Works of Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone (restoration preachers)
Comments
-
Gary Butner said:
The point I want to make is the Restoration Movement's high view of Scripture. He said in a seminary the students study about the Bible, and not the Bible. Under Welsh, Bible 101 consisted of a personal trip with him from Genesis 1:1 to the end of Revelation. It seems in every chapter he would ask, "What does that verse say?" I would reply, "I think it says ....," and he would respond, "I didn't ask what you think, but what the passage says." I would then say, "In my opinion it says ......." He would say, "I didn't ask for your opinion, but only what the passage says." There were days I would argue with him, and he would respond, "Well, Jesus has done so much for me I am going to give Him my best and not my least." I cannot tell you how many times I had to pray, eat crow, apologize. I learned there a major difference in studying the Bible and studying about it. Years later it was obvious to me Welsh was using the Bible to form a psychological image of Christ in his students. It was a very hard and difficult journey, but one I cannot forget.
I really like your story as an exempla - although I have my usual whimiscal smile at the use of the phrase "high view" - but we've been through that discussion before. But to me, the deepest point your story makes is one that is often lost in the discussion of Bible study, Bible software, etc. That is that Welsh was teaching you Jesus Christ not the Bible, except in the sense that Jesus is the Word.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Matthew C Jones said:
Theology is just man trying to explain God. Can any man ever really do that? Nope.
Funny, I thought theology is humanity's attempt to explain their experience of God - an elusive but more achievable goal.
(I get what you are saying, and had a chuckle, so what I respond with is not condescending at all, but a reflection of what I read today, that sometimes ALL of us forget . . . )
"No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us."
""God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God and God in him."
and earlier: "Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God."
. . . pretty cool, huh?
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Matthew C Jones said:
Theology is just man trying to explain God. Can any man ever really do that? Nope.
Funny, I thought theology is humanity's attempt to explain their experience of God - an elusive but more achievable goal.
I'll concede θεολόγος is from the perspective of man, not God.
Revised definition of Theology: Humans, trying to explain God, based on their own interpretations of perceived "truth."'
Experience is nothing more than an interpretation of events, ascribing meaning to them.
Experience differs from one individual to another, even in the same circumstance.
Nobody can fully experience God in this life, therefore nobody can write an accurate, comprehensive theology.
Theologians, like Philosophers and Logicians (per my previous post), all contradict each other at some point.
Since Truth is not self-contradictory, there can only be one Truth.
Therefore all theologies and philosophies are guaranteed to be flawed.That explains Karl Barth listening to a dead dog for a message from God. (After all, if that's where God has to go to meet him.[:D])
If experience were the prerequisite for writing authoritatively, there are a lot of childless "experts" that need to quit writing about how to raise children. If authority is based in Truth, anyone who speaks the Truth can benefit others.
The beauty of the Restoration Movement is the leaders never said they had all the dogma. They deferred to the Bible alone as the authority, -Sola Scriptura in other groups.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Therefore all theologies and philosophies are guaranteed to be flawed.
interesting and sweeping statement. one might wonder just how flawed they are: flawed at certain points or flawed that I can not know truth and will be deceived or deceive any time I "do" theology.
It is clear we see "dimly". but scripture also tells us God revealed his mystery, that he is light, that we can walk in light, that we can know him. That knowing seems to be both content and relationship. Flawed? Or incomplete? Sometimes, maybe a little of both. But he is greater than our flaws. And we are called to be witnesses, to tell what we know.
As a Christian disciple heavily influenced by my RM heritage (within which I still stand), I have felt we are a bit selective in our decrying of others' use of systematizing theologies or of creeds, especially when we think those have departed from what we understand from the Bible. But there is the rub. Our perspective of the Bible IS a theology of sorts: what verses we gloss over, what ones we give primacy (Acts 2:38 over Romans 10:10), all these are instances of a systematizing theology. How we hang things together. I don't think we can completely divorce ourselves from that.
In light of this, I have concluded: I need to be humble and not assume that I have all the mysteries unlocked, and I should listen to others. I also need to be diligent in studying Scripture. And I must constantly ask God for his wisdom through the Spirit to know his truth.
I will never nail down all of God's truth, therefore, I should be wary of nailing others for not doing the same.I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
What if all theologies aren't flawed necessarily, they are just incomplete? You know, there is somewhat of a God-mystery behind every theology? Maybe two different theologies can actually complement each other when you figure the God portion out?
Just some questions for the discussion, which has gotten way off topic by the way.
all about Christ,
David Buckham0 -
JimDean said:
I agree that the word is used too often out of ignorance, simply to criticize and disparage others
As an Independent Fundamental Baptist who is a King James Onlyist, I could not agree more. I wander in the future how this type of thinling will affect me knowing that I also claim Calvinism and thoroughly believe min Lordhip salvation and often when I see my King James friends disparage other people and their faith as flawed and non binding to true salvation based upon a belief in the bible when I see many times, us KJV types-the evidance or reasoning is just as flawed as those who believein "modern versions". I thnk they have a sense of the truth, yet so many unwilling to study textual criticism or have a certain understanding based on what someone else wrote instead of constructing their education to be able to soundly discern truth based on sound reasoning.
