[CS-FSLUG] Open Source Theology

[dmc]

> But I must ask what is your measuring stick for determining the bounds 
> of heresy? If you ranswer is "the Holy Bible, and it alone" then I must 
> ask you, based on your reading of the Bible, how it is that you know 
> precisely which books, chapters and verses belong in the Canon?  If you 
> admit that this "table of contents" is itself extra-Biblical then you 
> must explain to me why you give credence to this particular Church 
> Tradition and not to others.

I do not agree with the predicate that the contents of
the canon are based on tradition, I believe that the more
accurate phrase would be Holy Spirit inspired preservation.

> I have met "oneness" Pentecostal Christians who give no little emphasis 
> to rejection of the Doctrine of the Trinity.  They read and believe the 
> same Scriptures that you and I, and St. Athanasius and St. Augustine, 
> do.  They have reached very different conclusions, ones that go to the 
> heart of Public Revelation and to the manner in which we relate to God 
> the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  I don't doubt their 
> sincerity nor am I in any position to speculate whether these 
> non-Trinitarian Christians achieve eternal salvation -- I suspect and 
> hope  and pray that many of them do, as many are faithful to the twofold 
> command of Christ to love God and neighbor, and that die repentant of 
> their inevitable post-conversion sins -- yet I am saddened that fulness 
> of the doctrine of Christ is obscured within their believers' families 
> and communities of worship.

I never question anyone's salvation except as they
tell me that they intentionally reject Christ.  That
is the only certain measure available to man -- and
it is only momentary as they may change their minds.

When selecting leaders there are other parameters,
essentially the fruits of the Spirit, which lend
themselves to evidence of a person actively living
out their salvation in obedience to Christ.

Given all of the poor teaching it is hard to condemn
a person for being Biblically confused and since I
trust the perfect grace of God to guide His perfect
judgment I have no doubt that He will rightly deal
with those of good will with differing theologies

> In fact, in the age immediately following that of the Apostles, the 
> verifiable claim to having been instructed and appointed (to church 
> leadership) by the Apostles and/or their immediate disciples and 
> appointees was a *truly critical* means of protecting the flocks of 
> believers by the rampant false teachings and teachers that were popping 
> up left and right (as the always have, and always do in years BC and 
> AD).  So to read their writings, carefully comparing the differences and 
> similarities in what they taught, and ultimately in light of what the 
> Church's leaders expounded when gathered in ecumenical (and other local) 
> councils in the proceeding centuries, is an important means to 
> discerning what exactly the Apostles taught the early Church apart from 
> those things written down in what became known as the NT, and how the 
> early Christians themselves interpreted and employed the texts of both 
> the OT and NT.

The challenge being to rightly discern which claims to
Apostolic anointing are genuine and which not is almost
impossible conjecture.  The record is highly suspect.

That said, such is unnecessary.  One may readily discern
100% of what is necessary to salvation and righteous
living from the Bible alone -- no external texts are
necessary.

>     My point is that such is not useful to one seeking
>     a pure Biblical Christian faith. 
> 
> Again, what is the measure of that?  What if two Christians arrive at 
> irreconcilable positions of interpretation, what decides between them, 
> or does it even matter?  Can it be of help to look to what and how the 
> early church believed, worshipped, interpreted the Scriptures, etc.?

It only matters at it applies to salvation and
righteous living.

Given that the church long ago forfeited most of
it's credibility to speak into the affairs of man,
even inside their own congregations, the church
lacks the authority to speak decisively except
where the Holy Spirit is honored in teaching and
practice.

It has been my experience and observation that the
study of non-Biblical history is a far more precarious
pathway to truth than a reference to the Source.

As previously observed even the original apostles
erred in application, how much more probable that
those further distant from Christ would inject
greater error?

> But does that condemnation apply to the Book of Revelation itself? To 
> the whole of the NT? To the NT and OT together?  If the latter, how do 
> you know what constitutes the OT and NT to begin with?  [Yes I realize 
> it's a repeat of my earlier question; I've repeated it for emphasis.]

Last I checked God did not die after the translation
of the Latin Vulgate, KJV, or Message translations of
His Word.

I believe that He always has and always will preserve
the essential integrity of His Word for those of good
will who seek after His truth.

> On the other hand, what about a *tradition* that was handed on by an 
> Apostle yet was not so clear in Scripture that one could hold to a 
> different position. For example, the perpetual virginity of the Virgin 
> Mary.  The Fathers defend this belief as being wholly Apostolic.  John 
> Calvin in his day wrote that only a person who was fond of disputation 
> would deny her perpetual virginity.  Yet many Christians today do deny it.

I am neither a fan or Calvin nor of the so-called church
fathers, so their opinions bear little weight with me.

The Word of God makes no mention of "the perpetual virginity
of the Virgin Mary", quite the contrary -- she had children
by Joseph.

> Of what use is it to "ask" the early Christians -- by way of reading the 
> writings of the Fathers -- what they were taught by the Apostles 
> concerning say the Eucharist (Lord's Supper), Christian marriage, the 
> role and nature of the ministerial priesthood, etc.?  Can such study 
> help us?

I would give such discussions little value as God
has provided direct access to the same source materials,
and probably superior in quality, to what they had.

>     The point is that there must be a clear wall of
>     separation between the Word of God and everything
>     else.  Fallen-human uninspired error is must not
>     ever be lifted to equivalence with the perfect Word
>     of God.
> 
> How do build build/define that wall?  Can the printed Word of God, in 
> the form of say a NASB that I purchase today from Barnes & Noble, itself 
> prove to me that every sentence therein properly belongs between those 
> book covers?

Trust that God preserved the document that He asks
us to trust?

doc