The Sean Gerety / Trinity Foundation / Luba BLOWUP

[magma2]

What Luba, that we're all dispensationalist!?!?! That's we're a CULT!

Who here is chopping up the bible and throwing any part of it out? I haven't seen ANYONE do that.

Brandan

You don't see it so it must not have occured. See, I am learning how this list works

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

Hello. I recently transfered to a christian school to get away from the problems in public high school. Upon transferring we had our first chapel service yesterday and i must say it was rather disturbing... Most of the students were worshipping with their arms waving in their air... mostly dancing.. some dropping to their knees and muttering things to themselves.. but it was not right i coulnd't put my finger on it but it seemed.... i'm not sure wha tto say or wether or not to judge but can anybody provide me with some direction on this issue.

Have we full addressed this issue yet? I think this thread has strayed off topic, and am suggesting we move the current "debate" to it's own heading.

All in favor?

[Robert R. Higby]

I agree. I don't think anyone here who opposes my position is willing to debate the HISTORICAL issues of the canon; I know they are not. The fact of the matter is that any dogmatic Presbyterian will defend every point of the Westminster Confession as adamantly as if it were scripiture itself. The heremeneutic here is: I SEARCH THE BIBLE TO PROVE THAT THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM IS TRUE. But we can start a new thread on it if you like.

To get back to the 'charismatic' issue of this thread, I am not one of those--usually Nonconformists reject the 'two poles' on the majority of issues and this one is no exception for me. I believe in the continuation of prophecy, language, and knowledge until the final coming of Christ. That does not imply an acceptance of 'unknown tongues' as practiced by the charismatics at all. The gift of language today may be tied primarily to communicating the gospel through preaching and teaching. Prophecy, though certainly not innerrant, is even more important because it calls the status quo of our religionists--who assume absolute power--to task.

[Robert R. Higby]

The Trinity Foundation is an organization that I have supported up until now, but I am increasingly becoming disenchanted based on these discussions. If the foundation wants to stay true to the standard of the Westminster Confession of faith as the TRUE AND ONLY SYSTEM of biblical teaching, it MUST take the following statement out of Gary Crampton's book BY SCRIPTURE ALONE:

The author (Fastiggi) correctly states that Luther regarded the Epistle of James as "an epistle of straw." But Luther was not denying the principle of sola Scriptura by making this claim. He questioned the quality of James, considering it to be of lesser value than other New Testament books. And in point of fact, Luther later recanted of his opinion.

If the logic of Westminster (which affirms the equal authority of ALL 66 books) equals the logic of scripture as Presbyterians affirm, Luther denied Sola Scriptura UNTIL the day that he recanted his opinion under pressure from other Lutherans and the princes. If those of us who question James are denying Sola Scriptura (as the foundation and all of Presbyterianism would most certainly affirm), Luther denied Sola Scriptura when he questioned the canonicity of James, Jude, and Revelation.

[magma2]

Milt writes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean

The corollary is that the ceremonial and sacrificial law which was given to the church in the OT and which foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah, was abrogated with the coming of Christ.

After misrepresenting me you are using my points; Glad to be of service. Now we are in agreement!

But we’re not in agreement at all and I haven’t misrepresented you in the least. I find it odd that those who accuse me of not understanding you have not interacted with even one of the many aberrant and dangerous things you’ve said on this list. As you might have noticed, since I see Brandon was forwarding to you and the others moderators correspondence from the Scripturalist list where Brandon and I are members, that he refused to interact with even one of the many citations I’ve culled from just a few of your posts. Yet, instead of a cogent argument and defense of your statements demonstrating my supposed errors and misrepresentations, he hurls insult after insult even claiming I’m the resurrection of Marc Carpenter. Usually when someone resorts to such tawdry tactics it’s a good sign that they have no argument. Desperation is transparent.

As to our point of agreement. Christ is the consummation of what the entire OT pointed to. This is why there is a division between old and new. The continuation of the ceremonial and sacrificial law would be a redundancy or worse with the coming of the Messiah. What you need to show is that what Christ taught in the Gospels or what we have in Acts, what you call the “way of salvation,” has been abrogated by Paul. This you haven’t done. Or to put it another way, the ceremonial and sacrificial law is no longer applicable because what it pointed to has been fulfilled in Christ. What in Christ’s teaching is no longer applicable that has been fulfilled in Paul? Be specific. What you need to do is demonstrate your position from the Scriptures. If you can’t do this, why should anyone believe you?

BTW, you could be labeled a dispensationalist by some for saying that..

Who cares? I’ve been called worse. This list is proof.