So may in my groups refuse to understand the differance between sound logical principles and logical fallacies that at times, our whole understanding is based on logical fallacies that others from the other side so easily dismiss arguments that we chalk it up to a lack of faith.
Yet, on the other side being at times based on fallacies and assumptions that in other places when I bring up certain points I do not think others can answer, I am eother disparaged as an anti-intellectual cultist (which is not any differance between saying because you do not believe the KJV as we do, you are devieved if barely saved) and then regurgitate the same arguments(like which version of the KJV is true-of course when I answer the one I have in my hands-almost no one can ever dispute this point which is easlily so done in highlighting the differances in the various KJV's) and act just like a KJV onlyist whoc can only judge and repeat arguments others wrote instead of thinking for themselves and debate and discus based upon sound reasoning based on actual evidance.
This is not t say those on the other side are so wrong, but that which we are accused of are often repeated by those making the accusation.
This to the point, when I talk to a Baptist Bible College professor from a non KJV school-when I start bringing up certain points, usually they amit that I am right to a point that when you get deep into the conflicting and contradicting understanding of textual criticisms(were many textual critics will disagree in certain passages holding to a certain word or phrase as the word of God and how authoritative can we be when everyone disagrees and takes up sides just as KJV onlyistsand modern version advocates do). This the professor telling me I am correct to a point(because getting deep into this, I am talking of not preachers, but textual critics and translators who are often not known by the average christian-yet these come up with the latest Greek text from which newer transaltons come), but cannot nswer how can this be right if they all disagree?
Yet, when trying to educate KJVadvocates-I am largely ignored because instead of doing actual study and research which takes time and effort, they would rather just keep repeating the same old arguments.
Understgand this from me, if you disagree with KJV Onlyism, I do not think you are the devil or decieved and cannot have great impactful ministries. Though I disagree with James white, I love his apologetic ministry and his books/videos.sermons on Calvinism.
The one thing I have been convicted of is making judgements about other ministries and pastors if they propose something I think is erroneous and not biboical and then make publc statements about them. Not that others cannot be criticized, but so often to judge a Pastor has a higher criteria of judgement in the bible that I wandr how many people actually tried communicating by calling, going to his church, writing a letter or an email to "confront" of a supposed false doctrine? Often, from the IFB KJV side, we make judgements without even reading the material that people say is heretical and do this based on other people saying or writing.
0 -
Daniel DeVilder said:
Certainly each denomination and non-denominational denomination (wink wink) has canonized their favorites, and seem to rely on their writings rather than researching the depths of scripture. On the other hand, I find people within churches I have been who are loathe to use "a book written by men" and only want us to teach the Bible.
I agree. In my KJV Baptist movements-this is often the case. works of no others except Jack Hyles and John R. Rice. On the other hand, my point often is if man(or woman) saved and studying the scriptures for 40-50 years as an occupation-I might not agree with all their doctrine, but certainly the Spirit of God led these and have some type of truth they wroe about. Certainly, yes do not rely upon man, but if man being lead for several decades by the Spirit of God and aspire to know the deep thngs of God-there might be something he could teach us. See, whet I wrote before this at the end of this thread.
God bless
Dave Emme
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Experience is nothing more than an interpretation of events,
How thoroughly Buddhist - I'm quite pleased with the inter-faith aspect. (okay, I'm biased by a degree in Buddhist studies.)
Matthew C Jones said:Since Truth is not self-contradictory.
How thoroughly Western - while I agree with you, it is a human assumption that should be challenged in philosophy or theology.
Matthew C Jones said:nobody can write an accurate, comprehensive theology.
Absolutely true for any definition of God that I would be willing to accept, especially since I lean towards apophatic theology
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
David Emme said:
Certainly, yes do not rely upon man,
I hear you, and yet some do go overboard with that cry. After all, men and women are appointed teachers and leaders. God works thru them by the power and wisdom of his Spirit. And they get that message out by speaking it or writing it. (uh oh, does that mean BOOKS written "by men" might be valuable to read???)
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
David Emme said:
we make judgements without even reading the material that people say is heretical and do this based on other people saying or writing.
WOW, you must have taken the day off to write that!
One keen insight you expounded on was "our" tendency to flock around teachers and their systematizing without doing our own study, and likewise, blasting others as wrong, just because someone told us they were wrong. The reasons for this reaction are many, but the result is division and condescension toward other brothers and sisters, which is often based on false information and inference.
