When Systematic Theology Supercedes Scripture
Chris Lyons has spoken out again and again about the dangers of buying so totally into a systematic theology that it becomes an idol. Recently Jim Bublitz has provided us with an example of this in the form of a criticism of Chris Lyons. Check out the criticisms leveled:
Those words, spoken by Chris Lyons
on his podcast represent the ongoing challenge by his CRN.INFO website, to the Protestant Reformation and the beliefs that were affirmed in it. He is joined on the podcast by his blog contributor Tim Reed who is Senior Minister of Owosso Church of Christ. Tim and Chris are postmodern followers of the “No Creed But The Bible” Restoration Movement (stemming from 19th century Stone-Campbellism). So it is that you will find them militating against the Confessions of Faith and Systematic Theologies which have always been an important part of Protestant Christianity.As you listen to the second half of that podcast, you will note their certitude in declaring various Reformational beliefs (most notably Calvinism) as being emphatically untrue. While calling for those who hold such beliefs to behave less certain, they themselves demonstrate dogmatic certitude that such beliefs are unbiblical. Chris Lyons asserts that ALL discernment watchdog websites (ODM’s as they call them) are operated by Calvinists. While disparaging these beliefs, he enlists the help of several contributing postmodernists, including two that espouse Calvinism and yet demonstrate little willingness to engage the blog’s frequent misrepresentations of their beliefs.
Notice that the criticism has nothing to do with placing the Bible as our authority, nor does it have anything to do with Christology, or even acting like a Christian. Jim, is, instead criticizing Chris for being critical of “Reformational beliefs”, “Calvinism”, and “Protestant Christianity” (which is such a broad category most doctrinal statements both affirms portions of it and condemns portions of it).
Accusing this blog of these things means about as much to us as accusing us of being critical of Jungian psychology, or despising the designated hitter. In other words, it is, at best, a non sequitur when it comes to discussing what it means to follow Christ, because we aren’t following a philosophy of “Calvinism”, “Reformational beliefs” or “Protestant Christianity”. We are following Christ.
This is also the same reason we compare the watchkitties to the new Roman Catholic Church. The key difference between the RCC and other churches is the source of authority. The RCC has the pope, tradition, and the Bible as their sources of authority, while other denominations use only the Bible. Well, other non-watchkittie denominations. Because, as Jim has made clear here, the watchkitties’ source of authority are Calvin’s writings, councils and individuals who codified his writings and the Bible.
And that, friends, is the danger of systematic theology.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Some of these Calvinits have such thin skin. Besides being unBiblical on all levels, would you not think that God would have chosen someone with better “grace credentials” to show the “doctrines of grace”. A fleshy murderer who premeditated several murders boasting “I’ll never let him leave the city alive”.
Oh yea, Calvin really understood grace!
December 29th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Woah. Rick brings the high heat.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
It’s the “C” word, Tim, I’m allergic!
December 29th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
As I have said many times, while they place a premium on “Sola Scriptura,” they really don’t believe it. They really believe and practice Sola Reformation, Sola Calvin, Sola Systematic Theology, Sola MacArthur,…the list goes on and on.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Watchkitty.
(My work here is done.)
December 29th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Thanks, Jim Bublitz if you are reading this. You have really shown what ODM’s are all about. About tradition. Man’s tradition. You articulate it so well.
It reminds me of the Catholic establishment excommunicating and persecuting the reformers for their violations of various traditions and creeds of the church.
You did a very nice job of exposing yourself and other ODM’s for what they really are.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I have quite strong feelings about the designated hitter rule actually…
It is funny, though. I never really met any Calvinists until a few years ago. I never though of Calvinism as being synonomous with Protestantism the way these people seem to. I’ve been a heretic for all these years, and never knew it.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
“I’ve been a heretic for all these years, and never knew it. ”
Now you know…
December 29th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Rick
Haven’t heard that one before. Could you elaborate?
December 29th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Calvin was the power in Geneva. A man named Servetus (and his friends) were doctrinal enemies of Calvin, mostly about the nature of the Trinity. When it became know that Servetus was coming to Geneva, Calvin promised to see him put to death.