As I predicted, you just don't like my language and you started off with me with two biases:

1. I said that I am a non-cessationist... You appear to despise such...

You’re wrong. I don’t despise Charismatics at all. I think they're wrong and in grave danger of being swept away, but as goofy as some of their doctrines are, I don’t see how they compare to the arbitrary divisions you place on Scripture, even calling the Gospels and Acts “Jewish” as if the church in the OT and NT were somehow different.

2. You somehow had a problem with my language; both in terms of nationality and also in terms the way I refer to things that you consider to have some kind of inherent holiness. You don't like the way I express my thoughts, period. You are so stiff... but, to be cool is not a condition for heaven...

I have no idea what you’re talking about? You denied early on that any problem I might be having has anything to do with your ability to communicate in English. You even chastised me for failing to spell Portuguese correctly settling the question. Consequently, I don’t think our differences can be attributed to language or nationality. If so, explain where I have erred by addressing the supposed corollary between Christ fulfilling the types in the law and Paul fulfilling or abrogating any foreshadowing in the ministry of Jesus?

Now you admit to understand what I was saying all along. You just wanted d to pick a fight, huh?

Do you think I’m enjoying this? Do you really think I have nothing better to do? I don’t even watch the show “Lost,” but I’d rather join Mike in front of the tube than have to wade through your mutilation of the one sola upon which all the others rest .

The other "stuff" that you said or accused me of, of not "believing that the Bible is one" or that Paul went "beyond" Acts and your slander of me both here and now in your "other" list, does not matter anymore.

Well, if it’s slander prove me wrong. When a man is libeled his best defense is sound argument and the truth. I haven't seen either from you or any of your defenders.

You gave me the impression that if anyone today would ask you "how to enter eternal life" you would tell them to "fulfill the commandments, sell everything that they had and give it to the poor". Apparently you also believe that this is not for the ek-klesia today... Great, we finally came to an agreement!

Case in point. You suggest in terms too obvious for even a groundhog to miss, that Jesus’ conversation with the Rich Young Ruler is not for the “ek-klesia” today. That the doctrines Christ taught are in some way not for the church today but were for the Jews. Yet, there is only one church as you might have gathered if you read the Clark piece I posted. You create a false disjunction between the Gospels (include James, Acts and whatever other book you think "Jewish") and the Pauline epistles, as if the former is somehow fulfilled by the latter. But you nowhere demonstrate this and the moderators are evidently unwilling or unable to require that you explain yourself. They refuse to hold you to account no matter what you say. That is, after all, what is required if you are going to use Jesus’ fulfilling the law as a justification for you interpretive method. This you haven’t done, yet you imply and assert the same thing with virtually every post. THIS IS WHAT I OBJECT TO. I couldn’t even care if you were babbling in tongues, rolling on the floor and handling snakes. The complete rejection of the doctrine of Scripture necessitated by your position is so utterly crippling, that it ought to be rejected and refuted in the strongest terms by all Christian men. I suppose “men” being the operative word.

I know what and whom I have believed!

Well, then stop wasting time. Defend it.

Sean

[GraceAmbassador]

You don't see it so it must not have occured. See, I am learning how this list works

You are the king of irrationality and misquotations. I don't think you are learning anything!

You said that I say that Paul "abrogates" Acts and the Gospels... You have no way of showing it. What gladdens me is that in the end, rather in a cowardly way, you ended up agreeing with me but your ego and your fear of offending your creedal beliefs prevent you from admitting. You can slander me in any list you want posting what I said without posting the questions which lead to what I said. If you feel that this is honest and Godly, then, I should be content that you count me as a heretic! Unlike you, my loyalties go far beyond denominational lines. In addition, I don't think you are "that" smart anyway. I feel for the unfortunate ones who take you as a theologian, or anyone who is condition to teach anything other than "confessional and denomination predictable traditions".

As to our point of agreement. Christ is the consummation of what the entire OT pointed to. This is why there is a division between old and new. The continuation of the ceremonial and sacrificial law would be a redundancy or worse with the coming of the Messiah. What you need to show is that what Christ taught in the Gospels or what we have in Acts, what you call the “way of salvation,” has been abrogated by Paul. This you haven’t done. Or to put it another way, the ceremonial and sacrificial law is no longer applicable because what it pointed to has been fulfilled in Christ. What in Christ’s teaching is no longer applicable that has been fulfilled in Paul? Be specific. What you need to do is demonstrate your position from the Scriptures. If you can’t do this, why should anyone believe you?

I did and did it many times. Your satanic desire to confuse and sow discord could not see it. Basically I was saying exactly what you say up to this point:

Christ is the consummation of what the entire OT pointed to. This is why there is a division between old and new. The continuation of the ceremonial and sacrificial law would be a redundancy or worse with the coming of the Messiah.