Personally, I don't understand some things, like KJV Onlyism, yet I have read some arguments for it and realize there is more nuance than I thought of at one time. Nevertheless, when I study for sermons, I do some Greek and I always compare 5 or 6 translations, always using a KJV (sometimes NKJV) as one of them. Out of that, I sometimes find they translated a particular passage very well. One example is their consistent use of "to walk" in Ephesians (walk in darkness, walk in good works). I like the imagery and the connections when the Greek is translated that way throughout, compared to the NIV which says "to live" in some cases, and though "accurate" in meaning, for me it loses a bit of impact. When I find examples like that, I bring them up in a sermon or study setting. On the other hand, there are times when the English is way outdated so that the meaning is obscured, and there are times when I have to point that out too (although I do that more in a study setting rather than in a sermon). My prefered translation is really . . . none. I like different ones for different reasons, but to me, all have their problems. . . even the Greek.
Not trying to open a can of worms. Probably did.I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Daniel DeVilder said:
WOW, you must have taken the day off to write that!
Not really do not work:) I am a professional bum for the Lord.
Many years in my studies have been seeing the weakness of arguments from mymovements an the inability to answer others when it is to easy-when you try to shape your thinking to have sound reaoning. Most cannot answer the fact that Erasmus was not a textual critic as proposed by many nor intended to have a new Greek text. Of course, this means you would have to learn about textual criticism and how it developed after Erasmus was dead and he did not use the rules supplied originally by Jacob Gersbach and still used today.
We on the pro KJV side are lasy and anti intellectual for the simple fact i would be easier to teach the KJV corrects the Greek and Hebrew instead of actually using and learning Greek and Hebrew. BTW, I think Ruckman and Riplinger is wrong in e erything they teach about the bible.
even this, being challanged by my own about whether the bible teaches this or that based on translation-I studied and actually came to the conclusion that both the KJV and the ESV-though different English words-bot were correct which made everyone flip out, but while showing the work on how I came to this, no one could dispute this.
Many of my problems deals with translation issues(dynamic) and Greek texts that ere born out of German rationlism and modernism and is not based on fact, but assumptions and reasoning.
Can we talk about a recension of the MT if we do not really know? Simply, Alexanderia was sacked and scholars hid their work to preserve it(not as KJV onlyists say they never used them therefore why they were preserved. In a different time before rome became christian, there was an order that went out to burn all religous works not in line with Roman paganism which happened alot in the Byzantine empire where the MT came from. Is this a fact? No, not as far as explaining why there is no Greek manuscripts from the MT appearing only in the 10th century. Yet I believe it is a very plausible explanation.
Yet, to bring this, this means you have to read history and do some research. We are lazy and do not realize we could convinve more if we learned how to do research and use our minds-this takes to much work.
The reason for the comment on electic text being modernistic(not in the same accusation as others bring because I think modernism did more for our society where if it stays out of faith and religion-modernism was rather useful or we would not be able to communicate like this if we did not hace modernism and if it is so bad and must repudiate modernism-turn out youtr lights). Of course, most Independent Fundamental Baptists are ignorant of what Rationalism and Modernism is: truth based on imperical evidances or understand our history of fundamentalism.
Treating the bible like any other ancient text is a modernistic, rationalist belief which is why I say modern textual criticism is "modernistic" and still studying much about modernism, rationalism, post modernism, textual criticism, and many other things-mainly becase Emergent church movement is nothing but a lie and intended to destroy conservatism and fundamentalism while bringing back the inclusive social gospel movement. I can show this if anyone thinks I am making a judgement without evidance. The wuestion then is, is fundamentalism based on modernism? This is what emergent theology teaches. They even admit the reason for their movement is because liberalism is dead in christianity and the strength in Christianity is in conservatism and fundamnetalism. Yes, they actually admit this, but do not realize they taught this.
This with Jerry Falwell seen by some as the eason why reagen won his first election with his moral majority in the 70's.
Much of this comes naturally to me because i choose to study and research. That is why I do not see my stuff as work besides enjoying doingit. I want to know the truth about everything biblical and not be decieved ever. Might not agree with me, but that is okay and sometimes a matter of perspective.
To repeat, most KJV onlyists are ignorant of the real reasons why we are KJV onlyists and are anti-intellectual and lazy.
0 -
@ David Emme: I can tell you take research seriously. I applaud your efforts in that, and believe that under God's guidance and wisdom, that will profit you. And yes, many people, not just KJVO'ists, are lazy. That probably includes me, at times . . .
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
David Buckham said:
What if all theologies aren't flawed necessarily, they are just incomplete? You know, there is somewhat of a God-mystery behind every theology? Maybe two different theologies can actually complement each other when you figure the God portion out?
Just some questions for the discussion, which has gotten way off topic by the way.
all about Christ,
David BuckhamGood, really good. Worthy of an issue of Millenial Harbinger. (<- How's that for getting back on topic?)