Upon his entrance into Geneva, John Calvin had him arrested, tried, and put to death. Calvins comment was that he was “happy to have put him to death”. There were several others as well. Google it, it’s part of history.
This was the father of the “doctrines of grace” Yea.
December 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Never cared to study Calvin’s life much, but I didn’t know that.
Jim from OldTruth.com poses this question in response to Mike Corley’s post about his visit to Mars Hills.
Is it possible to have a ministry flaw that is negative enough to essentially cast a shadow over all of the positives of that ministry?
Hey Jim, would you call killing people for doctrinal differences a “ministry flaw” as described in your question?
December 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
David - where do you go to find that post/question?
December 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Our work here is done.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Rick, that was Jim’s comment in the meta of Mike Corley’s post about his visit to Mars Hill.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Thanks, David. I would disagree with Driscoll with methodology and presentation, but as Camp acknowledged, he isn’t in the emergent camp. I wonder if Driscoll’s Calvinistic theology affected Camp’s assessment? And I still cannot understand when Ingrid says there not the Bride of Christ and Camp says they are orthodox and Corley loves it. Sometimes I feel like looking for the Mad Hatter!
December 29th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
This blog, while criticizing systematic theologies, is blinded to the fact it presents its own systematic theology as “biblical”.
You support a first century only, contextual/preterist view as being the true interpretation of Scripture.
What this blog has been saying from day one is the odm bloggers are not followers of Christ and the contributors here teach the real message, exactly what they accuse everyone else of doing.
I am not defending Calvin at all, however:
Arminianism is the systematic theology with the least scriptural support.
Wesley talked too much. He should have stayed with the call of an evangelist, as he was obviously not a teacher. His teachings on holiness are a product of his own opinions.
The context of the Word is the Word, not Hillel. I don’t care who wore togas and scandals. If the scriptures are the Word of God, and they are, then God authored them. i.e. they come from above, and they transcend all historical/cultural context.
The Holy Spirit is glaringly absent on this blog, but hey if you claim that you are spirit-filled, the intellectuals here call you a gnostic, or iggy can accuse you of being demon-possessed. (It is obvious that the exorcism performed over me by Chris L. at dinner didn’t take.)
Nothing supercedes Scripture, but the “author, content and interpreter”, IOW, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and they never contradict what has been spoken.
Don’t throw sola scriptura back in anyone’s face when none of you believe it yourselves.
Man!! and you accuse others of being roman catholic.
The rcc and the pharisees problem wasn’t their legalism, it is the fact that they promoted the magesterium of opinion/imagination/men. Sounds emerging to me. Legalism is the fruit of such “exegesis” .and you show your own variant here.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
When Systematic Theology Supercedes Scripture
I found this at BLB.org and just wanted to pass it on. Do as you will with it.
Peace-
Why should we study Scripture and doctrine?
“If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” — Psalms 11:3
If we have no solid base, if we know not the words of our Lord, nor comprehend their meaning, we shall surely be laid flat when the gales of false teaching assail us. Without the conscientious study of what God has shown us all, Truth escapes us and the only thing that remains is falsehood.
There is a cancer in the world. It drives men insane and causes them to call idiocy “reason” and reason “irrational.” Men claim to be lovers of logic, and yet embrace atheism, relativism, pantheism, and innumerable doctrines of self-deification. Men glorify the art of observation, but fail to see what lies directly in front of themselves. They exalt theory over fact. Being correct is in current favor over being right. They claim world-love on a grand scale, but behind the facade lies self-infatuation on a grander scale.
So then, what are we to do? We who would claim the existence of God. Of absolutes. Of a holy standard. We who would dare to believe that a god-man beat the king of death and now reigns with authority on High. What are we to do? How can we sturdy ourselves for the onslaught from the mockers and scorners that shall surely come? There are but two ways. The first is by honest, consistent prayer and supplication to the Lord who is ultimately in control of all things. The second is knowledge of and about that Lord and the things He has shown in Scripture (His loving revelation of Truth to us).