Then, your imagination construed my words to be something that they are not. I still am appalled that you believe that when Jesus told the "rich young ruler" to be a Jew, he was not talking about "eternal life" responding adequately to the young man. You are the one who believes that there is no "way of salvation" taught in the Gospels!

Jesus told Nicodemus: Be born again
Jesus told the Rich Young ruler: be a good Jew
Jesus told the thief on the cross: Today you will be with me...
Jesus told Zacheus: I will sup with you. Salvation has come to this house.

Today, with the perfect canon that you so fiercely and justifiably defend, we know that Salvation is by God's Decree, His Sovereign Will, His decrees; that those who received Christ do receive Him because they are not born from "flesh and blood nor the will of man but of God"; we know that we are chosen before the foundation of the world; we can interpret John 3:16 correctly and not as a "free-will offer"; My proposition is purely and simply that Paul makes these clarifications and that in other subjects contained in the Gospel, which in my opinion include tithing, Paul brings a final explanation. I don't parse the Bible, I don't cut the other scriptures off, I know the Bible does not have contradictions, unlike you I believe that the Bible is a self sufficient book that explains itself without our help, I believe that Paul does not abrogate the Gospels nor the Acts. Your filthy religiosity construes this way; your mean-spirited character, Pharisaical mindset accuses me of such. I did not say it, I don't teach it and everything I said is within a context.

I owe nothing to a demonic sower of discord as you are nor to any other religionists with sheep skin. I presented the Bible as evidence of the Bible. You, in your satanic devices, believe that some portions of the Bible were inspired for some time ago, but they are not so for today; you believe that something progressed from partial to complete but provide no scripture for your central point. I did for all mine! Your devilish pride could not cope with me confronting your traditional views of things and all you did was attack me and slander me! Hey, I have a site. The Internet is free! The internet is the way for a New Reformation; for a reformation within the reformation! No one can point in my Web site the things that you accuse me of. They are not my pet issues. However, I do believe that in misinterpreting me and misrepresenting me and even your calumny of me were very good and a way for me to perceive what kind of people are out there in pulpits, singing in choirs, in "church" committees and in functions in churchianity! You sparked up my desire to fight against "churchianity", the devil and his hosts, who frequent their congregations. I can only thank you for that.

A scripture for you:

You have no father but the devil; he is a liar and the father of it! John 8:44 paraphrased for clarity!

...And I forgot... You are also a gossip, a busybody gossip talebearer!

Now you can post this in your list and pout for the things I told you because I mean them until you repent, which I don't think will happen any time soon!

I stooped to your level... now that I am dirty, I may as well shake the dirt off me in the direction of those who took me there...

[Robert R. Higby]

Those who in any way would equate my passionate and never-compromising affirmation of SOLA FIDE with Harald's persistent denial of SOLA FIDE--such persons truly do not know the extreme difference in our respective positions as evidenced by all discussions here for the last 2 years! I felt I had to say this because SOLA FIDE is such an integral part of my core convictions. Without it I have nothing of the gospel.

[wildboar]

The fact of the matter is that any dogmatic Presbyterian will defend every point of the Westminster Confession as adamantly as if it were scripiture itself.

I, for one, have noted my own exceptions to the WCF. Presbyterians are generally not strict subscriptionists and so you will find many who hold office in even the very conservative Presbyterian churches who have taken exception to certain things said in the WCF. I believe the canon is something the WCF got right. The first draft of the WCF omitted Revelation from the canon but it was rightfully included in the final form.

To get back to the 'charismatic' issue of this thread, I am not one of those--usually Nonconformists reject the 'two poles' on the majority of issues and this one is no exception for me.

The Presbyterians were and are non-conformists. I doubt you will find a single person on this list who actually is a conformist.

The gift of language today may be tied primarily to communicating the gospel through preaching and teaching. Prophecy, though certainly not innerrant, is even more important because it calls the status quo of our religionists--who assume absolute power--to task.

So fallible prophecy is more important than exposition of the infallible Word of God? How can fallible prophecy call anyone to task if it may be in error?

There is something very dangerously close to what evangelical feminists and evangelical homosexuals do going on here. (What the Scriptures teach regarding the offices and functions of the ekklesia no longer apply because the ekklesia was apostate and corrupted in the first couple centuries, what James says doesn't apply because James could never have said those things).

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

I agree. I don't think anyone here who opposes my position is willing to debate the HISTORICAL issues of the canon;

And that's why I want to move this debate.

Let put our money where our mouths are, examine the facts, and be honest about our findings.

It sure beats the subjective "commentary" and mud slinging I've been witness too the past couple of days.

Besides, I'm dying to learn something new.

In Him,

Brother Scott.

