority”. “Judges all things but is judged of no man”? “We have the Mind of Christ?” Strong and bold statements.
Of the ecumenical creeds, the Apostles’ Creed is the earliest known and most basic. Some traditions credit the apostles themselves with authorship. Here is the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed
The Nicene Creed came later, to define common faith about Christ and the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is the word of God. The creeds express the faith response of men. Bible and creed are complements, not rivals.
May we have a link to the Spurgeon thing? Hopefully he found relief from depression.
Man-made things cut both ways. Some make us proud, but others make us cringe with shame.
As for proofreading, apparently Bill Gothard has Rob performing that valuable service right here! Why hire a proofreader when Rob donates her complimentary services?
I believe the moderator here will have to publish this next. If your wife is on Facebook, I think they have been published there in closed groups.
proof reading is not the same thing as proof texting scripture. proof texting of scripture is what the devil did in the temptations of Christ, which is quoting one line verses out of context to try and prove something or teach something that if one actually read the whole section the verse came out of, would not be saying or teaching that. In simple terms, proof texting scripture is misquoting verses, usually one line zingers to give support to something the whole of scripture does not say or teach.
Your responses to me are surprising. First of all, there isn’t an agreement, even among Evangelicals on what is an Evangelical. It has become a catch all phrase to generally mean a more conservative Protestant. Also, there are many Evangelicals in Churches that use either the Apostles or Nicene Creed, so to make a blanket statement that Evangelicals don’t believe in either of these two ancient creeds is false. Now only churches that are in Anabaptist groups and their split offs usually state that “they have no creed but Jesus” do have in replacement as David K pointed out, statements of faith, which generally closely resemble either Apostles or Nicene Creed. IBLP has a statement of faith as David pointed out. And I am sure it was crafted while Bill was still there.
You also did not nor actually cannot point out anything in either creed what is either man made or unbiblical with them. You did not because you cannot. That is why I listed the Apostles Creed for you. I do not believe that there is anything in that you either don’t believe yourself or don’t disagree with. In 350 AD, St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote this about creeds:
“In learning and professing the faith, you must accept and retain only the Church’s present tradition, confirmed as it is by THE SCRIPTURES. Although not everyone is able to read the Scriptures, some because they have never learned to read, others because their daily activities keep them from such study, still so that their souls will not be lost through ignorance, we have gathered together the whole of the faith in a few concise articles. …. so, for the present to content to listen to the simple words of the creed and to memorize them; at some suitable time, you can FIND PROOF OF EACH ARTCILE IN THE SCRIPTURES. This summary of the faith was not composed at MAN’S WHIM; the most important sections were chosen from the whole Scripture to constitute and complete a comprehensive statement of the faith. Just as the mustard seed contains in a small grain many branches, so this brief statement of faith in its heart, as it were, ALL THE RELIGIOUS TRUTH TO BE FOUND IN OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ALIKE.” (Emphasis added).
I really don’t know any Evangelical no matter how you define it or where they go to Church able to disagree with anything in either the Apostle or Nicene Creed. You did not produce any evidence to the contrary. There are a number of articles in Evangelical places like Christianity Today and The Gospel Coalition that have more than one article talking about the importance and value of these two creeds. In churches that claim to “have no creed”, you find in replacement, statements of faith to fill the void. This is not a winning argument for you.
I don’t think you are understanding the point Bill is making. No matter how eloquent and studied and with what righteous of intentions a creed or “statement of faith” may be created, it is ALWAYS inadequate. Such creeds are like two dimensional pictures of a three dimensional world – any “Fact” you seek to put your foot down on coming from such a creed, you will ultimately have to move it. Sort of like declaring, “No object can be in two places at once”, and “No object can affect another object faster than the speed of light” in physics, classical Newtonian physics. Quantum mechanics continues to turn all such “facts” on their ear.
So, similarly, only God’s inerrant Word is “complete” – and inerrant – doctrine. There is a reason that the Holy Spirit gave this list of blessed people:
Revelation 1:3 “Blessed is he that READETH, and they that HEAR the words of this prophecy, and KEEP those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.”
Notice what is missing? “Understand”. In order to generate a creed or statement of faith, you have to UNDERSTAND the full meaning of Scripture. Revelation is an extreme example of the fact that while we can READ and HEAR and KEEP – And Bill would add “Meditate”, another version of “keep” – Scripture, we can never fully understand it, no more than we can ever fully understand the Lord.
I have know idea how creeds are 2 dimensional in a 3 dimensional world. Not sure where that is coming from. Revelation 1:3 has nothing to do with creeds or is even bashing them.
I am trying to make the point . . . That ANYTHING that man comes up with is at best an approximation of the Word of God. Like a picture is an approximation of a 3D item.
Using this kind of bizarre deduction, then Bill’s teachings and ideas are also man made. Acts 15 records the first Church counsel in Jerusalem which made authoritative decisions and rulings. Authoritative Church Counsels since then also include Counsel of Nicaea which wrote the Nicene Creed and also includes in later Church Counsels what books belong in the Bible. Your reasoning here is not supported or found in scripture. Decisions from the first 7 Church counsels are considered authoritative even in many Protestant circles.
Again, what holds in many even “Protestant” circles caries little weight in the perspectives of many of those that support Bill. And your comment about Bill’s teachings and ideas not being “Scripture” (my way to say “man made”) is correct. Which is why he consistently is pointing us to God’s Word, to gain our strength and insights there, much like the Bereans who, refusing to take Paul’s word for it, “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
Exactly. Our creeds represent a Christian consensus (a best guess?) about the faith which God requires of man. We make no boast about the quality of our faith, we simply confess it. Our creeds begin with, “I believe,” like the man who said, “help thou my unbelief.” When we say our creed in faith, we are also petitioning for help, because our belief is so easily corrupted by traces of unbelief. The Bible warns us against sin which “so easily besets us.” Isn’t unbelief among our worst sins?
In the Bible Jesus is called, “finisher of our faith.” Mine needs finishing. How about yours?
The dimension analogy says to heed our limits. Because our mortal flesh we sees “through a glass darkly,” we should assume that our understanding has room for improvement.
During the recent years of virus scare, we learned that “settled science” was not quite settled. Dare we boast as though our theology were settled with no room for improvement? We believe our Bibles are settled. Our theology? not necessarily.
Maybe “your” theology isn’t settled, that seems to be obvious by your many statements here. Bouncing around between different churches teaching different things that you have admitted to yourself, no wonder. My “theology” is very settled.
Bill Gothard once taught a helpful meaning of “keep.” Of course we ought to obey God. That is the first and obvious meaning of “keeping” his commandments. Even so, obedience begins with another sense of “keep,” the way a sentry keeps his post under observation. He keeps it before his eyes. His first duty is vigilance. Similarly, we keep God’s word by holding it before us, front and center. Unless we begin there, how can we obey?
The cannon of Scripture was decided upon AFTER the Nicene Creed of 325. (Synod of Rome 386, Counsels of Hippo and Carthage respectively). The Bible does not state what books should or shouldn’t be in it. That was decided by Church counsels nearly 400 years after Jesus birth, death and resurrection. You cannot say that the Nicene creed is man made and secondary. And there was rather heated disagreements on what should be used in the NT. St. Clement’s letter ( mentioned in Phil. 4:3) to the Corinthians, Shepard of Hermas ( mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 16:14), St. Ignatius letters. the Didache were used as scripture in some parts of the early Church. John 2 & 3, Jude, II Peter, Revelations, Hebrews nearly didn’t make it in. History just doesn’t back up your ideas here. Nor do they back up Bill’s ideas. It is totally meaningless to say that the small band of Bill believers and supporters don’t consider Creeds and authoritative Church counsels.
Those eschewing Creeds and Counsels are in far greater numbers than just “Bill believers”. I am sure you know that. They make the same case: ANYTHING men come up with, including some famous “systematic theologies” is ultimately tainted . . . Two dimensional . . . Certainly not worthy of memorization and meditation like Scripture is.
There have been disagreements on the “Cannon” . . . That is correct. Declaring a book in or out does not make it so. The Holy Spirit makes it plain, the only authority that matters.
And how does the Holy Spirit make it plain? How? The Holy Spirit uses the authority of the Church. That is a meaningless statement. I just read an article on Christianity Today that the largest Protestant group is now non-denominational. That means anything goes. Anabaptists groups and all their finger and toes are really the only ones that eschew historic Church counsels and creeds. I once saw an interview with Paula White, Trump’s “pastor” and she stated that she was answering the charges of being heretical. She stated that she “believed in the Nicene Creed” which made her an “orthodox” Christian.
“The Holy Spirit uses the authority of the Church.”
Please back that up with Scripture. What I read:
1 Corinthians 2:15-16 “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”
St. Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 3:15 that “the pillar and bulwark of the truth is the Church”. Jesus in his final last supper discourse that the Holy Spirit would come and guide the apostles in all truth. You again are misquoting 1 Corinthians 2 which was St. Paul defending his teaching as being guided and founded by the Holy Spirit.
The church does indeed present and support the truth, but it is not the truth. Yes, it is the Holy Spirit that presents and guides – in the end He – and the words of Scripture – are the full embodiment of that truth. We can see that truth with our spiritual eyes, but we cannot ever fully capture it in writing, even if given the entire sky to write on with the ocean of ink to do so. When you want to create a replica of something, you go back to the original for reference, not someone else’s replica. Each of us, saved by grace, full of the Holy Spirit become an “image” of Christ, and of His truth. We encourage each other and we point the way for others, but we must never elevate each other – and our words and thoughts – to a place that only the infallible Word of God can occupy.
I really don’t have any thing more to say to you or this topic. One man nearly 1700 years after the fact, has no business to declare the Nicene creed, which was an authoritative summary of faith to be a work of man. Bill cannot point to anything in either the Apostles or Nicene creed that isn’t supported and founded in the Bible. Bill’s own teaching are a “work of man”. Your efforts in trying to reason this is not addressing what is wrong or off with either of these two creeds. the Bible records and supports Church counsels being authoritative and that includes these creeds as well as what is actually in the Bible. I will go with 1700 years instead of one man writing out of his own ideas 1700 years later. And yes, I realize that there are groups that claim they have “no creed” but actually get around this via so called statements of faith which is the world Bill is from and of. I really have nothing more to say. I think Jinger Vuolo said it best in her new video for her new book. She was stating that her book was for “those who sat under someone claiming to speak for God but didn’t”. She mentions Bill Gothard directly. Claiming 1 Corinthians 2 for Bill has having the “mind of Christ” is totally debatable and there are more that don’t think that about Bill than do. That doesn’t support your arguments for Bill and his claim that creeds are a work of man kinda show that he is heretical.
So . . . I am a servant of Jesus Christ, filled with His Spirit . . . A Child of God . . . And I am not beholden to Jinger or Bill or the counsel of Nicene or any church. I report directly to the Lord. I, like the men of Berea, check EVERYTHING out by Scripture, as enlightened by that same Holy Spirit. I memorize the “God Breathed” Word of God, not Bill’s writings or any creed. That is EXACTLY what Bill has taught, Lo these many years.