I guess I think "imperfect" = "incomplete" = "less than the whole Truth." If I give you some of the Truth but not the whole Truth I could have just lied to you (intentionaly or not.)
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Daniel DeVilder said:
It is clear we see "dimly". but scripture also tells us God revealed his mystery, that he is light, that we can walk in light, that we can know him. That knowing seems to be both content and relationship. Flawed? Or incomplete? Sometimes, maybe a little of both. But he is greater than our flaws. And we are called to be witnesses, to tell what we know.
Agreed. But that "knowing" Him should be based in His Word and not the words of mere mortals.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
David Emme said:
We on the pro KJV side are lazy and anti intellectual
There was an interesting article in the New York Times' Science Section a few weeks back on "motivated reasoning" - talked about how we use our minds differently when we are being "rational" about something we believe vs. something we don't believe. It was a total downer for myself since I would very much like to care on rational debates on religious matters. [:(]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Matthew C Jones said:
Experience is nothing more than an interpretation of events,
How thoroughly Buddhist - I'm quite pleased with the inter-faith aspect. (okay, I'm biased by a degree in Buddhist studies.)
I don't mean to be of Eastern thought. I just slip that way sometimes since I was surrounded by it in my youth. (I am getting ready to jettison my Soka Gakkai Budddhist library -in Japanese. I no longer have need of it.)
MJ. Smith said:Matthew C Jones said:Since Truth is not self-contradictory.
How thoroughly Western - while I agree with you, it is a human assumption that should be challenged in philosophy or theology.
Truth is absolute by definition. Otherwise we are back to that question "Can God create a rock heavier than He can lift?"
MJ. Smith said:Matthew C Jones said:nobody can write an accurate, comprehensive theology.
Absolutely true for any definition of God that I would be willing to accept, especially since I lean towards apophatic theology
I agree that the human mind is not capable of comprehending God. But I also agree with what Daniel said above, simply that we can KNOW him through Christ. But I believe that is only possiblle in the spirit. The naturall mind is still incapable. Now you've got me preaching a theology! [:#]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Just a point of clarification:
When I originated this post I was asking Logos to consider adding the writings of Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone. I thoroughly enjoy reading almost any reputable theology (except Karl Barf [+o(] ) and think I can learn a lot from just about all of them. I do not hold them in higher esteem than the Bible of even of equal esteem. I know the Restoration Movement has produced some very sharp minds and beneficial writings and I would like to share them with you.
Thanks to Calvin Habig for his work on PBB of Restoration material. Thanks to MJ Smith for the different "creeds" - alhough they would not label them as such.
I always enjoy the veering off topic that happens. too. [6]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I notice that several folks on the forums lean toward apoplectic theology.Matthew C Jones said:MJ. Smith said:Matthew C Jones said:nobody can write an accurate, comprehensive theology.
Absolutely true for any definition of God that I would be willing to accept, especially since I lean towards apophatic theology
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
I guess I think "imperfect" = "incomplete" = "less than the whole Truth." If I give you some of the Truth but not the whole Truth I could have just lied to you (intentionaly or not.)
not necessarily. Incomplete might mean that you simply can't describe the full breadth of something. Take Christ's Sacrifice. I know it "saves me", that it is why my sins can be forgiven, but the cross and sacrifice itself has way more depth, perhaps even a bit of mystery (and we can also argue whether it is EXpiatory or PROpitiatory . . . but if all i tell you that it is God's way of forgiving you . . . that is a worthy start (and then the question is: "HOW" do I appropriate it . .. . )
Or if you want to look at the whole predestination debate. All sides have some nuance of truth, but obviously someone has gone awry. Do we know who has gone awry how much ("of course! to the degree that that differ from me, THAT is how much they have gone wrong). Still, scripture does speak to God's movement in history, as well as man's response, and somehow, thru all that, people accept their calling, whether irresistibly or by choice . . . lol.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Joe Miller said:
Absolutely true for any definition of God that I would be willing to accept, especially since I lean towards apophatic theology
I notice that several folks on the forums lean toward apoplectic theology.. . . your sure that it isn't apathetic theology?
. . . or maybe a pathetic theology . . .
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Just a point of clarification:
When I originated this post I was asking Logos to consider adding the writings of Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone.
I need to go back through the thread and check out those offerings. I have the hard copies (emphasis on copies .. .) of some of the early addresses/letters. Be nice to have them digitally.
AND you will see I suggested they add the Encyclopedia of Campbell Stone Movement (or whatever it is called). [A]I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
There was an interesting article in the New York Times' Science Section a few weeks back on "motivated reasoning" - talked about how we use our minds differently when we are being "rational" about something we believe vs. something we don't believe. It was a total downer for myself since I would very much like to care on rational debates on religious matters.