[Mickey]

Ok, I don't see further discussion about this issue of James taking place in the near future and it has caused unwanted 'division'. I consider this to be one of those secondary issues. Now don't isolate that last sentence from what I am about to say.

As Bob mentioned in another thread; the overemphasis on water administration, so to I think this issue of James is looked upon as a primary issue when it shouldn’t be. I fully agree in Sola Scriptura and while I have doubts about the book of James. They should be set aside to maintain unity. I said earlier “Keep it or throw it out, it’s all the same to me.” I meant that; as unscholarly as it may sound. It’s not an authoritative scripture for the doctrine of justification before God, and that’s where I stand. So I have no problem with the book of James being part of the cannon. Sean and I have the same convictions on Justification and that’s what I believe is important. Sean is not trying to defend that we are justified by works and faith, this has been clear. Nor is anyone else (moderators or posters) trying to defend justification by faith and works. Calvin says that James is not speaking of justification before God and that’s fine with me. I will admit I have trouble with the interpretation, but the intent to preserve the inerrant word of God satisfies me enough to accept the interpretation until I can find a better one myself; scripture interprets scripture. No matter what, we must maintain that God's word stands on its own and does not contain 'apparent contradictions' and everyone here agrees with that. As I mentioned earlier I hold to the Multi-Level cannon and I believe the apostle Paul was clear enough on the doctrine of Justification that I can refer to his teaching as the authority for Constitutive and declarative justification before God. For me the issue is settled, I will continue to study the history of James and a good interpretation for ch. 2 because I love the word of God and it is my favorite thing to do.

I hope the other issues can be settled and that the 'mud slinging' will stop. As I vowed in another thread to focus the content of my posts to the glory of God in Christ. I do so now that we can maintain unity on the primary issues. The issues we do agree on are the very issues that churchianity is absolutely void of. If we desire further reformation then we have to stay unified in these.

I realize that each is going to stand by what they have said. All I ask is that the personal conflicts stop. Otherwise we will never proceed any further in discussion.

Mike

[Robert R. Higby]

Mike, I think that the multi-level canon is what Sean and historic Protestants are condemning. I also accept James as part of the lesser canon--but the real issue here is whether James 2:14-26 is to be accepted as truth AT FACE VALUE. The point is that religionists want to forbid us from discussing the issue of the historical development of the canon. I am not willing to forbid ANY issue significant to our time and to the gospel; that is the difference.

Keep in mind that historic churchmen will downgrade all who question this or other similar issues to the same level as liberals, skeptics, agnostics, and unbelievers. THAT IS FACT! It matters not one whit to them that we passionately believe in the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, every one of the 5solas, the five points of Calvinism, and the innerrancy of the core canon.

[Robert R. Higby]

Answers to WB:

I, for one, have noted my own exceptions to the WCF.

Very true. However, you are not among those to whom I was referring!

Presbyterians are generally not strict subscriptionists and so you will find many who hold office in even the very conservative Presbyterian churches who have taken exception to certain things said in the WCF.

True again, however, those who push for a restoration of true gospel Presbyterianism today ARE strict subscriptionists! They lament the very facts that you describe. Also, most of those who take exception that I have seen object to the GOSPEL TRUTH of election. The hatred of unashamed predestination is the most prominent cause of objection, not rejection of excess baggage added to the gospel.

I believe the canon is something the WCF got right. The first draft of the WCF omitted Revelation from the canon but it was rightfully included in the final form.

After Twisse died the free-willers of the John Milton party bastardized the confession however they wanted to! Hence the infamous chapter 9. I don't trust the 'final form'.

The Presbyterians were and are non-conformists. I doubt you will find a single person on this list who actually is a conformist.

They were nonconformist to the established state church of their time. The meaning of nonconformity has evolved and changed with the centuries. Today, I'm using it in the sense of denying the obligation to conform to one of the established and respected churches.

So fallible prophecy is more important than exposition of the infallible Word of God? How can fallible prophecy call anyone to task if it may be in error?

The point is that EXPOSITION as you describe it is also FALLIBLE. So while certain neurotic people can criticize pastors with stupid and wicked malice, it is nonetheless true that God has given gifts to certain men to discern the error in 'official' teaching.

There is something very dangerously close to what evangelical feminists and evangelical homosexuals do going on here. (What the Scriptures teach regarding the offices and functions of the ekklesia no longer apply because the ekklesia was apostate and corrupted in the first couple centuries, what James says doesn't apply because James could never have said those things).

Fine, then just impute absolute power and authority to all ordained teachers and affirm that none of their propositions are subject to rebuke! There are legitimate challenges to unchecked power and authority which have nothing to do with the objections of radical kooks who know nothing of the gospel.

