Churchianity

Liberation Theology teachers and politicians of the ‘religious left’ quote Mt. 25:31-40 more than any other passage of scripture. It is also a major favorite of works-mongering Papists and cults. A life dedicated to caring for the poor by supporting government re-distribution of wealth--this is proudly cited as a sure and certain ticket of entry to the ‘pearly gates’. Those who do not support government redistribution from the wealthy to the poor are cited as those whom Christ will most assuredly reject. Prodigious giving to the poor in general and even taking vows of poverty—traditional Churchmen and statesmen have always promoted these as the greatest of human virtues. Politicians and reverends have always been united in their programs of implementing forced social redistribution. But it is not the honor of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ that motivates their contempt of personal financial liberty. Neither is it any real concern for the poor. It is the lust for personal power and control over the masses that lies behind it all. No one exemplified this power mongering more than Judas, who claimed respect for the poor as the motive in denying Mary the liberty to spend money according to her God-given wisdom. He actually wanted to siphon some of the money into his own account. Even so, the governors and spiritual sages of each generation scheme to gain money and power through guilt manipulation regarding the poor. This results in the gain of power to confiscate wealth for personal profit, while apportioning some to the poor to deceive those who cannot discern their real motives.
...

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses' statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15, "You shall bear witness to me." ...

"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you." John 16:12-15 NKJV

Both the traditional Reformed covenant and mid-Acts dispensational theologies deny progressive revelation of the truth after the resurrection of Christ and first coming of the Holy Spirit in Pentecostal power. Covenant theology would propose that the gospel in its fullness was known by the apostles from the very beginning of Acts, therefore, the revelation to Paul had nothing to add to it. We are told that any other position is a denial of the authority of the God-breathed sayings quoted from the infant era of the Christian community. Dispensational theology would propose that all the quotations in early Acts were for the Jewish and not Gentile economy of redemption, therefore, they portray no misunderstanding of the gospel. So anyone challenging both ‘poles’ of teaching will have to endure a white-hot hellfire from both sides as opposed to icy blue rhetorical fire that either pole has to endure from the other.
...

The Identity of the Teacher

Who was the Teacher of Righteousness? The question of his identity has plagued scholars since the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls over 50 years ago. Because of an inability to date many of the scroll writings with precision, a myriad of notions on the identity of the Teacher have been advanced. Notable leaders such as John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James the brother of Jesus have been proposed. Some have even suggested that the Teacher was not a real historical individual but rather the personification of truth and wisdom. However, based on historical and internal evidence from the scrolls, it is abundantly clear that the Teacher was a real person who lived and ministered sometime in the 2nd or early 1st century prior to the birth of Jesus Christ. None of the theories surrounding other identities fit the historical situation described in various writings. We can ascertain from the Commentary on Nahum that the Teacher lived and ministered significantly earlier than when the Seleucid king Demetrius III Eukairos temporarily invaded Judea around 88 B.C.E.
...

The Protestant movement arose in the early 16th century as an attempt to overthrow centuries of corruption and false doctrine in the Roman Catholic church. The heart and soul of the Protestant Reformation focused on a revival of Pauline soteriology, in opposition to the Papal doctrine of justification before God achieved by means of inner transformation--communicated in the clergy-administered church sacraments. The leaders of Protestantism have never acknowledged that the entire system of Roman soteriology was invented and expounded by Augustine of Hippo. There is instead an insistence that Augustinian theology is the very basis of the Reformation. Gus is alleged by Reformed teachers to espouse justification exclusively by the free grace of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

"His doctrine of the Church he had received whole from his predecessors, and he gave it merely the precision and vitality which insured its persistence . . . The problem which Augustine bequeathed to the Church for solution, the Church required a thousand years to solve. But even so, it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church." Benjamin Warfield, Studies in Tertullian and Augustine (Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, 1991 reprint, p. 130).

...