Without knowledge of God, His creation, His desires, His work throughout time, and His standard, the unhappy fellow who professes belief in the Christian God will never keep his balance above the world and will surely fall in. On the other hand, only the one who studies and loves the Word of God will be firm enough in his stance to weather the buffets of those trying to pull him into the world, and even pull the occasional fellow out. And as our Lord tells us, it is our sworn duty to pull that fellow out; so it is thus also our duty to know and study God.
Know the Word “that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14) and “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).
Once the necessity for the study of God has been established, we proceed into the realm of methodology. In what way should the student of God’s revelation to man go about his study? Would it be intelligent and reasonable to accumulate as much knowledge as possible, and yet leave it a mere jumble of un- or partially-related facts? Or should one integrate the learned information into a well-ordered system?
If a man has a jigsaw puzzle of a thousand pieces and he refuses to put it together, he will have a very difficult time trying to figure out what the whole picture is. Now if he organizes the fragments and puts all the pieces together, he shall be able to see the whole picture as well as focus on the details, which he now sees in relationship to the whole. Even better, he will realize which pieces are missing whereas before, he could only guess.
And so it is with theology. We have piles of Scripture containing vast quantities of information. It is when people refuse to systematize that information that heresy is born. If we are to find the Truth in God’s revealed will, we must come to it from a perspective of order.
(Taken from BLB.org questions link)
December 29th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I’m appalled by this discussion… Chris, how is it that you don’t see yourself guilty of the same sin you point out in the ODMs? Your pejorative tone (e.g., watchdoggies, watchkitties, etc.) doesn’t provide you much moral high ground. Seems to me that you are just a different flavor of them.
Here’s a suggestion - why not debate the substance of the disagreement and drop the name calling yourself? You just look like “the pot calling the kettle black”.
Just a thought.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Your work here is done.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Chris P,
You miss that we all know what you stated above but miss that you are saying that “YOUR” systematic theology, which is different from Ken Silva’s and Chris R and on and on is biblical and none of ours is not… when in fact you really have no clue in what many of “us” believe! You seem to read the slander and lies and believe them and then claim discernment and them “defend truth” which is so fragile a simple lie can destroy it in your view.
Jesus is the Truth and He is our defender… until you realize the blasphemy you and others in the CRN crew commit in thinking you a mere man can defend the Almighty and Living God… I really care little for what you have to say about much of anything…
So repent from claim you are greater than God and can defend Him….
iggy
December 29th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Julie - a woman’s work is never done.
Humor night.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
(I am now dying of laughter.)
December 29th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Wes W.
Great suggestion which happens here a lot! Yet, I find that most watchkittens do not care to debate the substance for they already have passed judgment and condemned all except their few they deem worthy to defend the Almighty God from pagans, emergents and all others who have power to destroy the fragile truth they claim….
Now, if God is as they claim, then how can they protect Him? I see God as my protector and have attempted to discuss and debate many of the ODM’s which usually only get me called a new name or a mocking website or whatever thing they decide to do to avoid the substance of the debate”.
We are here, to do as you state, but they are above God in judging others so cannot condescend to actually do as you suggest.
So we wait…
and call them mean names like “watch kittens” while they call our churches “whores”.
be blessed,
iggy
December 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Wes,
Just a couple of notes - I didn’t write the article above (so you should address the language point to Tim). In general, I use “ODM” (Online “Discernment” Ministry - an acronym coined by Joe Martino), though I use the other terms on occasion.
Secondly, have you read the actual criticisms made (which go significantly beyond “tone”) re: ODM’s or are you assuming that “name-calling” is our primary criticism? I would suggest that you read this and this (both of which will be integrated into a new “About Us” page in the next few days, if the Lord grants those days to me.)
_____________
Geo. Brown
While I understand your analogy, where I differ with systematic theology is that if the “puzzle” has 2,000 pieces, we have about 250 of them - enough to see the big picture and what is required of us, but not enough to put the whole thing together. What systematic theology does is creates the pieces to connect the ones from scripture together. While this can be helpful, it may be wrong - because the additional pieces are of our making - and the “new” pieces often get treated like the original ones….