[Brandan Kraft]

The Trinity Foundation is an organization that I have supported up until now, but I am increasingly becoming disenchanted based on these discussions. If the foundation wants to stay true to the standard of the Westminster Confession of faith as the TRUE AND ONLY SYSTEM of biblical teaching, it MUST take the following statement out of Gary Crampton's book BY SCRIPTURE ALONE:

The author (Fastiggi) correctly states that Luther regarded the Epistle of James as "an epistle of straw." But Luther was not denying the principle of sola Scriptura by making this claim. He questioned the quality of James, considering it to be of lesser value than other New Testament books. And in point of fact, Luther later recanted of his opinion.

I have vowed not to interact with Sean any more due to his unreasonable attitude on and off of this forum, specifically the trinity foundation discussion list. I am not interacting now. However I am pointing out that neither he (or Luba) has responded to this assertion by Bob.

In my opinion, people here on the forum are doing no less then what Luther did, yet he was not considered as denying sola scriptura by the trinity foundation. Only when men are no longer considered heros or legitimate teachers by the by religionists such as Sean are they considered as heretics.

Bob, you wrote: The Trinity Foundation is an organization that I have supported up until now, but I am increasingly becoming disenchanted based on these discussions.

Amen. I have supported the organization full bore, but it appears we are nothing but a bunch of heretics to them. John Robbins apparently thinks so. He defended Sean against me yesterday on his list, "Scripturalists" by writing to me,

Brandan,

Sean's is the second complaint I have received about the heterodoxy being promoted on 5solas. JR

He didn't address the issue, just simply and implicitly acknowledged that Sean was right based only on hearsay.

Sean is accusing us of the exact same thing Luther did - having a mult-level canon, and by logical conclusion we now all must be heretics denying Sola Scriptura. Luba, our very own moderator and trusted friend without discussing this privately with me praised Sean for his pathetic and disgusting attacks on this site. In my opinion, that makes Sean the heretic, the individual that brings "schism" amongst a group of believers.

Yet due to his religious ignorance he clearly ignores the plain teaching of his own organization. If he and John Robbins are intellectually honest, they will now recant and repent of the false doctrine that Gary Crampton has published in his book regarding Luther. If they don't, the trinity foundation as well as those who support them and their accusations against us have lost all credibility with me.

Brandan

[lionovjudah]

Luther's Treatment of the 'Disputed Books'
of the New Testament



Lutheran theologians like to make a distinction between the books of the New Testament which were unanimously received as canonical in the early church (the so-called Homologoumena or undisputed books) and the books which were disputed by some (the Antilegomena). In this class of 'disputed books' are the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John. These books are considered to be canonical in modern Lutheran churches, with the caveat that they are not quite on the same level as the other books as complete expressions of evangelical truth, and should be used with care.
Luther himself took the liberty of criticizing some of these books in a polemical manner which few Lutherans today would find completely acceptable. He had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."
Luther's criticism of these books will perhaps be found disgraceful and even shocking to modern Christians, but it should be pointed out that his attitude was not so shocking in the context of the late Middle Ages. Erasmus had also called into question these four books in the Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament, and their canonicity was doubted by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (Luther's opponent at Augsburg. See Reu, Luther's German Bible, pp. 175-176). The sad fact is, the Roman Catholic Church had never precisely drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon. It was not necessary to do so under the Roman system, in which the authority of the Scriptures was not much higher than that of tradition, popes, and councils. It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone that a decision on the 'disputed books' became necessary.
If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, we would have expected him to include 2 Peter among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times. But it is evident from the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books that his low view of them had more to do with his theological reservations against them than with any historical investigation of the canon.
We give below Luther's prefaces to James, Jude and the Revelation, from the first edition of his New Testament. The English translation and notes are derived from the American edition of Luther's Works, vol 35 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), pp. 395-399.
Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 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 2 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." All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.
But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty," though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin. 3
Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: "Love covers a multitude of sins," and again, "Humble yourselves under the hand of God;" also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, "The Spirit lusteth against envy." And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. 4 So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.
In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. 5 He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture? 6
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of falth.
Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522) 7

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly -- indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important -- and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
1. Luther's statement that the epistle was "rejected by the ancients" is only partly true. Its canonical status was doubted by some. Eusebius (died 339) in his Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25) writes "Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude's." Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of 'Disputed Books' (History, III, xxiv, 3). See also the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status.
2. By Glose (literally "gloss") Luther means an interpretation which explains away the apparent meaning.
3. Cf. Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 5:13, 20; 6:15-22; 7:5-13; 8:2; I Cor. 15:58; Gal. 3:23-5:1.
4. The James to whom the book is traditionally ascribed is not the brother of John martyred by Herod (Acts 12:2), as Luther seems to think, but the brother of the Lord (Matt. 13:55) who became head of the apostolic church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:13; Gal. 1:19).
5. The edition of 1530 omitted "in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture."
6. The edition of 1530 put intead of these last two sentences, "Therefore, I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him."
7. This short preface appeared in the September Testament of 1522 and in other editions up to 1527. It was supplanted from 1530 on by a much longer preface which offers an interpretation of the symbolism of the book.
8. Luther means II Esdras, which was called IV Esdras in the Vulgate.
9. The canonicity of Revelation was disputed by Marcion, Caius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem and the Synod of Laodicea in A.D. 360, though it was accepted by most as Eusebius reports. In the annotations of his edition Erasmus had noted in connection with chapter 4 that the Greeks regarded the book as apocryphal.