I am interested to see what Jinger has to say. Maybe I will agree with her, maybe I will not. She and I will both stand trembling before our Lord and give an account.
I believe it to be healthy for believer to discuss doctrine and church creeds in an amicable manner.
My wife grew up in a Lutheran home. She was baptized as an infant and later as a teenager came to faith in Christ at a church camp.
My father-in-law was an intelligent man, highly educated and a devout Lutheran. He served as a Elder in the Lutheran Church. When I would share my testimony of becoming a believer in Christ as an adult he would drag me back to the Church Catechism. He believed with all his heart that he came to faith as an infant and held on to that faith through his life.
For him the Scriptures were to be interpreted in light of the church creeds and writings of Martin Luther. These were his words.
I firmly believe the writings of men, no mater how great, pale in light of the Holy Scriptures.
On 11/18 above, Fish Bowl wrote in favor of amicable discussion. Many years ago, I followed an online discussion between two homeschooling fathers of differing denominations. One was Baptist, the other Presbyterian. Each made earnest and charitable attempts to persuade the other of his church doctrine. Neither budged from his doctrine. But following the debate was good education.
They loved Christ and one another, but each was loyal to his home team. Although the debate ended in a tie, there was plenty of victory to go around. They helped one another, and they helped me.
When I attended Seminary my Church History Professor was C. Daniel Kim. He grew up in North Korea and graduated from a Presbyterian Seminary. I remember a comment he made in class. He said in Seminary when there are some hallway theology discussions between students he would always win the argument by saying “John Calvin says such and such.” He said that would always end the discussion. He said when he entered Dallas Seminary to work on his Th.D he was not there long when a spirited discussion broke out among several students. He said he thought he was delivering the deciding blow when he said “John Calvin says such and such.” Then it happened, one enlightened student looked at him and said “SO WHAT!” Dr. Kim stated he sat down and said to himself “SO WHAT.” In that moment of time the Scriptures became the predominant Truth in his life. Dr. Kim is a great man of God who the Lord has used mightily in His Kingdom.
The Jinger Vuolo book promotion video is available online. On the video, Mrs. Vuolo explicitly renounced Gothard and his teaching. The video covered only a few generalities. Because I have not followed the Duggars, I saw only a random pretty woman. First, I saw her earnest face insisting that I was about to hear something important. Then some choreography followed. Gentle music played, and the scene cut to Mrs. Vuolo’s profile as she approached a stool. Briefly, the camera targeted her back and hindquarters as she mounted the stool to deliver her message.
We saw a woman with a dispute to settle, sales to promote, and people to rescue.
The dispute was against Gothard. Mrs. Vuolo implied that five years ago, Gothard had turned some of her friends apostate, so she felt constrained to rescue people from him.
Supposedly if we buy the book, we get the anti-Gothard details.
re: speaking for God? or sneering at difficult teaching?
Mrs. Vuolo said she wrote her book to refute people like Gothard who “claimed to be speaking for God, but didn’t.” This raises questions. For whom was Mrs. Vuolo speaking?
As for Gothard, what claim did he make about divine endorsement? He quoted Bible verses and inferred meaning from them, as all preachers do. Gothard did much teaching over his career, but rather than boast about divine authority, he let his teaching speak for itself. Some agreed, but others (like Mrs. Vuolo) disagreed.
Mrs. Vuolo emphasized the suffering she endured to write her new book, which will soon be available for sale. Was this martyrdom? or the price of commerce?
Does Mrs. Voulo believe in divine authority for her own message? or does Bill Gothard have a monopoly on hubris?
Was Gothard’s teaching tried and found wanting? or found difficult and left untried?
re: pillar and ground
On 11/20 above, Rob reminded us that St. Paul affirmed the important role of Christ’s church concerning truth. Indeed he did. According to his building metaphor, pillar and ground (or bulwark) are important. They support and elevate. Jesus compared himself to Moses’ brazen serpent which was lifted up for salvation. Who is going to lift up the Truth if Christ’s church does not?
“You cannot have God has your father is you do not have the Church as your mother”
St. Cyprian of Carthage 250 AD.
The idea that it’s just “me and my Bible” is not found any where by anybody pre-reformation times
I know we are getting into theological divides here . . . But that statement by the good saint is nowhere to be find in the Bible, regardless of what theologians may have held it.
As to “me and my Bible”, that IS found in Scripture:
Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
They searched the SCRIPTURES daily to cross check Paul.
“They” is the key word here. Like the Bereans, it was a collective search, NOT an individualized search. Me and my Bible is talking about individualization. They searched the scripture as a collective group. Very few people had their own Bibles. You missed my point.
At this moment I am hard pressed to see the difference. Whether I search the Scriptures daily, or my wife and I search the Scriptures daily together, or our entire church gathers to search the Scriptures . . . Daily . . . it remains that we search the SCRIPTURES, not the writings of important people.
re: solo scriptura
Rob makes a good point on 11/27 above. The famous Reformation doctrine was sola scriptura. We acknowledge our Bibles as our only infallible authority for doctrine. But Satan would substitute caricature for truth. The caricature has been called “solo scriptura.” Dare we isolate ourselves with only our Bibles? Of course not. Following Christ is a team sport.
Another metaphor says we are members of one body, and not merely one team. Members of a body are either mutually nourished, or not nourished at all.
re: Bibles before the Reformation
On 11/23 above, Rob seemed zealous for the church and dismissive of the Bible. What does it betoken if Christians did not treasure their Bibles before the 16th Century Reformation? How could they treasure Bibles which they did not possess? Access to Bibles was limited by access to printing. After mass printing became available, it was finally realistic for the common man to have his own Bible.
For the Christian, church and Bible must be mutual complements, not rivals! If one supplants the other, hasn’t something gone badly wrong?
David,
How do you think the Bible was put together and stated what was in it and was should not be in it? Did the Bible just fall from the sky? This has nothing to do with being dismissive of the Bible. Quit twisting around what I have written here.
I heard through the grapevine that Bill broke his leg and is in a recovery facility rehabbing. If it’s the hip, which is common at his age, that can be painful and a tough recovery. Maybe that’s old news. Still sad in that regard and that he has been unwilling to complete what he agreed to in Denver eight and a half years ago. If he had I believe his world would be so different today. Tell him I still pray for him and wish him a speedy recovery.
Yes, Bill broke his ankle in three places when falling off his ladder as he was pruning trees in his backyard. This was a week before his birthday, late October, last year. A neighbor saw it happen and called for help. It was a long recovery, as you can imagine. He was “incarcerated” in the Manor Care facility across from HQ for a few weeks, then went home. Various folks came to help, he ended up with a young man he had seen saved moving in with him for a while, there evenings on weekdays. By God’s grace he got out of the wheelchair and has been back to walking unassisted and driving for a number of months. Along the way he tested positive for COVID once – no symptoms I was aware of – and was definitely exposed to it again a year later after he called a men’s meeting and two of us – me included – came down with full blown COVID in the week following. Again, no symptoms.
I will pass on your love, thank you. I trust you are well . . . As we march on through these last days with Jesus by our side, faithful to the end of the ages.
re: falling from the sky
In a sense, both Bible and church fell from the sky. We are told that the sound of a windstorm (from the sky, where else?) preceded the tongues of fire which appeared on Christ’s followers at Pentecost. We are also told that all scripture is “given by inspiration from God” (there’s that sky-wind again). As both fell from the sky, shouldn’t they be complements instead of rivals?
https://credomag.com/2024/05/the-need-for-the-creed/?amp
Now I find it curious that SBC will be considering adopting the Nicene Creed while Bill Gothard states that their isn’t a need any more.
Trying to catch up. I believe he stated that creeds cannot take the place of Scripture? Or something along the lines of being an artificial extra-Biblical standard? He is very Bible focused, as that is the only thing we know is “inspired”. He has, to my knowledge, not spent any time decrying specific creeds, just the general interest in such things.
Rereading Bill’s article here just proves why he is so off based and people like him that reject creeds end up in heresy and being supported by heretics. SBC adopting something like the Nicene creed kinda demonstrates that they need something more than “just the Bible” which is what the SBC advocates are stating. Although outside voices do raise how adopting the Nicene Creed may pose conflicts with some of their views on baptism. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/80-one-holy-baptist-and-apostolic-church-joe-heschmeyer/id1655970197?i=1000658055214
We are not aware that SBC has adopted the Nicene Creed. Serious opposition continues. The reasons for not doing so are precisely why Bill is opposed to such things, however well intentioned. Bill and the SBC would consider many of those that have adopted the Creed to be heretics. That argument would immediately quash any further discussion if true.
Can a man or an entire denomination believe the Nicene Creed and yet be heretical? Nonsense! A belief cannot be orthodox and also heretical. For a season we might believe, yet live unworthily of our faith. But eventually our faith and works come back into alignment.
We may pretend that nonsense is sense, even that a man is a woman and a woman is a man. But reality is ruthless. It eventually catches up with us.
Jesus warned that we cannot be sheep and also goats. We may devote a lifetime to deceiving both others and ourselves. But someday he truth will be revealed. Our works and hearts will be tried.
One final note, if Bill is considering Nicene and Apostle Creeds to be extra Biblical and “man-made”, then how does he answer his critics in that most see his teachings to be “extra-Biblical” and “man-made”? Reread Acts 15 and the first counsel of Jerusalem which gave out authoritative decrees and rulings. Also reread 1 Corinthians 15 were St. Paul give an early creed or statement of belief. I can trust authoritative Church counsels over and above one man’s teachings and opinions that are not Biblical or authoritative.
Acts 15 was executed by Apostles – AND is Scripture (part of our Bible). No “creed” outside of Scripture has that authority. Nothing Bill says has that authority. The Holy Spirit still works through men and women of God speaking His words in the Bible and interpreting them. But the second we elevate anything to the level of reverence of the Scriptures we will surely fall.
Reread Acts 15, scripture is not mentioned which would have just been the Septuagint (OT) since the NT was in the process of being written at the time. So, based on what you just said here, all of Bill’s teaching is non-biblical since it is not scripture and should be rejected just like Bill rejects creeds since they are not the ‘bible’. I really don’t think you realize the conclusions of what you just wrote here. You have not even tried to show where the creeds like the Nicene and Apostles are unbiblical but one sure can demonstrate where and how Bill’s teachings are not Biblical. This is not a winning argument for you.
You miss my point. Being the book of Acts it IS Scripture. Whatever the rationale given by the Holy Spirit guided Apostles, the end result is God speaking.
I am not sure what to make by your last comment. It is pretty off the wall and a diversion argument to my comments that it is not a winning argument for you to state that we don’t need the creeds because they are not the “bible”. But Bill’s teachings and ideas are “not the Bible”. You want to dismiss Church counsels, yet it was Church counsels that gave you the Bible and decided what books should be in it because the Bible does not list them. You can’t have it both ways. All you have is nonsense of diversion answers and arguments.