December 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Geo. Brown,
The text you quoted said:
I have a couple problems with this. First, Scriptures do not primarily contain information. They are given as a divine instruction manual. It’s probably more acurate to think of them as a narrative that tell the story of God’s continued interaction with His people and His working in and through history. To take it as just pieces of information will lead to heresy as well.
Also, regarding systematic theology, I have found that a huge emphasis on it leads to arrogance. Often I’ve found that people will learn a systematic theology and act as if everything is figured out now. There’s an attitude like, “we’ve figured it all out, why don’t you just listen?” The problem is that what is an airtight answer for one is just the beginning of an honest question to another.
One analogy I would use is the whole Creation/Evolution debate. I hear Christians cite arguments again and again that convince Christians, but it really doesn’t convince anyone else. Yet Christians see them as unassailable. We may be drawing our lines in the sand, but really no one else cares.
In reality, I think that there is a relatively small amount of absolutes that someone needs to believe in to be a Christian. It starts with the person of Jesus. If someone believes He is the living son of God, died, and rose again, that seems like a good starting point. The process and inner workings of salvation are things that can be discussed, but Jesus is the absolute, not our theology.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin’.
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin’.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’.
The great theologian…Dylan.
December 29th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Chris P,
You follow Jim’s example by criticizing us for something other than what is found in scripture.
Congrats, you’ve elevated slapfights over which systematic theology to label yourself with above following Christ.
December 29th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Chris P -
Dude, you need to read what you wrote here:
What “system” is that? We’ve got folks who generally agree with Calvin, and others with Arminius, and still others (like myself) who eschew ’systems’, aside from their usefulness in teaching (keeping their limitations at the forefront). There is no “system” supported by this blog - just Christianity…
I happen to support a hermeneutic based on original context (the historical-grammatical method), which is the primary one that many (if not most) serious scholars hold (including the ‘esteemed’ John MacArthur…). I do not think that all of the writers necessarily hold to this hermeneutic (or that all have considered hermeneutics). Speaking only for myself, I think that a modernist literal hermeneutic (which encompasses both the proof-text method and part of the reader-response method) is one of the weakest available for interpretation, which is why so many churches which stray from historical-grammatical (and, to an extent, the historical-critical method) go off the rails with literalist interpretations which do not match original intent.
How this is a “systematic theology”, though, I fail to see.
I happen to believe in a partial-preterist interpretation of eschatology (which differs from a full preterist interpretation significantly), whereas others here hold other eschatological views, including - I believe - pre-mil dispensationalism.
I do support those methods as being the most accurate to the intent of the written word, but I don’t make it a test of faith. Others who write for this site, though, might disagree with the methods I support, which we can discuss, though (again) I wouldn’t consider it a test of faith.
Where have we said that ODM bloggers are not Christians? Please cite the articles. I don’t know that any of us has claimed a corner on the truth. You might mistake confidence for certitude, but I don’t think we have suggested that any are “false Christians” for disagreeing with us (or that we have the one and only “real message”).
I would disagree - the context of the Word is the world in which it was written, the people who wrote it down under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and those who first heard it. There are a plethora of examples where colloquialisms no longer in use today are present in scripture and cultural practices no longer in use are referenced.
The UNDERLYING messages within scripture DO transcend all cultural contexts, even if all of these are not explicitly stated in modern English (or Swahili, or whatever language your Bible is translated into).
I see quite a bit of evidence of the fruits of the Spirit present here - though not always in the quantities we would wish. Gnostacism comes about when spirit and flesh are contrasted as examples of good/evil. As for our dinner, I didn’t consider it an “exorcism”, but rather trying to see who I was writing to and knowing you more as a person, which makes it much more difficult to take cheap shots or mischaracterize you.
I would suggest that we all agree with the basic premise of sola scriptura, though some would likely disagree with ways in which this system is applied.
Legalism is the creation and enforcement of man-made rules for the purpose of pleasing God. This is exactly what both the pharisees and the rcc were guilty of, and the “reformation” never completely eliminated it. Thus it grows in the “reformed” ODM’s of today…
December 29th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
All You Need Is Love - Lennon/McCartney
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.
2Ti 3:14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned {them,} 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
theology |θēˈäləjē|
noun ( pl. -gies)
the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
• religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed : in Christian theology, God comes to be conceived as Father and Son | a willingness to tolerate new theologies.