[lionovjudah]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html


here is an article about disputed books of the NT.

[magma2]

I have vowed not to interact with Sean

Then why do you continue to do it? Please don’t vow to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

any more due to his unreasonable attitude on and off of this forum, specifically the trinity foundation discussion list. I am not interacting now. However I am pointing out that neither he (or Luba) has responded to this assertion by Bob.

And the point is? I make my living in grassroots politics and we have a saying; you can’t kick every barking dog. You are evidently blind to the sheer number of direct challenges I’ve made to Bob (Twisse) which he simply passed by in silence. Besides, I don’t see why he needs any response from me. His slander against the Holy Spirit, the author of Holy Writ, has been duly noted by everyone on this list, you excepted of course.

In my opinion, people here on the forum are doing no less then what Luther did, yet he was not considered as denying sola scriptura by the trinity foundation. Only when men are no longer considered heros or legitimate teachers by the by religionists such as Sean are they considered as heretics.

Luther’s low opinion of James, while seriously in error, could have easily lead to the gross ignorance and open hostility to the Word of God exhibited by men like Bob Higby, one of your Moderators, who also, I might add, has some serious questions about Ester, Ecclesiastes and who knows what other books he would like to trim from God’s Word. But, praise be to God, Luther came to his senses and repented. What’s Bob’s problem? What's yours?

Bob, you wrote: The Trinity Foundation is an organization that I have supported up until now, but I am increasingly becoming disenchanted based on these discussions.

Amen. I have supported the organization full bore, but it appears we are nothing but a bunch of heretics to them. John Robbins apparently thinks so. He defended Sean against me yesterday on his list, "Scripturalists" by writing to me,
Quote:
Brandan,

Sean's is the second complaint I have received about the heterodoxy being promoted on 5solas. JR
He didn't address the issue, just simply and implicitly acknowledged that Sean was right based only on hearsay.

Brandan, John’s statement you cite above wasn’t hearsay, but was given out of concern for you and what your forum has clearly become. He was asking if the accounts he's been hearing (and I had no idea there were others) were true. Now, if I’m wrong in the things I’ve said here and on the Scripturalist list concerning your list and the men you have moderating it, you have had ample opportunity already, and still have, to set the record straight. But instead of interacting with the many comments I posted on the Scripturalists list and here made by your moderators, Milt and Bob, demonstrating the egregious and substantial error of these men, you rashly launched into round after round of insults and cut off any conversation at all. Your defensiveness is telling. My guess is, you are acting out of fear that the evidence against these men is so overwhelming that to defend them would be an open endorsement of their gross and unmitigated heresy. Well, at this point, it seems too late for that. You are complicit in the sins of these men.

Sean is accusing us of the exact same thing Luther did - having a mult-level canon, and by logical conclusion we now all must be heretics denying Sola Scriptura. Luba, our very own moderator and trusted friend without discussing this privately with me praised Sean for his pathetic and disgusting attacks on this site. In my opinion, that makes Sean the heretic, the individual that brings "schism" amongst a group of believers.

One good thing, you now have openly joined hands with these men who openly malign God's Word and do so with impunity. For awhile there I thought you might have been on the fence and there was still some hope. Yet, despite your uncontrolled and rabid calumny against me, where is the proof of my heresy? Cite one thing I’ve said that is out of accord with the doctrines of Christ so that I might repent. I guess I won't see any correction coming from the book of James

Yet due to his religious ignorance he clearly ignores the plain teaching of his own organization.

My organization? What’s organization is that?

If he and John Robbins are intellectually honest, they will now recant and repent of the false doctrine that Gary Crampton has published in his book regarding Luther. If they don't, the trinity foundation as well as those who support them and their accusations against us have lost all credibility with me.

Methinks you protest too much

Sean

[Brandan Kraft]

2 Tim 3:12, (KJV), Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Lk 6:22, (KJV), Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

Luba, I must ask you to step down as a moderator. I am saddened that you could support him in his vile accusations against us. I thought you knew us better than that - apparently not. It hurts really bad Luba.