I will have to check this article out. Thing I think we do not consider is the bible is both rational and irrational.
The rational being the fact there is many teachings and doctrines which we can draw from and understand in rational thinking- observing from the text.
My example would be observing the facts from Acts 1 and 2 to understand Acts 2:38 is about Spirit baptism and not water baptism(sorry, my intention is not to start a debate on baptism in a board on restoration works-email at daveme7@yahoo.com so I can invite you to my debate graoup on yeahoo to get into it there-or just emal me andI will write up an article on this and email it back to you.)
Yet, Christ as the Man-God, dying for our sins, the Trinity, and speaking the word into existance and completing his creation work in seven days is the most irrational beliefs that can only be taken by faith and not taken as something that we can understand by our own reasoning/understanding because we were not there(as far as creation) and we believe the bible by faith.
0 -
Daniel DeVilder said:
@ David Emme: I can tell you take research seriously. I applaud your efforts in that, and believe that under God's guidance and wisdom, that will profit you. And yes, many people, not just KJVO'ists, are lazy. That probably includes me, at times . . .
Thanks for the kind words and sentiments. Knowing I want to be in full time ministry, one ofthe things id to be a leader of those in my movement willing to follow. Mainly taking us out of anti intellectualism(because of Seminaries which departed from the truth and ito modernism) and back to a faithful study of things theological.
This, I thought of trying to start an online theological journal for independent frundamental Baptists to help bring us back into an intelligent faith and study of scriptures. Of course, I do not even have a bachelors degree and spent three semesters in an unaccredited bible college-one of the reasons leaving was because what I was learning, I could get better instruction from my pastor(in the bible institute at my church and his teaching at church services) and my mentor and discipler who now holds sevveral Masters degrees in theology and one doctrate.
This to the point, someone can know as much as a doctor of theology if you study on your own with the right direction-but also could be a bad thing if everyone decides to start something like a bible college or a theological journal.
Anyways, should let you know about a project I am working on about influancing thousands of churches and millions of christians in regards to bible study and might call upon some here to write an article for a blog on that hermeneutical tool that you use the most or method that is most beneficial in your studies. a I am working on this project, all I can say is it is about bible study and hope to get many involved.
God bless
Dave Emme
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
I guess I think "imperfect" = "incomplete" = "less than the whole Truth." If I give you some of the Truth but not the whole Truth I could have just lied to you (intentionaly or not.)
I thought I clarified what I meant by imperfect. I think it is quite audacious to suggest that I know every piece of theology on say, salvation or end times. I think it would be a great article for an issue of Millenial Harbinger...if you are interested more in a related idea email me off the forum at dbuckham AT gmail DOT com.
In what I am saying, You are not intentionally giving someone some of the Truth. Politicians are seen as great at telling portions of truth to prevent a lie...if I understand your stance, I think that is what you are referring to, what I am referring to is something that is different, at least in my head. I am suggesting you have what you think is the whole truth, your theology. One of the things I appreciate about the initial thrust of the Restoration Movement is that they never claimed to have all the answers, but they had a comment to discussing questions.
I heard a preacher do a really great job of piecing together Calvinism and Armenianism once. He based it on the book Flatland (great short book).
all about Christ,
David Buckham
0 -
David Emme said:
the bible is both rational and irrational
I fully agree - and agree that it is an important point to understand. Where I run into trouble in my own study is questioning where the dividing line is between legitimately being beyond reason vs. an interpretation being contrary to reason.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
<I really like your story as an exempla - although I have my usual whimiscal smile at the use of the phrase "high view" - but we've been through that discussion before. But to me, the deepest point your story makes is one that is often lost in the discussion of Bible study, Bible software, etc. That is that Welsh was teaching you Jesus Christ not the Bible, except in the sense that Jesus is the Word.>
I was not part of your "high view" of Scripture discussion, and so I cannot comment on that. I see a high view of Scripture as the acceptance of its authority as the ultimate Truth (reality). Welsh was certainly teaching me the Bible, but his emphasis was on the Christ of the Bible. Man creates an idol with his mind prior to forming it with his hands, and there are many christs, but only one unique Son of God as revealed in Scripture. I do not have a problem with theology as long as it is Biblically based, albeit my brethern in the Restoration Movement do not for the most part agree with me. Without a Biblically based theology it is extremely difficult, but not impossible, to teach the difference between the Christ of the Hypostatic Union and the Kenotic christ.
0 -
David Buckham said:
In what I am saying, You are not intentionally giving someone some of the Truth. Politicians are seen as great at telling portions of truth to prevent a lie...if I understand your stance, I think that is what you are referring to, what I am referring to is something that is different, at least in my head. I am suggesting you have what you think is the whole truth, your theology. One of the things I appreciate about the initial thrust of the Restoration Movement is that they never claimed to have all the answers, but they had a comment to discussing questions.