Friends I believe the Word of God is a puzzle already completed and put together for us. If God only gave us 250 pieces of 2000 then He’s a farce and a joke and the crucifixion of His Son FINISHED nothing! Praise God that from the first I to the last N and EVERY letter in between clearly spells it out for all who have eyes to see and hearts that hear.
Jesus IS our absolute AND our theology! Unfortunately too many churches today are trying to incorporate that last part of the dictionaries definition. (a willingness to tolerate new theologies)
The word of God changes not. Man on the other hand is like a chameleon.
Now, whatever this makes me I care not. I will not stand on sinking sand.
My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will, by God’s grace, guide us all in the way God desires for us to live. May He bless you all.
Peace-
December 29th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Then I guess God’s answer to Job was just a farce and a joke.
Sorry, George, but you’re all wet here… Your “god” must be awfully small if we know all there is to know about him. What we have been given is sufficient for salvation and to understand the kingdom, but not so much that we completely know all there is to know about God.
December 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
What? Are you suggesting that if we don’t know everything there is to know about God it threatens salvation? Because that’s about as works-based as you can get.
December 29th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Deu 29:29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.
Peace-
Anyone gotta towel? ;0)
December 29th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
When used as anything more than a teaching tool with an understanding of its fallibility - i.e. when part of your faith is in “the system” - any human-developed theological system is basically the bricks on the first level of a new Tower of Babel…
December 29th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Deut 29:29:
Exactly - the secret things belong to God and only the revealed things belong to man. This seems to suggest that God is holding a number of “puzzle pieces” that we don’t have - and don’t need - to be able to follow Him.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I know nothing, including just about 99.999 percent of what Chris L. wrote in response to Chris P.
Yet, I am saved.
So I guess I know enough.
Solomon. Very wise. 700+ wives. Actually, very stupid.
(My work here is done.)
December 29th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Chris are you telling me the word of God is fallible? Or am I misunderstanding what you wrote?
December 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
You are misunderstanding what I wrote.
The Word of God does not teach is everything there is to know about God - just read Job or the amazement of the Psalmist or even Jesus - who did not know the day or the hour God had planned for his return. Rather, what the Word gives us is everything we need to know to follow Him.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I hope I’m not coming across that God’s word reveals everything about Him. It most definitely does NOT!
But I will say the word is very clear on HOW we are to follow Him. Unfortunately like Moses, David, Job and his so called friends, and me too we tend to wander from the narrow path onto the broad. So we hafta rely on God’s word and grace to pull us back. It’s that “O” word we all have trouble with.
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Jam 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
Psa 111:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do [his commandments]: his praise endureth for ever.
Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.
May god grant you all wisdom and give you…
Peace-
December 29th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
I would agree with this, even though there are legitimate disagreements on the “how”, particularly as it relates to the kingdom of God and its temporal manifestation.
However, theological “systems” are primarily about orthodoxy, not orthopraxy…
December 29th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
I hafta go. You all have been kind. I don’t know HOW you knew I had just gotten out of the shower earlier on Chris!
God willing I will come back and chat? some more.
Again,
Peace-
December 29th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
“Deu 29:29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.
Peace-
Anyone gotta towel? ;0) ”
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain (Galatians 2:21 KJV).
I have a towel….
When Deuteronomy was written, the whole gospel of Jesus Christ was a mystery not revealed except to the prophets and the saints in the Old Testament. What became real in the New Testement was a shadow in the Old Testement.
Whereof I am made a miniser, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the MYSTERY which hath BEEN HID from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of glory of this MYSTERY amoung the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: (Colossians 1:25-27 KJV).
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in A MYSTERY, even the HIDDEN WISDOM, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 KJV).
The Levitical preisthood was the stewards of the revealed will of God (the Law). The Christian on the other hand is the steward of the mysteries of God.
Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the MYSTERIES of GOD. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of man’s judgement: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me IS THE LORD (1 Corinthians 4:1-4 KJV).
Life and immortality was brought “to light” thru the Gospel, not the Law.