Church counsels did not give us the Bible. They may have had a hand it clarifying “the canon”, but those writing exist separate from any council.
Church counsels did define what books are to be considered scripture. The Bible does not define this, early Church counsels did. At that time, some books like St. Clemens letter to the Corinthians and Shepherd of Hermes were read as scripture. Both men are mentioned in St. Paul’s letters. Others did not think II Peter, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation should be part of the Canon of Scripture. These things were decided upon by early Church Counsels which you and Bill Gothard claim have no authority.
Not every “church father” knew the Lord. Amazingly, each believer has the Holy Spirit to enlighten them, He the author of the Bible. That is worth infinitely more than the writings of man.
1 Corinthians 2:14-16
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”
And how do you ‘know” that “not every Church Father knew the Lord”? You absolutely cannot judge this. Your answers are getting more and more bizarre. I am scratching my head at your responses here.
You know that is what we Protestants believe, maybe that was something you too once believed. A person does not know the Lord until they put their trust in Jesus alone, like little children, without concern for churches and creeds and sacraments. Just simple, living faith is a Living Christ.
Let me reiterate again, you cannot make a statement that “some early church fathers did not know the Lord”. It is a false statement. Most of them died as martyrs, examples, St. Irenaeus,
Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Cyprian are just some examples. The only groups of Protestants that share your views come from Anabaptists backgrounds. All the rest, Lutheran, Anglican/Methodist, Reformed use the ancient creeds you disparage here. St. Cyprian wrote in 250 AD, “One cannot have God as his father unless he has the Church as his mother”. I can trust that, he was a real martyr, unlike Bill Gothard who isn’t. The me and Jesus and my bible is not found anywhere at all in anything but recent American circles.
Trust me, lots of people believe as we do. We can discern the spiritual standing of so called authorities – it is our calling. Dying, as a martyr, is, according to 1 Cor. 13 worth . . . Nothing. Only genuine love of and faith in the Living Savior is worth something.
Most of the valuable things in our lives are man-made, especially the keyboards on which we peck out these comments. This is grounds for rejoicing, not for shame! We are privileged to be created in the image of God.
Although we sin, we are still endowed with enough of God’s creativity to make our neighbors wealthier.
We may trust God for the truth he reveals in our Bibles. Fortunately, we may also trust men to make good keyboards, and also good statements of faith.
Welcome back, Rob. If the SBC wants to anchor their theology in the Nicene Creed, they do well.
Bill Gothard seems to be emphasizing our duty to elevate the word of God over the words of men. Of course he ought to do that. Fortunately, the word of God and words of men are not mutually exclusive, but should be mutually complimentary.
The SBC is also debating whether to permit or forbid women as pastors. Hopefully they end up doing the right thing.
SBC has not adopted Nicene creed yet; it is up for proposal for their current meeting. David, last year SBC adopted the no women pastors or leaders where they shot down the proposals by Rich Warren and disassociated his church, Saddleback because they have installed female associate pastors. You might want to update yourself.
We are just so far apart on views on creeds and Church history that it is nearly impossible to even have a conversation over these issues. Just as there is “fake News”, there is also “fake history” and part of “fake history” is what is called the “great apostasy”. There are several versions of the ideas of the great apostasy, but they usually claim that the great apostasy happened when Constantine issued the Edit of Milan which gave tolerance to Christianity as well as all other religions (it did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire). The claims of the great apostasy are found in Anabaptist circles, fundamentalist circles, Mormon etc. The Nicene creed which started the counsel of Nicaea and finished under the counsel of Constantinople would fall under what proponents of the bogus ideas of the so-called great apostasy. If you believe in the trinity, that is what the Nicene creed defines which came about in response to the teachings of Arius and Arianism which was the reason for the counsel of Nicaea was called in the first place. For Bill to claim that creeds are not needed, not inspired, not important points to bogus fake history of the great apostasy which would make sense since he is a fundamentalist Baptist, and they teach and promote this fake history.
Thanks for teaching me a new term. I had never heard of the great apostasy, so I looked it up online. Perhaps it was not so great after all?
Perhaps it also illustrates our projection sin; our tendency to accuse our neighbors of our own faults, as we see in Romans 2. Are we looking for apostates everywhere but in our own mirrors?
The Council of Nicaea succeeded because Santa Claus (Nicholas of Myra) put coal in the stocking of Arius, who was on his naughty list. Good for Nicholas.
Read the book, “The Apostasy that wasn’t” by Rod Bennett. Very good book. Likewise read “The Creed” by Scott Hahn which I think is one of his best books.
The counsel was successful because the bishop Alexander of Alexandria where Arius was a priest and causing all the problems had the humility to have his assistant deacon speak on his behalf and for him. That deacons name, Athanasius which we know as St Athanasius and it was this younger assistant deacon that saved the day against Arianism. So now you know the rest of the story
Everry year on Trinity Sunday, our church covers the Athanasian Creed. The Creed is mind-bending, but we appreciate the effort it took to develop the ideas and find consensus.
Stating that martyrdom is nothing is about ridiculous as it gets. Billl Gothard himself has written in the past that he read the book ” Foxes book of martyrs” that he himself desired to be a martyr since he admired that book.
https://www.azquotes.com/author/38623-Ignatius_of_Antioch/tag/bones. He was on his way to Rome to be fed to the lions in the colosseum. He didn’t want to be rescued by fellow Christians. He viewed his pending death as a true sign of being a Christian.
You are grasping at straws here and demonstrate really how broken and shallow fundamentalism really is. It is pretty sad. I will pray for your soul.
“And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:3)
Martyrdom as literally . . . NOTHING. That is love to the Lord – Jesus specifically – and then, in second tier status, love to my neighbor. There are people trying to get into heaven by neglect of the body and giving away all of their money. That self-serving motive reduces all of that pain, once again, to – nothing.
As Ronald Reagan would say “there you go again”. St. Paul was not pitting the different things he mentioned as nothing or opposite of love. If you actually read the whole passage and its context, suffering, generosity, martyrdom etc. are meaningless without underlining love. That is the point of St. Paul. That passage does not support your false statement that early Christians “did not know the Lord”. You have made a completely false statement, it is fake history and shows how bankrupt the teachings of Bill Gothard are.
So, every professed Christian in the early days was automatically sincerely saved? That is silly.
Being a martyr is nothing without genuine love to the Lord, and others. Hoping to escape hell or get a better place in heaven is the opposite of love.
On 7/21 above we ask, what does martyrdom prove? Does it prove saving faith in Christ? St. Paul acknowledged that good men sometimes die for their good neighbors. So martyrdom is brave and noble. That is axiomatic. Martyrdom takes more guts than most of us have.
Using hyperbole, St. Paul demoted even martyrdom beneath charity (1 Corinthians 13).
What about Bill Gothard? The entire final 90-minute session of his Basic Seminar was voted to charity (genuine love), and how to cultivate it.
As for early Christians, aren’t they probably like every generation, with some true men and some phonies? Even our Lord’s handpicked twelve had a serious defect among them!
This entire weird complaint against creeds is one of many examples of how Bill Gothard’s thinking is so muddled that he’s clearly not qualified to teach anything, let alone to run a “university”. All the things listed as “serious problems” with creeds aren’t problems.
It’s true that creeds aren’t inspired. So what? Neither is Gothard. Neither is any pastor today, at least not in the same way we think of Scripture as being inspired. Why is that a problem?
I’m not even sure what it means to say that Christ’s commands are “balanced” and creeds aren’t. Gothard can’t just pluck out random verses that sound kind of different—but not contradictory—and say, “see, everything is balanced!” If anything, creeds are more “balanced” because they’re designed to be broad summaries, whereas different books of the Bible have different emphases because they have different purposes. Why should “balance” automatically be superior to having an emphasis?
Christ’s commands don’t necessarily lead to unity. Those who obey them/Him can be at conflict with those who don’t, even among believers. Whereas the whole purpose of church creeds was to solidify major doctrines that all Christians could agree with, even if they differed on minor issues. The timing of the tribulation or the millennium isn’t even mentioned in the old creeds. If anything, that might be an argument /for/ going back to the ancient creeds instead of using our modern divisive every-church-for-itself doctrinal statements.
As far as appealing to our hearts vs. our heads, a creed is a statement of belief. It comes from the Latin word credo, which means I believe. So why exactly is it a problem for a statement of belief to have the words “I believe”? Love isn’t a belief, so it isn’t mentioned in a statement of belief. Again, why is that a problem?
As for what Jesus said in Matthew, He said “teach” twice. The first time He said, “teach all nations”, without specifying what the disciples were to teach. The second time He said, “teach them to observe what I command.” I think it’s quite a stretch to say that means we should teach only Christ’s commands, and not other doctrines, like the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God, or that He died, was buried, and rose again. These are the things that creeds teach. Is it bad to teach those things just because they aren’t commands from Christ?
“It’s true that creeds aren’t inspired . . . Why is that a problem?”
It isn’t. But you have simply proven the point that they are not even in the same universe. Creeds do not get the veneration that Scripture does.
The word “teach” means to “disciple”. That is way more than what and how. We are to make disciples of all nations. Disciples of Jesus, not ourselves. NOTHING we can say to direct them to Him compares to pure, beautiful Scripture.
If it’s not an issue, why was it the first bolded heading in an article that started with, “creeds have serious problems that need to be addressed”? Was Gothard just stating the obvious, that creeds aren’t Scripture? What’s the point of that?
I don’t quite follow your last paragraph about discipleship. I can’t tell what you’re saying or what it has to do with creeds.
Creeds that are elevated to Scripture status are a problem. He rejects that kind of veneration.
You made a comment that we are commanded to “teach all nations”. You were attempting to make some point – that we are not just teaching Bible? I don’t know – it seemed appropriate to point out that “teach” is not actually “teach” but “make disciples of”. We could be making disciples of us, or our church, or our favorite theologian, or even philosophy. Is THAT what Christ directed us to? Of course not. We are to make disciples to Jesus. So . . . We focus on Him and His words, not church stuff.
Every Sunday at my church, we recite both the Lord’s prayer and once of the creeds. Of course, the hazard lies in that little word, “recite.” We are prone to lapse into “vain repetitions, as the heathen do.” Our faith can degenerate into formalism. Jesus warned us against this, so we must keep the devotional thoughts of our hearts connected with the words of our mouths.
The Lord’s prayer is our scriptural command, and the creed is our answer of faith. May it reflect authentic faith!
To the moderator: Gothard seemed to imply that, because Jesus said to teach others to obey Him, we should be teaching Christ’s commands to the exclusion of everything else, such as creeds. I was trying to point out that that interpretation doesn’t fit with the context.
Jesus didn’t say, “teach/disciple the nations to obey me” as if that was it. He said, “teach/disciple the nations, baptizing them…teaching (didasko) them to observe what I’ve commanded.”
So in that very passage, the focus isn’t exclusively on teaching Christ’s commands. That’s part of it, of course, but you can’t Scripturally support the idea that there should be nothing else. Ironically, in this very passage, Jesus mentioned baptism—a ritual carried out by the church—before He mentioned teaching people His commands.