I guess I am more evil-bent than most. I think giving a portion of the truth results in deceit since the empty spaces are filled by the natural mind that doesn't have all the facts. The lie is implied as truth. Politicians, like Satan, infuse bits of truth into the lie to make it more believable. I am not puffing false humility when I say I do not have the whole truth in my theology. My working theology is a changing hodge-podge of other's theologies. The closer I get to death the more wonder I have about the whole matter.
2 Corinthians 9:15 -- "Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
While the Restoration Movement allows a lot of latitude to get into deep subjects, musings and queries, it does not require any answers to be decided outside of the Bible. I like that because I feel more like an infant sleeping in the arms of Jesus than a wise man conversant in the deep things.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
I guess I am more evil-bent than most. I think giving a portion of the truth results in deceit since the empty spaces are filled by the natural mind that doesn't have all the facts. The lie is implied as truth. Politicians, like Satan, infuse bits of truth into the lie to make it more believable. I am not puffing false humility when I say I do not have the whole truth in my theology. My working theology is a changing hodge-podge of other's theologies. The closer I get to death the more wonder I have about the whole matter.
2 Corinthians 9:15 -- "Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
While the Restoration Movement allows a lot of latitude to get into deep subjects, musings and queries, it does not require any answers to be decided outside of the Bible. I like that because I feel more like an infant sleeping in the arms of Jesus than a wise man conversant in the deep things.
The beauty of the Restoration Movement is, "Speaking where the Bible speaks, and remaining silent where the Bible is silent. Let's be prefectly clear when we speak under those conditions with love that is truth, a theology.
0 -
Gary Butner said:
I see a high view of Scripture as the acceptance of its authority as the ultimate Truth (reality).
The previous discussion allowed me to understand the term "high view" as you use it; it was not part of my theological vocabulary. However, I am fascinated by your attaching the phrase "ultimate Truth" to Scripture. I can use "ultimate Truth" to refer to God or to the "Word of God i.e. Jesus" but I have trouble understanding what it means when applied to Scripture in human (limited) language.
I was also a bit puzzled by:
Gary Butner said:the difference between the Christ of the Hypostatic Union and the Kenotic christ
Doing a web search to determine what you meant I found a wonderful line: "The
Kenotic Theory was first scientifically formulated by Thomasius in
Germany,
(1860 to 1880)" http://www.errantskeptics.org/Jesus-Christ-Kenosis.htmPardon my sense of humor, but I'm set to write a skit on the science experiment behind this formulation - I assume that Thomasius had to get God's cooperation to generate multiple sons on which to test the various conditions ... does it also require multiple universes? multiple original sins?
But, seriously, the web site did help me understand that portion of your post - now only puzzled by the use of "ultimate Truth"
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
But, seriously, the web site did help me understand that portion of your post - now only puzzled by the use of "ultimate Truth"
MJ. Smith said:The previous discussion allowed me to understand the term "high view" as you use it; it was not part of my theological vocabulary. However, I am fascinated by your attaching the phrase "ultimate Truth" to Scripture. I can use "ultimate Truth" to refer to God or to the "Word of God i.e. Jesus" but I have trouble understanding what it means when applied to Scripture in human (limited) language.
I could have used "inerrancy" in referring to Scripture and Absolute Truth in referring to God. However, I was referring specifically to the Christian's acceptance of Scripture's testimony of Jesus Christ as the God-man. "Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son." The Holy Bible : English standard version.5:10). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society. 2001 (1 Jn
MJ. Smith said:
Doing a web search to determine what you meant I found a wonderful line: "The Kenotic Theory was first scientifically formulated by Thomasius in Germany, (1860 to 1880)" http://www.errantskeptics.org/Jesus-Christ-Kenosis.htmPardon my sense of humor, but I'm set to write a skit on the science experiment behind this formulation - I assume that Thomasius had to get God's cooperation to generate multiple sons on which to test the various conditions ... does it also require multiple universes? multiple original sins?
I appreciate your sense of humor, and chuckled at your unique insight. That said, most dictionaries list theology as a science, and that due to the theologian's application of the scientific method in his investigations. The Bible clearly states there are many christs, but only one true Son. You might want to review the various Christological errors, which were the product of mankind. You will find the errors listed in many theology books and articles.
0 -
Gary Butner said:
most dictionaries list theology as a science, and that due to the theologian's application of the scientific method in his investigations.
I know that historically (a) science developed out of philosophy/theology and (b) in the late 1500's theology as a science was proposed. However, I am still suprised to see contemporary usage of the equation. The dictionaries that I keep at hand do not define theology as a science nor does theology as I understand it use the scientific method - although it uses rational and systematic methods. I would be very interested in reading why some consider theology a science. Any suggestions?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Gary Butner said:
most dictionaries list theology as a science, and that due to the theologian's application of the scientific method in his investigations.