I stand with my brother Bob and Milt and will defend them to the death against the vile accusations that Sean is throwing about. I spent an hour on the phone last night with Milt and he did not advocate and personally denounced all the things that Sean was accusing him of doing.

I cannot stand by and watch my friends being libeled any longer. Sean no longer has posting priveleges on this site.

Brandan

[lionovjudah]

Joe:
First of all give me a definition of "dispensationalist" or "dispensationalism".

Second, the JW, the Mormon, the Liberals, use a lot of terms that are common to us. Some include "Jesus is Lord". Should I stop using this terms because they mis-use the term? What, please can we say that will not confuse us with them.

When a term confuse us with the others, we look at the body of what the person is by the knowledge we have of them; do you think that I am anything like the JW's and the Mormons?

If a term is mis-used, it still does not lose its principal semantic meaning...

Distinct means different. This is what Sean wanted to mean that I said: DIFFERENT. Distinct also means "another kind of its one kind"; this is another thing that Sean was accusing me of saying. That's why I used the word "progressive".

Joe, for one man to be labeled a "dispensationalist" for some it is enough that he believes that God had one Covenant based on the Law of Moses and then had another called the New Covenant or Testament in Jesus. I don't participate of this veritable neurosis to place everybody in a group, of this pure dementia, this madness in churchianity today that everyone has to be socked into a group based on any word or anything that they believe that is taken out of the context of all they believe.

If a person is elect, he will be Saved by God whether I bang his head with a false doctrine or anything else. Your point is irrelevant because this is not the issue here. We are not talking about who is going to be saved. I was talking about whether we should tell people who come to us asking how to "enter eternal life" if we should tell them to fulfill the commandments, sell everything that they had and so on and so forth; or even any other term such as "strive to be born again", etc.

I have a personality that is "distinct" from my sons. However I have a personality that "progressed" from the personality I had when I was a boy.
I cannot say that I have a personality that is distinct to that which I acquired with growth because that could mean that I am another person and need some treatment.

The SAME revelation in nature and kind, progressed from that which was before Jesus abrogated (as Sean teaches) all those things spoken of in this thread.

I stand by what I said, the words I used and the manner in which I presented my ideas.



Milt

Milt: After rereading your response here, I must state again that I was in no way equating you with these cults. My point obviously was either not clearly stated, or understood by you. What I state is true. The term progressive revelation is used by these groups. All I said is one should be clear in defining what they mean by it. So my point is not irrelevant. Do a google search for progressive revel;ation, and see what you come up with. IT also includes some B'haria teachings also. Anytime one states that God has dealt differently with His creation at different times, this is understood as dispensations. I know you, Bill, Mike are not this. But that is the way ears will hear it when confronted for the first time.

Let me recap.

There is no arguement that this site speaks of issues that are not discussed anywhere else on the web.

a) JIE
b) 2 seed doctrine
c) church vs ek-klesia
d) Absolute, Absolute predestination
e) origin of evil
f) MCT
g) made sin


These are just to name a few. Now for the members here, the core group of you, BK< BH<MILT<MIKE<, you are pretty much all in unity on these. And can discuss these issues amongst yourselves with very little variance.

But we all must be honest, for the "new comer" you must realize why you face arguements, dissention, and even malice at times because the first time one hears of these things, they stop their ears and their tails puff up and we hiss.


History shows that sooner or later, people snap, and either leave or are banned, which is ok with me, it happens, and I cant stop it. But I believe one issue that will receive the most apprehension and discord is this multi level canon, James 2, Matt 25, or whatever verses that are cast in doubt by some here as even being part of truth spoken. This will not be even considered by the majority of Christians today as even worthy of discussing. If Growing up, and hearing this for the first time, I would guess you would have reacted the same way as Sean, Luba, and even myself. Acts, the Gospels are jewish, james is jewish, paul is the authorative letters for the "ek-klesia", this is all greek to 99% of people today. We immidiately will react by saying, "Hey, why not cut others verses out" , you deny SS, you are speaking falsely. The whole of scripture, the "canon" whatever you want to call it, is nto a secondary issue. It cannot be. For if people cannot agree 100% on this issue, there is no more discussion. I respect all of you on the board even though I argue and speak with guile at times, I repent of that. I take issue with some issues discussed here, and feel wearing the hat of "A Noncomformist" is a free pass to do as you will, with whatever issues are discussed. And that is ok, but certain doctrines, sacred cows, whatever term is used, are untouchable for most, and this one issue is at the top of the list. I stand in amazement when some here react as if myself, Sean, Luba, Charles, or whoever, are overreacting. In the year I have been part of this forum, the herd has continued to thin. IT is very lean now, very skinny. WHy is that? Because lines are drawn on issues that people have been weaned on for years, and hear things for the first time coming here. This is nothing new, it has happenned fromt he beginning of time and will continue until our Lord comes again.