To be consistent with what the Bible says, you can’t dismiss creeds as “church stuff” while venerating the Scripture. The New Testament says a lot more about “church stuff” than it does about reading the Bible.
Baptism IS His command. You acknowledge that we are to disciple the world in “His Commands”. Those are His words. Creeds are not His commands or words.
I gave you three reasons why your interpretation doesn’t make sense.
One, the apostles themselves didn’t treat inspired Scripture that way.
Two, that interpretation doesn’t fit with how the Bible was transmitted.
Three, Spirit-led Christians didn’t interpret I Corinthians that way for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
You only addressed number two, and all you said was the Jews memorized Scripture, which just furthers my point. In ancient Israel, how did the Jews memorize the whole thing without each of them having their own copy to study until they knew it by heart? They needed someone (if not multiple people) to read or recite it to them until they had it memorized, which is the opposite of “just me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit”.
Besides, the passage you quoted simply doesn’t say that. Paul was contrasting the human wisdom of those who don’t know Christ at all with the spiritual understanding that Christians should have.
He wasn’t saying the Corinthians didn’t need to listen to /other Spirit-filled believers/ to gain a better understanding of what God was saying. The very letter of I Corinthians is a Spirit-filled believer (Paul) under inspiration clarifying spiritual truth to other Spirit-filled believers. The Holy Spirit didn’t just zap the Corinthians with understanding. Instead, He inspired Paul to write a letter, using normal human language.
What you said was silly 🙂 Nowadays you have to learn to read and you have to buy a Bible and you have to sit down and read it. Back then somebody had to learn to read and get a copy of the Bible and sit down and read it out loud so people could memorize it.
What makes you think the apostles did not believe that? 🙂 Paul clearly did. People have made note that some of his interpretations did emphatically not follow the lines of the learned folks. Where did he get that clearer understanding? From the Holy Spirit, obviously. Exactly what I am saying.
If you are going to wave your hand at 1500 years of church history, provide a wee bit of proof, eh? And remember, we may honor different elements of “church history”. I, for example, greatly favor the ordinary type folks, the ones that made copy after copy of the Word of God and wore them out, leaving us with the “Byzantine texts”. I am less enthralled with the “scholars” that sat in monasteries and thunk and pondered and created their “Alexandrian texts”, carefully squirreled away for us to find later. The ordinary man always ends up trumping the scholar.
Matthew 11:25-26 “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.”
1 Corinthians 1:19,25 “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent . . . Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
I think we’re just going round and round in circles with Corinthians. The verse you quoted hasn’t added anything new to the discussion.
Let me ask you this: what do you do when two Christians disagree on how to interpret the Bible? Say one of them “just reads” the text, and interprets it, and the other one does some more study and interprets it a different way based on that study. Both of them have the Holy Spirit. How do you determine which one has the “Spirit-led” interpretation, and is therefore correct?
Yes, the Christian path is narrow, but where does the Bible say that being a Christian isn’t a group walk? That’s /exactly/ what it is, all over both the Old and New Testament.
Sometimes, a few of the prophets seem to be alone (like Ezekiel), but that’s the exception rather than the rule. Even in the days of the wicked king Ahab, there was a group of true prophets that went around, like the ones that Obadiah hid in a cave (I Kings 18), and the ones that followed Elisha around after Elijah was taken up to heaven (2 Kings 2). When the Israelites were taken captive, Daniel and his three friends were still godly. In the book of Esther, there was a whole group of Jews that could fast (and presumably pray, though the text doesn’t say that explicitly) before Esther risked her life to save her people (Esther 4). Malachi 3 talks about those who fear the LORD speaking of Him together while the rest of the nation had turned away.
In the New Testament, Jesus chose 12 disciples, and there were also women who followed Him who financially supported the group (Luke 8). There were about 150 in the upper room in Acts 1, right before the Holy Spirit came. The first Gentiles were saved in a group (Acts 10). All of Paul’s epistles are written either to churches or pastors. Christians being on their own is unheard of except for when they’re under the severest church discipline (Mattthew 18, I Corinthians 5).
Yes, we are all sons of God and priests. But we’re sons of God and priests together, not in isolation. Ephesians 4 describes the church growing up together, all using their spiritual gifts to reach the fulness of Christ. I Corinthians 12 describes the church as a body, specifically saying in verse 14 that the body is NOT just one member, but many.
Even in I John, which at one point says “you have no need that anyone should teach you” (I John 2:26, ESV), is itself teaching, and relates how Spirit-led believers were being fooled by false teachers, even though they had the Holy Spirit. And John gives the believers two tests they can use to determine if someone is really a believer. One is if they have love for other believers (I John 2:10-11), The other is if they acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God (I John 2:21-23). John didn’t say “just pray and the Holy Spirit will show you”. He gave them tangible guidelines.
And no, we are not all teachers with full authority. To go back to Ephesians 4, it says different people have different gifts. All the different gifts work together. We don’t all have the same one or ones. I Corinthians 12 is even more explicit. In verse 29, Paul asks a string of rhetorical questions to which the answer is supposed to be No. “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?”
Let me ask you this: what do you do when two Christians disagree on how to interpret the Bible?
The Lord will make it clear. Because, see, HE only has one interpretation, although the same Scripture is “profitable” in many different ways. When two believers sharply disagree on interpretation it is often that they are not speaking the same language. It takes times, sometimes, to “interpret” the “tongues” so they can both understand and agree. Sometimes it is because of sin in one or both of them. God uses the confusion to probe that.
1 Corinthians 11:19 “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” < -- The ones "approved" will be made manifest. Yes, the Christian path is narrow, but where does the Bible say that being a Christian isn’t a group walk?
Both are true. But the fact that “we walk alone” is true would counter your contention that that is not normal. Fellowship is essential, no argument there. But “group think” is not from God. We stand on our own feet before Him, we individually report to Him. That is when the church is the safest. “Group think” is what is destroying us, Christians way more concerned with finding and supporting the consensus than finding and preaching what God says in His word.
To go back to Ephesians 4, it says different people have different gifts.
Of course. But some are preferred. And some are commanded.
1 Corinthians 12:31 “But covet earnestly the best gifts . . . 1 Corinthians 14:1 “. . . desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.” 2 Timothy 2:24 “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach . . . ”
See? God wants us ALL to teach and preach (prophesy).
I’m sorry, but you’re so muddled I almost don’t know where to begin.
First, you said the Lord will make it clear what the correct interpretation is. How? And if God makes it clear, then how come Christians still disagree?
Second, I Corinthians 11 wasn’t talking about Christians disagreeing about Bible interpretation. It’s about the Lord’s Supper. So you just completely ripped it out of context to say that Christians might disagree om Bible interpretation because of sin.
Third, interpreting Scripture and interpreting tongues are two different things. Interpreting tongues is/was a spiritual gift. Interpreting Scripture is never presented that way.
Four, where does the Bible say that we walk alone?
Five, I wasn’t talking about group think, so I’m not sure why you brought that into the conversation.
Six, you didn’t even try to quote Scripture to back up the idea that the church is safest when we stand on our feet before God. I gave you passage after passage which shows that such individualism is absent from Scripture.
(Maybe you think the only two possibilities are either individualism or group think?)
Seven, teaching, preaching, and prophesying are three separate (though related) things, and you just shoved them all together into a random string of half-verses to try to say that all Christians should “teach/preach/prophesy”. None of the verses you cited command all Christians to do any of them. 2 Timothy is a pastoral epistle, so the instruction to be “apt to teach” was for Timothy as a pastor, not for all Christians.
You’re barely even coherent, and you want me to believe that such confusion is somehow true Christianity. If that’s true Christianity, how come it can’t stand up to—anything? Basic questions? Education? A group of Christians? Studying the Bible in any depth? Your version of Christianity is threatened by all those things.
First, you said the Lord will make it clear what the correct interpretation is. How? And if God makes it clear, then how come Christians still disagree?
That is muddling of the human mind. The LORD said that those that are approved will be obvious. Like Jesus said:
John 7:17 “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”
See it? Divine revelation – a person that is committed to the truth in Christ WILL instinctively know whether this or that is of God or not. All the books and training in the world cannot do that.
And Christians disagree because one or the other or both are not “spiritual” but rather either “natural” – Greek word is “soulish”, soul centered – or even worse “carnal”, tied to the flesh, as is cited at the end of 1 Cor. 2 and the beginning of 3.
It’s about the Lord’s Supper.
“Heresies” is in the plural. It is a general statement, not focused on one issue. When “heresies” happen, it is allowed for the purpose for God to “manifest” those that are “approved”. That IS what is says. You ask “how”. The Holy Spirit inside each spiritual believer will be that compass to make that plain. You DO have to believe in a supernatural God for this to be true, but once you do, it is not difficult at all.
interpreting Scripture and interpreting tongues are two different things.
Back in that day, I am not sure it was. Divine pronouncements, by the Spirit of God. The Spirit being the author of “Holy Writ” and also that which was not written down, but spoken back before Scripture was complete. Back to the end of 1 Cor. 2 – “judges all things” encompasses exposition and interpretation of Scripture if it means anything. The Holy Spirit in the spiritual man – the “mind of Christ” – will give a thumbs up or a thumbs down. It is a divine, supernatural revelation.
Four, where does the Bible say that we walk alone?
THAT we should not even be discussing!
Galatians 6:4-5 “But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.”
John 21:21-22 “Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.”
Luke 14:26-27 “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”
Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
you didn’t even try to quote Scripture to back up the idea that the church is safest when we stand on our feet before God.
Our opening passage in 1 Cor. 2 makes that plain:
1 Corinthians 2:15 “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” Note the “he” “himself”. That is the individual, judging all things. Caring not for the opinions of others, at least not of those called “natural” or “carnal”.
Deuteronomy 33:9 “Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.” Levi is the example to follow – standing alone.
“teach/preach/prophesy”
Au contraire.
Teaching: 2 Timothy 2:24 “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach . . .”
Preach is the same as prophesy: 1 Corinthians 14:1 ” … desire spiritual gifts, but rather [specifically] that ye may prophesy.”
So far “my version” of Christianity is amply supported in the Scriptures cited. You really don’t need to go any past the end of 1 Cor. 2, although the first 3 chapters are all about this. It is real, it is supernatural, it is not subject to the controls of men.
John 3:8 “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” THAT reality is scary to the “natural” and the “carnal” man. Can’t figure it out.
Yes, creeds are not Jesus’ commands or words. Again, why is that a problem? Are you against people learning truths about Jesus, like that He’s the Son of God, or that He died, was buried, and rose again? After all, those aren’t commands.
Are you against preaching because pastors use their own words to make sermons instead of just reading Scripture and sitting down again?
Creeds are far more than just “learning truths”. They are memorized, repeated at times like a mantra, and venerated by some has having special blessing or meaning. IF we are going to memorize something, let’s memorize Scripture!