I know that historically (a) science developed out of philosophy/theology and (b) in the late 1500's theology as a science was proposed. However, I am still suprised to see contemporary usage of the equation. The dictionaries that I keep at hand do not define theology as a science nor does theology as I understand it use the scientific method - although it uses rational and systematic methods. I would be very interested in reading why some consider theology a science. Any suggestions?
I have bills to pay and reports for work. I will attempt to provide additional information later.
sci•ence \ˈsī-ən(t)s\ noun[Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed](14th century)1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study 〈the science of theology〉b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge 〈have it down to a science〉3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methodb : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws 〈culinary science〉Merriam-Webster, I. (1996, c1993). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (10th ed.). Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster.0 -
Thank you. I was looking under theology rather than science. I recall now Barth's argument for using the term science vis a vis theology and realize that when I see the word "science" I immediately think of empirical/natural science. This also explains the debate over where "Creation Science" should be taught - philosophy or science. Those against teaching it as science also are using science to mean empirical/natural science.
So yes, my reaction is an embarrassed "well, duh ...." Think meaning 1 or 2 rather than meanings 3 and 4 and you head down the wrong path. I still want to run my empirical study [:D]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I ran a quick search in Logos of "theology is science," and disovered 41 resources. To my dismay I discovered I cannot copy the results.
0 -
David Emme said:
On the other hand, there is a so
called"Cult" that I learn from quite a bit in my own spirituality. The
Local Church of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee.One helpful reminder: distinguish Watchman Nee from Witness Lee, where the later one claim that he is on the same line as Nee did. And people who attacked Witness Lee and his ministry, saying that they are cults have nothing to do with Watchman Nee's doctrine. Finally, Witness Lee and his ministry is not a cult, the first organization claim that they are cult change their mind on the end of last year, after a thorough study.
By the way, I believe this is a very controversial topic, and we better be conservative: do not judge before we know much about it. (You know, if you say that they are cult, they will react so vigorously. And when I say they, I mean I am not one of them. So, don't get me wrong. I wrote to protect you.)
0 -
I fully agree. The works of these great "Restorers" would be a fine addition to my Logos library.
Lonnie Ritchie
0 -
What is a "Restorers"?
By the way, I don't think the Live Stream Ministry would allow the publication of their books in Logos, or anywhere else. What's a pity.
For the Chinese one, I believe that the original Chinese books by Watchman Nee are out of copy right. So I actually make a suggestion on it. But as Chinese titles are never seems (apart from one Chinese bible, in two different characters), there might not be any Chinese titles in the near future.
0 -
Kolen Cheung said:
What is a "Restorers"?
Kolen, this is a term given to several (mostly American based) men who started a movement to unify Christians and "restore" New Testament Christianity in the early 1800's. That movement has taken shape in 3 main streams today:
- Christian Church (Disciple of Christ)
- "Independent" Christian Churches/churches of Christ
- Church of Christ (acapella)
The founders were concerned that Christianity had fragmented into a variety of denominations (many named after "men") and had gotten away from what they thought was a faithful living out of the faith and practice of the early church. Many of them came from Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist backgrounds. Their desire was to unite under the person and name of Christ (hence, "Christian Church", etc), use the Bible as the "rule of faith" (rather than dividing according to written, man-made creeds), and be very missions minded. It was at one time the fastest growing movement in America and one of the largest indigenously spawned "denominations." (yes, a non-denominational denomination! [:P]). Some current well known leaders/preachers in the movement are Max Lucado and Bob Russell (Southeast Christian Church, Louisville, Kentucky).
Unfortunately their ideals have often run into a huge problem: mankind. The unity movement spawned 3 major streams and several other divisions. Although the Disciples have taken an Ecumenical approach with several other more "liberal" denominations, and the Independents and "acapella" (they don't use instruments for worship, generally speaking) Church of Christ have made overtures to one another, as have all 3, in various ways.
"Restoring" NT Christianity is a difficult proposition in itself: "what" do you restore? How do you decide between descriptive and prescriptive, etc.
That is pretty brief, but at least it may help you get a bit of a grip on who is being referred to.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Dan DeVilder said:
a non-denominational denomination!
a source of amusement to a close Presbyterian friend, who thought it funny that non-denominational churches would have their own Bible colleges, magazines, and publishing companies. He would use that very same phrase. . . Is there nothing more edifying and enjoyable than a friendly discussion on differing points amongst the varied fellowship?
DP
<><
0 -
David A. Peterson said:Dan DeVilder said:
a non-denominational denomination!
a source of amusement to a close Presbyterian friend, who thought it funny that non-denominational churches would have their own Bible colleges, magazines, and publishing companies. He would use that very same phrase. . . Is there nothing more edifying and enjoyable than a friendly discussion on differing points amongst the varied fellowship?