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death and brought life and immortality to light THRU THE GOSPEL (1 Timothy 1:10 KJV).
December 29th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
FW,
Your comment is like a mystery wrapped in a enigma. I’ve read it twice, and I’m not sure whether I agree or disagree because I’m not sure what it means.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
“FW,
Your comment is like a mystery wrapped in a enigma. I’ve read it twice, and I’m not sure whether I agree or disagree because I’m not sure what it means.”
Hello Phil,
My post was mainly addressing the several posts be Geo. Brown and his comments. I can see where someone just reading my post by itself might cause confusion. Go back and read Geo. Browns previous posts and then read mine. My response should then be much clearer. I guess I probably should have addressed that post to him specifically.
I was reading down the posts and I saw the quote by Geo.
Brown:
“We have piles of Scripture containing vast quantities of information. It is when people refuse to systematize that information that heresy is born. If we are to find the Truth in God’s revealed will, we must come to it from a perspective of order.”
I didn’t think much about it until I read on down and saw that he quoted from Deuteronomy 29:29 about the revealed will of God (the LAW).
“Deu 29:29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.”
I then remembered his preceding post and went back and looked. It said:
“If we are to find the Truth in God’s revealed will, we must come to it from a perspective of order.”
In the Old Testament, God’s perspective of order was obedience to the Law (revealed will), but in the New Testament, God’s “perspective of order” is a result of walking in the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:2-18).
Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone (Ten Commandments), but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:2-18).
I was showing by the verses that I posted in the previous post you are referring too that the “secret” things of God in the Old Testament are also revealed to us in the New Testament (i.e. the Gospel of Jesus Christ) as Christians, like the Law was revealed to the Levitical priesthood. The Gospel and the Law are not the same. What was the revelation of “doing” the will of God to please Him in the Old Testament, becomes the revelation of God doing the work in us Himself to please Him in the New Testament. That “order” was hidden to those under the Law.
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work TO DO HIS WILL, working IN YOU that which is WELLPLEASING in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com
December 30th, 2007 at 9:14 am
For the record, I (along with Harold Baines–who’s career would have been much shorter without it) LOVE the DH. Of course without it, Big Poppi would have had to retire years ago so…
December 30th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Since I did not know where to post this comment, I’ll do it here. I listened to a live sermon this morning by Paul Washer at a conference and he endorsed Biblical rap music. He is friends and recommends a group named “Flame” and I listened to some of their music and although it is not my taste, it is hardcore rap. He said he would encourage his kids to listen to their music.
This is where the Great China Wall of some of the ODMs seems to fail. Washer is their new superstar (he is good) but he now endorses something most of them abhor. Usually what they do is ignore something they do not like coming from someone they do like.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
How interesting Rick! Where did you hear that sermon from?
December 30th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
For the record I abhor the DH and Big Poppi should have been finished years ago.
December 30th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Thank God Chris sees clearly on the DH issue. That commie Joe does not!
December 30th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Chris P…
I would apologize about the “7 times worse” which was a reference to the biblical teaching of having a cleaned house which if not filled by Christ will have 7 times the demonic activity.
Now, be fore that time you were at least a bit civil, then you were actually nice, but now I can not think of anyone here who takes you seriously. You have been nothing by nasty to me with statements like “iggy, shut up.” and such. It does not hurt me or my feelings at all, in fact I hurt only for you and your sinking deeper into anger.
So what was once civil you have turned very ugly and for me at this point I see most of your comments as just anger and bitterness wrapped in arrogance and contempt for God’s kindness..
If I offend you, I really do not care anymore. I used to, but I have to move on from your issues against others and do what God has called me to do.
I am open to reconciliation, yet I will not let your sin hold me back from doing God’s will.
I do not care if you think I am in some “sin” that disqualifies me from being heard by God… This morning two people were healed after I gave a word of knowledge that they needed prayer… So it seems God does hear me after all and I never thought or doubted otherwise. I only glorify God in His works done in and through me and am thankful He works in spite of who I am.
So again, I will continue to pray for your healing from anger and bitterness and I know God is faithful and will release you from the bondage that holds you.
Be blessed,
iggy