Moderator,
A mantra is a few words that are repeated over and over again in religions like Hinduism and Buddhism. The Apostle or Nicene creed do not fit that definition. Look up what mantra means. The more you try to defend Bill’s ideas here, the more you dig a deeper hole that you cannot get out of and the more and more illogical and weird your stances become. You cannot show whatsoever what is “unbiblical” about either the Nicene or Apostle creed. But one can easily show how unbiblical Bill Gothard is. Your own arguments you have used here and be turned around and stated about Bill Gothard and his teachings.
I just report what I see. Are you saying these “creeds” are not repeated en Masse, large groups of people? Same effect as the “Lord’s Prayer”, repeated over and over and over again. Because one or twice is not enough. SOMETHING is gained by repeating, year over year, decade over decade, century over century, millennium over millennium. The Catholic Church even does it in Latin, a language incomprehensible to the average person. I am concerned that that is exactly what the Lord was warning CHRISTIANS away from.
First of all, Latin was the universal language of the Roman Empire and was the universal language used to communicate in Europe for a long long time. We have Latin words and phrases even on our money and in many of our founding documents. I am not sure what your point is about Latin. Currently most all Catholic Masses are done in the vernacular, not Latin. I don’t go to a TLM Mass, they are actually not that common and if you have paid attention to Catholic news, the current Pope has kinda restricted TLM use. For a short time, my daughter went to a Charter school that had Latin as part of it’s curriculum because they considered an understanding of Latin to even be foundational to our own English Language. This was not a religious Charter school. I am not sure about your comments about Latin, they seem to be out of ignorance and prejudice.
To the moderator,
I’m all for memorizing Scripture, but there’s nothing magic about reciting verses, either. After all, even Satan knowns Scripture.
Creeds have a different purpose and function from Scripture. The Bible is composed of works of literature designed to be read and understood in context with the help of a group. In the Old Testament, there were people like prophets and priests to help. In the New Testament, you had the apostles and pastors. That’s part of the purpose of the church to this day. Creeds are a concise way of stating Scriptural truths that aren’t clearly expressed in one Bible verse or passage.
One really good way to learn a truth is to memorize it a specific way. For example, I learned 7 X 8 as a kid because my mom would say over and over again to the same rhythm “7 X 8 is 56”. She could have said it in different rhythms and sometimes said “8 X 7 equals 56”, which means exactly the same thing, but that would make it harder for us to learn it.
Certainly, there are other ways of learning truth, and those are fine too. But it’s rather odd to criticize an ancient and effective way of learning Scriptural truth just because it’s—not something else?
Got no problem with learning truths that have been simplified from Scripture. Great technique from your Mom, we have used similar technique with our kids. The problem is when we leave childhood and we are still all taken up with the arts of men instead of straight Scripture. Creeds are for kids, for the immature – time to move on.
Did not quite understand your comments of what the Bible is, or if I did, strongly disagree. The “Bible” is a collection of infallible, God breathed writings that are taken by the Spirit of God to teach us. They do so in context, out of context, in any language they are translated into. As such they are, well, “magic”, the power of the living God living therein. Scripture itself teaches us that, no, we do not need “helpers” to understand it, no not if we are “spiritual”, i.e. spiritually mature:
1 Corinthians 2:13-16 “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”
See it? That “spiritual man” can figure it ALL out, and no man can “judge” him. The reason? Because the Holy Spirit gives us the “Mind of Christ”. The very author.
So, again, the tools we use to teach the children better drop away once we get to maturity. Raw Scripture, that is our food.
Hebrews 5:12 “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.”
To the moderator,
People have viewed creeds as a good way for adults to learn truth for centuries. On what basis are you saying it’s only appropriate for kids?
Christians—with the Holy Spirit—have been reading I Corinthians 2 for centuries, and they didn’t take it to mean that anyone with the Holy Spirit can just sit down with a Bible and understand it properly without any instruction. That’s a very modern idea, and I believe it’s caused great harm for the past four centuries. I know I’ve been hard on Gothard, but the truth is, I believe much of Christianity in America is about as bad, and it’s because of this spiritualized every-man-for-himself view of Scripture.
More to the point, that idea doesn’t even fit with how God chose to transmit His Word. God gave the Old Testament to an oral culture. The Hebrew didn’t even have vowel marks for centuries. Even somebody literate with a scroll in front of them couldn’t “just read it” without already knowing what it said.
To give you an example in English, here’s one Old Testament verse with all the vowels taken out and the letters run together:
Thsthhvnsndthrthwrfnshdndllthhstfthm.
Imagine an entire book of the Bible like that. Is it really the job of the Holy Spirit to help someone understand that?
And as far as the New Testament, letters were read aloud in a group. The person reading it could then explain it. We see an example of that in Acts 16. There was a dispute about Gentiles being circumcised, and so the apostles and others on the Jerusalem council wrote a letter saying that the Gentiles only needed to “abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:20). They then sent Paul and Barnabas to explain the letter, to say the same thing in person. So they didn’t believe that inspired Scripture needed no human explanation. If the apostles didn’t believe it, why should we?
I can read that (you forgot to write it backwards). People were not as big of fools as you imagine them to be.
They memorized it. The whole thing. The Jews do it even today as a part of Barmitzvah, I spoke with a saved Jew who memorized the Torah, IN Hebrew. That is way better than reading it, right?
So kindly go back to my passage and explain how that is saying anything different than what I said. Saying it can’t possibly mean that doesn’t count as a reason. Here it is in another translation:
“This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”
But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:13-16)
There are things only a spiritual person can understand. And God’s Holy Spirit does that, giving us the “mind of Christ”. This makes that person able to judge ALL things, and not be judged by human logic.
I didn’t say that we shouldn’t buy Bible and read them on our own. I’m challenging your assertion that God intended for Christians to understand the Bible on their own, despite the fact that most Christians were unable to do that for centuries.
And I told you why the apostles didn’t believe it. They wrote a letter about what the Gentile Christians did and did not have to do. We have it in Acts 16, so it’s inspired Scripture. They also sent Paul and Barnabas to explain the letter. Why would they do that if all the believers could just read what it said and the Holy Spirit would explain everything?
And Paul himself was highly-educated, in both Jewish and Greek culture. Totally apart from anything spiritual, scholars will often come up with their own ideas. That’s what makes them scholars. A dissertation is a scholar adding something new to his or her field rather than just copying what everyone else says.
And on a more spiritual note, Paul was an apostle. He had an authority that the rest of us don’t have. God gave Him special revelation. Some of it he wrote down and we have it as Scripture. But we know from the beginning of 2 Corinthians 12 that Paul also received a revelation that he wasn’t allowed to talk about, and possibly couldn’t. So how do Paul’s actions prove your assertion that all Christians can just sit down with a Bible and understand it?
I thought you knew about the 1500 years of church history because there’s been an extensive discussion of the councils on this page. There weren’t any different denominations. Major issues were discussed in councils, in which leaders from churches over large regions talked and argued and discussed. That’s how believers hashed out the Trinity, even though there’s no single Bible passage that says, “There is one God in three persons.” That’s how we came to the understanding that Jesus is fully God and fully man, something else for which there’s no one explicit Bible passage.
Denominations didn’t start until after the Reformation, let alone “independent churches”. Martin Luther saw that the Catholic church needed reformation, but he didn’t say that Christians should reinvent the wheel and just do their own thing ‘cause they had a Bible and the Holy Spirit. You asked me to provide proof, but where’s your proof that believers thought the way you do prior to the 1600s?
I’ve nothing against “the ordinary man”, but I’m not sure why you would sooner trust someone less educated. That’s a little odd. Why be so suspicious of learning? I don’t think God Who made the world and our minds is threatened by people learning, so why do people who follow Him view it with such suspicion?
” wrote a letter about what the Gentile Christians did and did not have to do. We have it in Acts 16″
I know you meant Acts 15. You acknowledged that Apostles – and they were all in on this – have special authority to WRITE Scripture. We agree that the canon of infallible, God-breathed Scripture is complete. And I never said that the more spiritual among us should not teach those less spiritual. BUT, the “Truth-O-Meter” to judge whether something is from Scripture, and so from the Lord, belongs to EVERY believer. The Holy Spirit will not only elucidate the Scriptures for each of us, but also guide as as to whether teaching coming from another is based in it. Note how the Bereans actually had full authority to cross-check the Apostle Paul – they literally would not receive His utterances until they verified it:
Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
That completely upends the notion that a bunch of degrees after one’s name means the less experienced need to believe and accept what they say.
I just read over the Nicene Creed – I find the notion of Jesus being “Born of God” unscriptural, since Jesus is God and God never started nor will end. Also the notion that Baptism forgives sins. We know that only God can forgive sins, so no sacrament is able to do that. That statement made by Peter refers to the specific sin of the people in front of him, they guilty of refusing to confess Christ through public baptism previously, something a public baptism now would fix.
ALL creeds – other than those encapsulated in the literal words of Scripture – are tainted with sin. Nobody processes it and gets it completely right.
Proof that they thought that way is encapsulated in the urgent desire to translate the Scripture into the common tongue. For what purpose? William Tyndall told one of those self important scholars: “I intend to make it possible for a common farmer, a plowman, to know more of the Scripture than you do!” It drove Martin Luther to make his translation. So that the COMMON MAN could read and decide for himself.
As to “hashing out the Trinity”, it is right there in Scripture. Scripture proves that Jesus is God, and we have all three at the baptism of Jesus – Voice from heaven, dove descending, and the Lord Jesus. The problem is that some aspects mess with human purpose and will, and so get suppressed, then denied. And it may well take a council acting in humility and repentance to get back to the reality. Nothing new here, just truth returned to.
Yes, I meant Acts 15. But I think you missed my point. Acts 15 shows that the apostles understood that they needed to go to the believers in person and explain what they had written. It wasn’t enough to write under inspiration, send it to believers, and just assume that the Holy Spirit would enable them to understand it.
As for the Bereans, Acts 17 is contrasting the unbelieving Berean Jews who searched the Scripture with the unbelieving Thessalonian Jews who ran Paul out of town. So this was a group of people that didn’t even have the Holy Spirit inside them yet. And since we’re not told the education level of the Bereans, it doesn’t upend the idea that education is important. It says nothing about education one way or the other.
As far as the Nicene creed, what did they mean by the phrase “born of God”? I don’t know, and I don’t think you do, either. Not much point criticizing something you don’t even understand.
As far as Tyndale and Luther, they were championing the common people having the Bible in their own language to read for themselves. That’s one thing. It’s something else entirely to say “never mind learning. Never mind context. Me and my Bible and the Holy Spirit is enough.” Where did Luther or Tyndale say anything that sounds like that? Besides, you know what Luther and Tyndale were? Scholars! The common people couldn’t understand the Word of God until scholars put it in their language, and even then, just like the first-century believers in Acts 15, they would need people to help them understand it.
As far as the Trinity, the passage you referenced doesn’t make it obvious that there’s one God in three distinct Persons. Jesus’ baptism could have been depicting one God in one Person simply manifesting Himself in three different ways. It also doesn’t in any way demonstrate that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal.