Milt, when I said distinct, I find that word appropriate. Anything elese brings the baggage of seperate or different. And how else would you think Sean, Luba, myself will react? And then be made to feel the oneous is on us, those in the 99% majority, to prove what the 1% speaks of on certain matters. IT just has not, does not, and will never work this way.

I hope we can continue these dialogues, because I enjoy them without throwing around heretic, mud, unregenerate, alway after 1 day of discussion.


In His Name

Joe

[L-Today]

Brandan,

I’ve supported Sean because I agreed with him. I did not know that on this forum it is a criminal offence. If someone called me a Dispensationalist and a cultist, I’d be very grateful to this person (especially from a friendly camp), ask him to point out where and how I am opening myself to such criticisms, and then work hard on making sure that I understand and verbalise these things clearly so that none of my friends confuses me with Dispensationalists or cultists ever again if I do not consider myself as such.

In the name of fairness, why is it OK for Sean to be insulted but not the other way round? Where are such rules written and by whom? Is that considered an honourable forum where one party is allowed to be bashed but not the other? Why is it OK for the members of this forum to be surrounded by loyal friends during a debate but Sean is despised when he shares his surprise at some of the teachings at 5solas with his friends?

Listen to Joe, Brandan, the voice of wisdom, as you have a serious problem of placing yourself in other thinkers’ position.

I thought that you also believe that Christianity is first and foremost about God’s Truth and not about being faithful to our mentors and friends at any cost! Of course, you feel sorry for Milt, and that is my huge problem too – my sympathy for people often taking priority before God’s Word. But to whom are we supposed to owe our first and absolute loyalty?

You ask me to apologize and repent before you and other moderators. Here is it: I do repent before God Almighty that I have not spoken earlier on the matters which greatly disturb me on this forum. I did mention them to you, Brandan, both on the phone and in letters, but you brushed my concerns off as unimportant and told me that it is OK for me to disagree with others – you can take it, you said. Well, can you? You never specified in which areas I am allowed to dissent and in which I am obliged to support you and others on the forum even if I think that you and them are wrong. Or is this forum for a joint public agreeing and private disagreeing even if one is at odds with the forum’s public stance?

You have invited me to join your forum and to become a moderator while we were corresponding concerning Martin. Then I thought that our Lord’s Grace, Absolute Predestination, Supralapsarianism, true Christians’ living, battles against irrationalism, etc, are the main features here. Maybe you should have display on your front page some of the other teachings of this forum, the ones that appal friend and foe alike? Were they prominently displayed and explained, I would have not joined your forum in the first place. Later inevitable (as Joe has pointed out) separations are painful, once people on the forum become dear friends.

Little did I know about ‘’churchianity’’ and ‘’evanjellyfishes’’ – powerful words mocking the very foundational concepts of ‘’church’’, ‘’Christianity’’ and ‘’evangelizing’’. I repent: ''God Almighty, forgive me for I too used these insulting You words a few times, out of solidarity with men. Now I see the great danger - these mighty tools are planting animosity in people’s hearts against the institutions established by Christ Himself.'' (This here is not a debate on ''come out of her'').

Later only did I find out here the rebellious attitude toward Scripture, and that the continuous prophecy (by infallible mentors?) are to replace those untrustworthy or insignificant Books of the Bible. Later only did I find out about the obsession here with Satan and his seed the reprobate demon people, and of the different stuff out of which the elect are created – no need of a savior! Or is it a double/triple security for the elect people’s salvation? Christ’s work alone is not enough? Little did I know that the elect ones’ sins are temporal only, and that hell is not as scary as Jesus Christ Himself described it over and over again! That it is apparently sinful to frighten people with hell fires. And the list goes on. For this I apologize - that I did not speak out on these matters earlier, that I was self-blinded by my loving friendship with the members of the forum, and that only recently I have properly realized how dangerous and unbiblical these teachings are.

I am leaving this forum. Of course, my heart is heavy and I am very upset, as in the beginning I thought our friendship will go on and on. I am very grateful for the most valuable lessons I’ve learned here: how utterly insane it is to leave the Word of God and follow men’s ideas. I’ve learned to love God’s church (not the false one), with all its imperfections - it was mercilessly derided here. I’ve learned to treat departed saints with even greater respect, including Augustine and Spurgeon and others - they are trashed here blue and black. I love the unity of the Scriptures more than ever. I came to see with utmost clarity that the difference between the elect people and the reprobates is Jesus Christ’s Person and Work alone.


Luba.

[Brandan Kraft]

Luba, I feel you have been deceiving me this entire time.