DP
<><
I think it is quite amusing, that phrase . . .
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Dan DeVilder said:
Many of them came from Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist backgrounds.
There was also a significant Mennonite component, most notably a group that included my great great grandfather and the group he moved West with. I refer to them as Civil War refugees ... northerners who moved west to avoid the draft.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
-
David Buckham said:
works of Alexander (and Thomas) Campbell and Barton W. Stone and other restoration preachers
They will be the first I try when the new PBB is available, and there are already some PBB's available. . .
DP
<><
0 -
David Peterson,
I already have several of the PBB files from several Restoration Preachers and some other PBB Restoration files. I think I got all my files from MJ. Smith, Cal Habig and Thomas Black. I use Mac so when I began using Logos Mac back in December 08 I lost the ability to access and use all my PBB files (over 1 gig). Can't wait to get that added...
all about Christ,
David Buckham
0 -
Thanks. The one I know is the "Brethen" and the Local Church.
Basically I like the idea of non-denomination, but I do not like to join any of the non-denominational denomination. Actually, there are a couple of us practicing that in the Bay Area in the US and in HK, Toronto, etc.
To formulate the idea of non-denomination into a denomination is very very destructive, as is happened in the history.
Great to learn from you brothers.
0 -
It's not quite that black & white. As a group of churches, they (we) have no legal ties, no structural ties, no hierarchy, no "home office." The only ties are relational. Because of common history and personal relationships there are similarities among churches...but they differ wildly from one part of the country to another.
Over time there have grown to be a group of colleges, periodicals, mission and benevolent organizations, etc. that end up being supported mostly by individual congregations from that background. But no one can officially say one is in or out. Para-church organizations only exist as long as their supporting congregations believe in their mission and their effectiveness.
It is our natural tendency of the Church worldwide to worry about "what tribe are you a part of?" Because of that a name (or names, since no one can state that there is an official or authoritative name) came to be used--but mostly by those who are on the outside looking in. (Although how can someone be outside something that doesn't exist??)
The second biggest division came over just what you say: trying to make a denomination out of a non-denomination(*). Because of the legal system, when a group decided to create a denomination out of this non-denomination, congregations had to declare themselves "out" of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) denomination or legally they were going to be considered a part of it...something that was anathema to most of the movement.
Even today in many parts of the country if you tried to claim either the churches (small c) of Christ or the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ are a denomination, you would have a fight on your hand.
Every movement has its dark and frustrating sides, but I still believe that the Restoration Movement has something vital to contribute to the Church of Christ in the current day...just as other streams of the Church have something to contribute to the Church...and to us (the RM).
History class dismissed.
*(during the big age of church mergers in the 1950s & 1960s, a a group of more ecumenically minded and generally left leaning academics wanted to form something
hard & structured so they could merge with someone else... basically the United
Church of Christ).0 -
That's interesting MJ. As one who has studied & specialised in Restoration History for decades, that is a stream of which I have never heard. I don't remember it ever being mentioned in any of the major histories. Any documentation?
0 -
Calvin Habig said:
I don't remember it ever being mentioned in any of the major histories. Any documentation?
I read it when looking for the various types of Restorationists which might have their own hymnals. Unfortunately, I don't recall where I read it but it was a group of Mennonites in Tennessee, a group that liked the developing Gospel music (as opposed to hymns). My first guess would be that it was on the website of the Illinois (or is it Indiana) website of the library collection of early Church of Christ hymnals. The only other thing I remember specifically about the article was that it referred to a New England movement which preceded and semi-merged with the Restorations that (to over simplify) laid the seeds for the Disciples of Christ division in the 1920's. Sorry but my interest was with the hymnals not the "denomination"[:$]
The family names that I am familiar with are Swiss Germans whom emigrated via Amsterdam, settled in Lancaster County, moved through Tennessee then Missouri and finally California ... although their attitude was clearly Oregon territory - California ... something like that. Most who settled in Washington eventually moved to California.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Are they originated from the Brethren's movement?
By the way, without love, it is meaningless to be "merged" and maintain the oneness. Sometimes people think too ideally (and "Spiritually") that they need to maintain the oneness so they use some "brute force" to do it artificially. And the main point is that the oneness in the early churches cannot be recovered artificially (which is fleshly, opposite to spiritually). "truthing it in love" is so true. Sometimes when we see a truth, and we want to practice it, but without true love.
Luckily, I am obviously not a church leader and probably not going to be. So I can enjoy the oneness without turning it into a doctrine or a denomination.
By the way, I think that in the Logos' forum, actually we are practicing this oneness. Well, might be some of us "has a denomination", but they are not (at least for most of us) using an identity of a member of a certain denomination to come here. We are here because we have one thing in common - the logos (I mean the Greek).
P.S. might be my English will be a little bit strange to you. I am not a native.
0