So no, it’s not that Scripture was clear and the councils needed to repent of something before they understood the correct doctrine. It was that God intended for them to understand truth by using the brain He gave them to seriously think through hard concepts. And yes, of course the Holy Spirit should have a role in that, but there’s nothing in Scripture—or church history—to indicate that His role means that we spiritualize matters to the point of turning ignorance into a virtue. Again, that’s a very modern idea.
we spiritualize matters to the point of turning ignorance into a virtue
Had to start with this. What does THIS mean?
1 Corinthians 3:18 “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.”
What ordinary, simple Christians are and do and believe looks so stupid to the smart people in our world. This seems to suggest that we deliberately “dumb it down” when confronted with that, instead of giving into the temptation to join them and try to match wits.
Acts 15 is an example of a multitude of Scriptures brought to bear on a situation. The wisest among us, the most “spiritual”, find that process the easiest.
That is the first time I have had anyone suggest that the “Bereans” were not saved. I think you are most definitely in error on that. They proved it out, and they trusted Christ, and they kept proving it out.
Tyndale and Luther had no “helps” to publish to help those poor ordinary believers left with only God’s Word to ponder. This is emphatically an acknowledgment that God speaks to the plowman through His word – DIRECTLY.
There are many witnesses to the “Trinity”, of which my example is but one. YES, I know some that do double backflips to turn that into something else. I have a relative of my wife’s that is into “Jesus only” – He finds Jesus talking from heaven, while flying down as a dove, and also getting baptized. Amazing. No, that makes no sense.
For the fact that the Trinity is eternal, we simply look to creation:
Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”
we spiritualize matters to the point of turning ignorance into a virtue
Had to start with this. What does THIS mean?
You’re using “the Holy Spirit” as a reason to downplay the value of the work and teaching done by educated Christians. You said you don’t trust manuscripts copied by scholars, as if being educated is somehow a threat to scriptural purity or being truly Spirit-led.
As far as I Corinthians, again, it’s not contrasting educated believers with educated unbelievers. It was talking about less educated Christians and non-Christians who didn’t have the Spirit of God at all. So it doesn’t really have to do with our discussion.
As for the Bereans, here’s the text (from the ESV):
10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
It says they believed /after/ they searched the Scriptures. It was /because/ they searched the Scriptures. It says they examined the Scriptures daily, and /therefore/, they believed. That’s why context is important. If you read verse 11 in isolation, it’s natural to assume that they’re Christians. But if you read just the very next verse, you see that that’s not the case.
As for Tyndale and Luther, the ordinary believers had other believers. Even if “the church” as a broader institution was corrupt, that didn’t mean there weren’t any believers who could teach them. Besides, I’m not questioning the idea that God can use His Word to speak directly to believers. I’m questioning the idea that “me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit” is God’s usual method of teaching Christians. Both in Scripture and throughout church history, God’s people have usually learned in groups with others. People and groups that broke off and did their own thing were usually heretics.
As far as the verse in Romans, it mentions the Godhead being eternal, but it doesn’t say that there are three distinct Persons in the Godhead Who are eternal. Again, there’s no one passage that says that. And that’s fine. There doesn’t need to be, because God gave us brains and the ability to think and reason and work things out.
I don’t “use the Holy Spirit” for anything. I read the passage. Both passages. The force of the first 3 chapters of 1 Corinthians appears to be the exact opposite of what you are lobbying for. Starting with chapter 1:
1 Corinthians 1:25 “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
Is God ever foolish? Nope. But His people are. The foolishness of a simple believer, in the fear and love of the Lord, with the Holy Spirit blowing on him, is smarter than all of the smart people lined up to oppose him. One of my favorites is John Jasper, ex-slave, preacher. Fiery preacher. Full of the Holy Spirit. His most famous sermon, preached over and over, was “The Sun Do Move”, proving that the sun rotates around the earth. He is the biggest “fool”, as seen by the world and, frankly, most Christians. *I* think that in the end he will be proven right. There are enough weird things in theoretical physics to make that feasible. The world of physics, backed by all of Newton’s insights and all that Einstein started STILL, to this day, does not understand how things move. To the point that they freely admit (look it up) that they have no idea what 96% of the universe is made of. “Black Matter”, they call it, which means, “we haven’t a clue”. That should shock the common man. God LOVES to bring the wisdom of this world to nothing. So . . . I suspect the sun “do move” around the earth, somehow. John Jasper is my hero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jasper
The Bereans, you are correct, those Jews were part of the “sons of God scattered abroad”, those whose hearts God had captured previously and who, guided by the Holy Spirit, searched all Paul said out for themselves, trusting Christ. It remains that them proving it out for themselves is commended as “honorable”. That is something we should all do.
You say “God’s people have usually . . . ” I don’t think that is true, not with genuine believers. Lots of church goers, sure. Many were never saved. Salvation is a personal introduction to Jesus Christ and a separated walk with Him. That is why it is a “narrow path”, not a group walk. Every one of us is expected to be and act like a son of God, a priest, a teacher, with full authority.
“On the Jericho Road there’s room for just two
No more and no less just Jesus and you
Each burden He’ll bear each sorrow He’ll share
There’s never a care for Jesus is there.”
Revelation 1:6 “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
On 7/22 above, we are told that because he objects to formal creeds, Bill Gothard’s thinking is muddled. Was the thinking of Jesus muddled? and St. James also muddled? What about Gothard’s enemies? is their thinking muddled? Do their lives manifest works of the flesh or fruit of the Spirit?
Jesus warned us that many who declared him lord never knew him. Why? because their lives disproved their declaration.
James famously warned us that a mere declaration of faith is something we can have in common with devils. But our actions prove what we believe and disbelieve. Remember the children’s song? “I love thee, I love thee and that thou dost know. But how much I love thee my actions will show.”
To David: Neither Jesus nor James were talking about creeds. Yes, actions speak louder than words and reciting creeds doesn’t somehow save us. That’s just another way of saying that creeds don’t do things they were never designed to do, which nobody claimed that they do. How is that a “serious problem” with creeds, which is what Gothard claims?
On 7/27 above, we dispute whether Jesus and James were talking about creeds. Of course Jesus and James were talking about creeds! A creed is a declaration of belief. Our Lord’s worst enemies were hypocrites who lived by pretense. When we affirm a belief, then live unworthily of it, we nullify our affirmation.
Our Lord’s enemies affirmed the law of God, even while violating it. So can we, if we are not careful.
In his article, our moderator itemized five serious problems with creeds. Does that answer our question about the serious problem? We may rebut the five serious problems, but they are right there before us.
Stating obvious things about the difference between creeds and Christ’s commands and then calling those obvious differences a serious problem doesn’t make it a serious problem. That would be like me saying that a serious problem with this website it that we need Internet access to view it, unlike with reading paper books. It’s true to the point of being laughably obvious, but that doesn’t mean that this website has some deep flaw just because I said something obvious about the difference between a website and a book.
We read a good point on 7/28 above. Indeed, Christ commanded us to obey him. The most blunt command he issued was, “repent and believe.” believe what? believe the gospel. and what is the gospel we must believe? we affirm it in our creeds.
Above, we also dispute whether obeying Christ is “it.” Of course that is it! What other “it” could there possible be? All our church administration, all the routine of our lives must be either obedience to or derivative of, that great IT! Baptism, teaching, and all our activities fold into the great IT. How well are we doing IT?
In reference to the comment on “vain repetition”. Jesus was not referring to repeating prayers like the Lord’s prayer in a Liturgy or even reciting an ancient creed. This is often proof texted and misquoted by some Evangelicals that Jesus was against repetition. Just read Psalm 136 which repeats the phrase “His mercies endure forever” after each verse. In Revelations, the four Seraphim in front of the throne repeat Holy, Holy, Holy day and night. Jesus was talking and stated “vain repetitions like the pagans” which is about pagan prayers that were practiced by Greeks of repeating meaningless words to appease the gods. It has nothing to do with the Lord’s Prayer or other stated prayers used in a liturgical service, in one”s private prayer life etc.
Repetition is well defended on 7/29 above. Our Lord explicitly endorsed repetition when a nagging woman’s petition was granted because of importunity. Repetition is all around us in both our Bibles and nature. So how do we distinguish between good and vain repetition? Is it the difference between belief and unbelief?
Heathen repetition is vain because of unbelief. But our repetition should be animated by faith Can our prayer degenerate into thoughtless muttering? of course. Can lovers lose their first love? Indeed we can. That’s why we are commanded to repent if we do.
Our love is too precious to squander on thoughtless habit. May we love with heart, soul, mind and strength!
On 8/3 above, we are told that Latin was the universal language of the Roman empire. But isn’t this improbable? Although Latin may have been the language of Rome and Italy, Greek must have been preferred enough for the NT writers to choose Greek instead of Latin.
Indeed prejudice and ignorance go together, and for good reason. St. Paul was prejudiced against public speaking in unknown tongues. Was St. Paul ignorant? of course not, but he was prejudiced against meaningless noise. He said that tongues of men and angels were unhelpful unless people understood them.
If nobody understands the language, then qui bono?
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/september-web-only/state-of-theology-evangelical-heresy-report-ligonier-survey.html
to the moderator,
your latest answers Joanna demonstrates why fundamentalism is bankrupt. Your quote from I Corinthians has nothing to do with creeds and what they teach. I feel sorry for you. All you can do is spit out random verses that have nothing to do with nothing. No wonder why there are many that have left Bill Gothard, IBLP/ATI, fundamentalism etc. and become atheists. The people like you that trumpet “no creeds just me Jesus and my bible” need them the most. If you and Bill think that you are “spiritual mature”, you both have deceived yourselves because the various answers and excuses given here demonstrate otherwise. I’ll pray for you.
That passage has everything to do with our discussion. The Living God explaining His Word to His people, directly. No need for helpers.
“The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)
On 8/8 above, we are offered both pity and prayer. Pity we can do without, but the proffered prayer raises questions. Our context was a warning against heresy. So to whom shall the prayers be offered? to Molech? to the world, flesh, and devil? If we are fussy about orthodoxy, shouldn’t we specify whether our prayers are going upward? or downward?
We also lament that random Bible verses and gospel preaching is producing atheists. Indeed, many are atheists. But are they atheists because of orthodox preaching, or in spite of it? Were they believers who ceased believing, or were they phonies who never repented? To the random mind, all things are random. Our sin reduces our thinking to chaos.
Is fundamentalism bankrupt? then cash your checks elsewhere. Most -isms are poor investments, anyway. What exactly was wrong with the moderator’s post? Rant is not rebuttal. It is only rant.
The comments are directed at the moderator not you.
Do creeds teach? of course not. Only people teach. But rather, creeds declare. Creeds affirm that we believe the gospel message in our Bibles.