Introduction: Four False Hermeneutics in Protestantism

In the years following the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, men of various sectarian persuasions rushed quickly to settle on a comprehensive statement of doctrine. This was deemed necessary in order to clearly define a system of beliefs that stood in contrast to the Roman Papacy and other denominations within Protestantism itself. The question that must be asked is this: Did men of the 16th and 17th centuries act too quickly to define a comprehensive paradigm which would be exalted as the rule for all future biblical interpretation? The position of this study series will be that assemblies of men in that era attempted to settle many matters which they were unequipped to resolve. In spite of the learning, integrity, and thorough debate of the Westminster Assembly, the process of unlearning the traditions of men that resulted in the Dark Ages could only take place by the increased wisdom of many centuries. A rush to dogma on many of the issues was motivated by the political pressures of that era and the urgent need to contrast one sect from another.
...

Since so many have expressed confusion about what the teachings of FV really are, I have prepared this comparison summary which should be relatively simple to understand.

A Comparison of the Historic Sovereign Grace Teaching of Protestantism with Federal Vision Doctrine:

NOTE: The history of Protestant dogma is full of paradoxical notions, many of which when taken in isolation can be used to justify FV teaching. When HP teaching is referred to here it means Sovereign Grace Calvinism in its mature, best, and consistent expression over time.

The Covenant of Grace and Salvation

HP: The spheres of the covenant of grace and the elect body of Christ are one and the same.

FV: The spheres of the covenant of grace and the elect body of Christ overlap but are not one and the same.

HP: The covenant of grace is entered when the Holy Spirit dispenses the gift of faith in an elect person. Water baptism is a sign of entering the covenant.

FV: The covenant of grace is entered when Christian water baptism is applied to a person, whether the individual is elect or not. Participation in the covenant is confirmed and renewed by the exercise of faith.
...

The origin of ‘christianized’ free-will philosophy is not something that can be learned in seminary. Not even in the Reformed seminaries. The typical view is that the apostasy away from Pauline doctrine began after the ‘councils’ had defended the ‘church’ against ‘heresy’ (the 6th century A.D. ff.). My favorite class in seminary was Patristic thought; I set out to write a paper defending the ‘fathers’ on the gospel. I was told repeatedly that the ‘fathers’ were as ‘evangelical’ as the 16th century Reformers; that one only needed to understand the difference in expression. Hogwash. I spent many hours searching through the 100-500 A.D. writings for the gospel. Apart from a few snippets here and there in teachers such as Ambrose and Lactanctius, the cupboard was bare. I ended up writing my class paper on a different subject: the Patristic view of the coming of the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13,14.

Free will is prominent in Greek and Rabbinic philosophy. Both the liberals (Sadduccees) and conservatives (Pharisees) in Judaism taught and believed it. At the time Christ was born, the predestinarian teaching of the OT prophets was adhered to almost exclusively among the Essenes. But where did ‘christianized’ free-will doctrine have its origin? My personal belief is that it began in the midst of the Pauline assemblies in the form of old wives fables; hence Paul’s silencing of a certain form of woman-speak. But the cancerous influence of this destructive ‘gossip’ transformed into doctrine and was adopted by the ‘wolves’ of false leadership ascending to power after Paul’s death (Acts 20:29,30).
...

I found some interesting quotes about Godescalc, a Saxon theologian of the 9th century (808-867?)

From The Gottchalk Homepage

Gottschalk of Orbais (also spelled Godescalc) was a medieval monk who taught that God’s predestination is twofold. Gottschalk believed that before ages the Creator predestined some men to salvation and others to hell. Reaction of his former abbot Rabanus Maurus and his metropolitan Hincmar of Reims started the 9th century predestination controversy, which was made even more acute by the intervention of John Scot Erigena. Though many defended Gottschalk’s thoroughly Augustinian theology (among others Lupus of Ferrières, Ratramnus of Corbie, Prudentius of Troyes and Florus of Lyons) Gottschalk was imprisoned at the monastery of Hautvilliers where he later died having several times refused to renounce his views.

...