On 8/8 above, we slay a straw man deader than Jacob Marley. If only American Christians were afflicted with too much Bible reading and heeding! But is that really our crisis? Isn’t it exactly opposite? For every Christian heeding the voice of his Good Shepherd as he reads his Bible, don’t we have ten more heeding the voices they hear in Vanity Fair? Are we afflicted with excess godliness? or excess worldliness?
Of course our neighbors should help us understand and obey God. But they can also help us sin, and they sometimes do. That explains the old lyrics, “though none go with me, still I will follow; the world behind me, the cross before me.”
Why not concede the obvious? For every one thing we misunderstand in our Bibles aren’t there ten more which we understand but sinfully neglect? Do we need better coaches? or better souls?
In reference to comments on the Nicene Creed by the moderator.
One can’t pluck out on sentence and proof text that to mean something else when the Nicene creed continues “eternally begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.” Jesus always existed with the Father. Begotten is not implying the father came before the son but an eternal divine relationship. See John 1:14,18 and John 3:16,18.
The idea that baptism does not “save” is only from the Anabaptist groups from the Reformation. Water Baptism has always been taught to be the essential first step to be saved. There are many numerous Biblical references for supporting this. Romans 6, Col 2:12, Gal. 3:27, Acts 2, I Peter 3, John 3:3-5 and many more. That has been and still is the historic Christian teaching and views. That is why it is included in the Nicene Creed which soon will be 1700 years old. If one’s understanding doesn’t line up with the Nicene creed, then maybe that understanding needs to be re-evaluated. There is a big gap between 1700 years and only 500 years.
I don’t understand “God from God”. God created me, so I sort of come from God, but I am not God. If He always was, then there is no act of “God FROM God”.
And strongly disagree on baptism. Baptism has always been seen as super important, but it finds its place as an expression of what is, rather creating something that is not.
Let’s not stumble over terms. Here, “from” is a synonym for “of.” We can use either preposition when we describe the incarnation. Bethlehem’s baby came “from” his mother as all babies do. But he was begotten “of” God and not of man. So some English translations of ancient creeds use “from” as a synonym for “of.”
My arm comes “from” my shoulder, but most importantly, it is “of” my body in organic union.
Let’s also not stumble over baptism. There’s plenty of scripture which connects baptism with remission of sins, even though Christians disagree over which direction cause flows to effect. Does baptism cause remission or does remission cause baptism? In what way did the Lord’s baptism fulfill righteousness? Was the water cleansing him or was he cleansing the water? or was our sin being imputed to him? Different Christians embrace different theories. But mainly, we need regeneration by Christ.
Well, I would not expect agreement on baptism. But Baptism is more than just ‘important”.
The Nicene creed was formulated against the Arian heresy which taught that Jesus was created, not fully God. You and I and everything else is created by God. Using your statement “I am from God”, would only mean we are created by God, we are not ‘from God” in the sense that we are created beings, we are not “God” or of a divine nature. We are not the same nature as God. That is what “God from God” when taken with the whole statements in the creed means that Jesus which is what is being talked about here is God, he is not made or created by God like we are. Jesus is one and the same with God the father. He became incarnate in a physical body. That is what “consubstantial” means. I am not sure if your question is due to genuine confusion or just trying to be a smart.
Do you believe “Jesus” has always existed, or did He have a beginning?
As the divine 2d person, the Lord is “eternally begotten, before all worlds.”
But there was a time before the Lord was incarnate in Mary’s womb. Although it has no ending, the Lord’s incarnation had a beginning. We expect our flesh to someday be glorified like his. “We look for the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.”
No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground
He comes to make his blessings flow,
Far as the curse is found.
In a short answer to your question, yes, absolutely. I would suggest reading John 1, Philippians 2 and Colossians 1 for this. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. John 1
My point is – if He always existed, then there is no “God from God”. God IS. You get man from God, you get a body for Jesus from God, but God does not beget God.
Let’s review Christian theology, based upon what we read on 8/27 above. Of course God begets God, who else could he beget? Just as man begets his son, God begets his son. We believe that Jesus is the son of God. What are sons, if not men begotten by their fathers?
(BTW, this fact contradicts the Darwinist narrative. If Darwinism is true, each species in the chain must have begun to beget a different species. Men and beasts may beget genetic adaptations in their seed, but they are always the same species as their father!)
This means that each begetting is a miniature incarnation. When I begot my sons, I supplied the genetic code by which God formed their flesh. Then God “curiously wrought” sons in their mother’s womb. When we beget, we begin to give a body to our sons. That is what we mean by “beget.”
We would differ on that. God IS. He always has been, and will never cease to be. There is no point where He came into existence, not as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. “This day have I begotten thee” in Psalm 2 and quoted in the NT speaks of His revelation, but not of Him “coming into existence”. Does that perspective make sense?
So, no, God does not begat God. Otherwise, this:
James 1:18 “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”
This would mean that we are God, if “God begets God” . . . Because He “begat” us as His sons. That is the cavernous difference between us and the “Only Begotten Son of God” – HE has always been, not so focus.
I can supply numerous links which explain “God from God” and I think that no matter how many links or quotes from others I could supply here, that is will not matter because you are misinterpreting “God from God” as one preceding the other, which when you read the whole of the Nicene creed, it is not. But when one follows people like Bill Gothard here who misquote and chop up the bible into unrecognizable quotes, this isn’t surprising. The proof texting continues, now it is just the Nicene Creed instead of scripture. If one is truly seeking to understand this, they can easily come up with many sources, written and in YouTube video format for the explanations and answers to your questions. And the resources aren’t just Catholic but Orthodox and Protestant as well. God from God is obviously stating one and the same when one reads the whole context and statement of the Nicene creed. Trying to understand from with modern ideas and understanding doesn’t cut it but is being used by you to misunderstand and discount creeds.
I, personally, make it a habit to avoid videos offered to prove a point. Scripture ought to be enough.
See what I posted in response to David.
And this: John 8:58 “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”
“I Am” = no beginning and no end. Never “begotten” in the sense of coming into existence.
Well, if you make it a habit of not watching videos because you don’t think you need them, then if you have videos of Bill Gothard and IBLP, you better toss them because you don’t need them. And even further, the seminars of Bill Gothard are unnecessary too. What a mentality, me, Jesus and my Bible. But the problem with this is that the Bible doesn’t teach it. It is a sign of arrogancy and pride when someone thinks I need nothing else. In 1700 years of the Nicene creed, only you can come up with the ideas that you seem to have with it and falsely claim it states. While “no theology” is bad, trying to do theology when one doesn’t know what they are saying is just as bad. And that is what you and David are doing here. You are arguing what the Nicene creed actually does teach while arguing that the Nicene creed doesn’t teach this; David, who knows, delving off into Arianism. Theology done badly isn’t working for you both.
If I sign up for a teaching by a teacher, I am all in. I attend Bible conferences regularly. But I do not have time for video snips by people I do not know. If they convinced you, then you convince me how you were convinced. That is, BTW, exactly what Bill taught all those years, demanding that “we” not quote him for this or that, but rather discuss and argue and teach what we have ourselves proven. That is safe and good and I expect you would agree.
Rob, that’s a pretty good explanation above. We struggle for words to express what God has revealed to us. Our best words still have room for improvement.
James 1:18 is a beautiful assurance. The great apostle reminds us what it means to be “born again.” The Lord was cryptic with Nicodemus when he taught about regeneration, but St. James gives it to us straight. To be born again means that God’s spirit begets new life in men who were “dead in trespasses and sins.” By his spirit of regeneration, God upgrades us from mere mortal creatures to immortal “sons of God.”
Our Lord’s enemies were outraged by his claim to be son of God. But Jesus doubled down and quoted the OT, “ye are gods.”
We Christians sometimes speculate whether mysterious personages in the OT were visits by the pre-incarnate Christ. We believe that Jesus always existed. Yet we also believe that his Father wrought him in Mary’s womb “in the fullness of time” and not before. We call that “begetting.”
We agree about the womb but not that the Father “wrought Him” in that act. He prepared for Him a body. HE was there beforehand, in fact HE was the one that created Mary and Mary’s womb.
We are “gods” in that we have a free will and we will live – or die – forever. We are not “God” because God never had a start, like we did.
The best explanation of God “begetting” was written by C.S. Lewis. It appears in Book Four of Beyond Personality, his fourth book in the Mere Christianity compilation. He solves the paradox of God begetting Christ while eternally coexisting with his only begotten son (John 3:16). I would summarize it here, but the Lewis text is much better than any summary. It uses brief, vivid analogies.
Summarize, if you would. I respect Lewis a lot. A lot of smart people believe a few things they (we) should not. John McArthur taught for years that “this day I have begotten Thee” referred to Jesus BECOMING the Son of God. Lots of people howled. In the end – he changed his mind.
The “wrought” part means that Mary’s seed was in the Lord, commingled with God’s. Otherwise, Jesus can be neither “son of man” nor “seed of the woman.” Both are necessary for him to be our savior, and for us to be branches of his vine! Our theology says, “fully God and fully man.” God planted his identity into Mary’s womb, but unless he mingled it with our mortality, God could not really die on Calvary.
Men cannot slay God, but men can slay men. So Christ got his humanity through Mary’s seed, while step-father Joseph was an innocent bystander.
Because of Mary’s DNA, Christ is the prophesied “seed of the woman” who bruised the serpent’s head!
When my seed commingles with my wife’s seed I “beget” a son, half me, half her. Jesus was NOT “half Mary”. His body, maybe, and He would look like her, but He was not “half human”. He was fully God and fully human, something my kids can never claim for me or my wife.
Hebrews 10:5 “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:”
“A body hast Thou prepared me” is NOT something that was ever said by us, you or me. We did not preexist, and then get a body to hold us, unlike what the Mormons teach, for example. There is nothing in the conception and birth and body of the Savior to compare to us in that regards. He was always, He – the “Son” specifically – created ALL things, including Mary.
Colossians 1:16 “For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:”
We revisit an ancient paradox on 8/31 above. How can Christ be son of God and son of man? Aren’t those mutually exclusive categories? The ancient church wrestled with that question, and heresies needed an answer. So church officers convened the Council of Calcedon to sort it out. The Definition of Calcedon is available online, and widely accepted as the best answer to this paradox.
But we have to ask, was Mary the real mother of Jesus in every sense, or was Mary merely a surrogate who carried the incarnate 2d Person? Was Jesus human by fiat only, or was he the promised “seed of the woman” as material fact?
The Lord’s favorite title for himself was “son of man.” Probably, he was not just quoting from Daniel. Probably, he meant it. That’s why our Bibles devote so much attention to his genealogies.
Understood, and thank you for acknowledging that many smart people have wrestled with this over the centuries.
As I read the “definition” I am quickly brought to this: “He was begotten before the ages from the Father according to his deity”
And therein lies the problem. EVERY “son of God” so named, including the angels and including us, saved, have a time when we were “Begotten” by God with His holy and external nature. 1 John 3:9 says that that which is born of God “cannot sin”, ever. That is, in context, clearly referring to us. So we have a dual nature, one the “flesh” which is irreversibly corrupt, and one the “new man” which is created to be “like Christ”. The part He creates “cannot sin” and so we quickly come to “once saved, always saved”. Also the peace in knowing that in the unending eternity to come, we will NOT EVER repeat Adam and Eve’s folly and turn back to sin. Our “flesh” will die, evaporate, as we pass into eternity, and our body will be resurrected. So will be forever the “new man” begotten by God.
The Savior is, however, the “Only Begotten Son of God”. He IS, has always been, there is none like Him. He had the nature of man on earth but unlike us He had no original sin, and unlike Adam He COULD NOT sin. Because He was as He has always been . . . God.
There is no change outside of a timeline. No changes in eternity. He was “Before the ages”, and before the ages there was no time. There is no place we can look back to where He came to be.
To put a bow on it:
John 1:18 “No MAN hath seen God AT ANY TIME; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
So you can see – HE is no “man”. Not like us, not like Mary.
We are “like Him”, in “His image”, in part, because we too have 3 parts: Spirit, Soul, and Body. We never had one or two of those without the third. Similarly, God IS 3 persons and has always been so.
Deep things, I know. But we are left with a point of theology encapsulated in the creed and the definition which is outside of Scripture and, frankly, I think, wrong.
Okay, here is a summary of Lewis, from p. 172 of Mere Christianity:
Suppose that two books are stacked one upon another. The bottom book causes the position of the top book. Now suppose that both books had been in that position for ever and ever. The top book’s position would always have resulted from the bottom book’s position. This cannot happen in our world, because for us effect always follows after cause.
Like the imaginary books, the Father can beget the son forever. Christ is “eternally begotten,” not sequentially begotten, as in our world. The son exists because the Father exists: but there was never a time before the Father produced the Son. That’s how the Father can eternally beget the Son without being before him in sequence. Lewis continues, “In the same way, we must think of the Son always, so to speak, streaming forth from the Father.”
To the moderator:
I’m starting a new thread, since the current one is getting too clunky, but this is still a continuation of the same conversation.
My question is about Christians interpreting Scripture, and you keep citing verses that have nothing to do with that. In John 7:17, Jesus wasn’t talking about Bible interpretation. He was talking about people believing Him. Jesus is not the Bible.
As far as the “heresies”, the ESV translates the same word “factions”. In context, it’s talking about divisions. In the immediate context, it’s talking about how the Corinthians observed the Lord’s Supper in a way that made a distinction between the rich and the poor. In context of the whole book, it’s talking about other divisions as well, like the way the Corinthians argued over “I am of Paul” and “I am of Apollos”. People can disagree without being divisive, and the issue with the Corinthians was that they were divisive. That’s a major theme of the book. Nowhere does Paul say that mere disagreement over the interpretation of a Bible passage is a sign that at least one person is carnal.
And lots of people believe in a supernatural God without believing that the Holy Spirit will automatically reveal the correct interpretation to the more spiritual believer.
I’m not sure why you say that “judges all things” in I Corinthians 2 means interpreting Scripture when there’s nothing in the entire book to suggest that it’s about that. Again, this was about certain Corinthian believers setting themselves up as if they were better than other believers, based on worldly, carnal reasoning—because they were rich, or because they were male, or because their favorite preacher was more eloquent than someone else’s favorite preacher. Even thinking they were better because they had the spiritual gift of tongues was a carnal reason, and that’s the setting for the famous love chapter in I Corinthians 13.
With walking alone, none of the passages you cited are about walking alone. In Galatians, just a few verses before it says “bear one another’s burdens”. It’s like if you’re talking to a group going on a hike and you say “have each other’s backs, and carry your own backpacks”. That’s not contradictory. You’re all looking out for each other, but each person also has his own load.
When Peter was asking about John, Jesus didn’t say “John’s not following me. You follow me alone.” Jesus was saying that Peter could follow Him (Jesus) without knowing God’s exact plan for John. John did follow Jesus as well. Peter and John even worked together in Acts. They weren’t alone. They end up being taken into custody together (Acts 4) and when they get out, they report what happened to the other believers and they pray together. That’s the farthest thing from being “alone”.
Likewise, the disciples did have to leave their families, as you mentioned in Luke 14, but they weren’t alone. James and John left their father Zebedee and the fishing business and joined the /group/ of disciples. How is that being alone?
Matthew 7 says that /few/ find the narrow way, not that any one person is the only one.
As far as the church being safest when people stand on their own feet, you turned I Corinthians 2 on its head. The problem in Corinth was not that believers were too unified and trusting in the judgment of other believers. The problem was that they were carnal and divisive. Paul’s statement about the spiritual person judging all things and not being judged by any man was his own defense. Many of the Corinthians looked down on him because he wasn’t an eloquent speaker; he was saying he didn’t care about their carnal judgement of him. So no, the passage is not “plainly” advocating a stand-alone Christianity. The book is rebuking a divisive Christianity, which is literally the opposite idea.
(As far as Deuteronomy, an Old Testament verse about Levi has nothing to do with the church. That’s super random.)
Quoting part of 2 Timothy 2:24 and part of I Corinthians 14:1 doesn’t somehow show that teaching, preaching, and prophesying are the same thing. I can’t even figure out where they’re going with that.
Your version of Christianity isn’t remotely supported by any of the Scriptures you cited. You’re just taking bits and pieces of phrases, applying them however you feel like it, and adding some of your own ideas in there for good measure, just like Gothard does.
Waving your hand at an argument and disagreeing is not helpful. Let’s keep the response size to something manageable.
“heresies” – it remains that there are two groups of Christians coalescing around differing understandings of Scripture – and God says He will make the one approved “manifest”. Plain to see.
“I’m not sure why you say that “judges all things” in I Corinthians 2 means interpreting Scripture”
“Judges all things” means . . . “All things”. All topics. The “mind of Christ” in us guides us. To put it another way, the criterion to be able to correctly answer a question has nothing to do with the number of letters behind the name . . . And everything with knowing God and being a “spiritual” person.
“Likewise, the disciples did have to leave their families” – They were told to hate them all. Literally. That is very much aloneness, just me and Jesus.
“an Old Testament verse about Levi has nothing to do with the church.” – the OT teaches us how God thinks, what He prizes, values. God exalts those that leave the “group” and follow Him alone.
“Quoting part of 2 Timothy 2:24 and part of I Corinthians 14:1 doesn’t somehow show that teaching, preaching, and prophesying are the same thing. I can’t even figure out where they’re going with that. ” – You aren’t even trying, sister. This one was very obvious. “The best gifts” – “covet them”. What are they, according to Paul? Please humor me and go back, take what I said and at least figure out where I was coming from. Explain that to prove that you can at least follow my line of reasoning. Otherwise there is little point to continue on here. It is frustrating.
“just like Gothard does.” – The wind blows . . . And others can’t tell where it is coming from, or where it is going. That is not the wind’s fault. Like I said, humor me and try a bit harder. We are not having a conversation here. I appreciate your involvement as it is a whole lot better to have dialog than a forum with no participants. You like to write, that is good, so do I. But I am not going to go back and continue explaining the same things. Pick a topic to explore – add something to the dialog.
When I can follow your argument, I’m never just “waved my hand and disagreed”. I’ve given you a reason why I don’t think your interpretation is valid, based either on the broad context of the passage, or on the context of the whole Bible.
Other times, I do have a hard time following your line of reasoning, because you don’t carry it all the way through. I can try to piece it together, but I’m not sure why you want me to guess based on clues rather than just telling me your point. It seems rather odd. And I’m not the only one on this thread who can’t see the connection between the verses you cite and the point you’re trying to make.
But I can have a go at it. You asked me what the best gifts are, according to Paul in I Corinthians. He said in verse 1 that prophecy is best. He said that that’s better because it helps other believers. It builds them up. He also said, in verses 13-18, that interpreting tongues is better than speaking in tongues, because nobody else is encouraged or built up by someone speaking in tongues without interpretation.
I’ll grant that there’s a similar idea in 2 Timothy 2. Paul is exhorting Timothy to be able to teach in order to be of benefit to others, to show people how they’re wrong so they can change. I can’t tell whether Paul is talking about reaching unbelievers or about believers who are going astray.
So both prophecy and preaching have in common the idea that it’s for the benefit of others. Neither should be private spiritual exercises that have nothing to do with others. But I honestly can’t see how that makes both of them the same thing. Nor can I see the connection between either of those and the way the average believer interprets Scripture. I’m afraid you’ll have to explain that.
The word to “prophesy” is the word for “preach”. There is no other word in the Greek to mean “preach”. Most everyone understands the difference between teaching and preaching.
1 Corinthians 12:28 “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”
“Apostle” is our “missionary”, “Teacher” is . . . A teacher. Where is our “preacher” in there? 🙂 It is the prophet.
We raise a question on 9/5 above:
Is Jesus the same of the Bible? For all intents and purposes, of course he is. The Word is the Word.
We also raise what has been called “solo scriptura,” the hypothetical man who isolates himself with only his Bible, then presumes to hear from God. He shuns help and correction from other Christians, and is a law unto himself. But is this caricature or reality? Is this imaginary man only a rhetorical weapon of last resort, after sticks and stones?
Speaking of last resorts, that’s what produced every real martyr in history. We Christians love consensus, good will, and communion. But when these fail us, we must follow Christ alone. Remember Luther’s famous words of last resort? “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”
I agree with you that since Jesus is God and the Bible is the Word of God, the Word of God is like God in very important and significant ways. It has an authority and a power and an ability to change lives that no other book has. But to say that that makes the Bible equal to God is indeed a caricature.
It’s still a book. The Bible is not Jesus the God-Man. The Bible didn’t walk this earth healing the blind and lepers and casting out demons. The Bible didn’t die for us, rise again, and ascend to heaven. The Bible is not at the right hand of God, interceding for us. Those are major, major “intents and purposes” of Jesus that the Bible doesn’t share.
I also agree with you that most people who hold to Sola Scriptura don’t represent the hypothetical man you described. However, the moderator wasn’t describing the typical Protestant view of Sola Scriptura, but rather an extreme view. On August 7, he said,
“The ‘Bible’ is a collection of infallible, God breathed writings that are taken by the Spirit of God to teach us. They do so in context, out of context, in any language they are translated into. As such they are, well, ‘magic’, the power of the living God living therein. Scripture itself teaches us that, no, we do not need ‘helpers’ to understand it, no not if we are ‘spiritual’, i.e. spiritually mature:”
Sola Scriptura has never been the belief that it’s normal for the Holy Spirit would teach us from the Bible by taking it out of context, nor has it been that the /only/ thing we need to understand Scripture is the right amount of spiritual maturity. And yet the moderator has been taking verses out of context ever since then to try to back up his view
We find that any verse that shades a strongly held belief by others typically is declared “out of context”. You have done nothing to find a context for 1 Cor. 1-3 that diminishes the point that Paul made over and over, particularly the end of chapter 2, that the Holy Spirit instructs the spiritual man, giving him authority that frankly cannot be countered. It is not a side point – it is the entire thrust of those chapters.