The Historical Continuity of the Apostolic Gospel

[Robert R. Higby]

In a recent issue of Proclamation magazine (pp. 6-9), Dr. Rick Langer of Biola University in California published an article on the "Christian Family Tree:"

http://lifeassuranceministries.org/P...007_MayJun.pdf

These views were also presented at the Former Seventh-day Adventist Fellowship Conference in 2006. The subject is the basis of orthodoxy as determined by the history of the "church".

I personally find his position appalling and destitute of both historical and biblical support. Before I evaluate I encourage others to read and give their impression.

Thanks,

--Bro. Bob

[Eileen]

In a recent issue of Proclamation magazine (pp. 6-9), Dr. Rick Langer of Biola University in California published an article on the "Christian Family Tree:"

http://lifeassuranceministries.org/P...007_MayJun.pdf

These views were also presented at the Former Seventh-day Adventist Fellowship Conference in 2006. The subject is the basis of orthodoxy as determined by the history of the "church".

I personally find his position appalling and destitute of both historical and biblical support. Before I evaluate I encourage others to read and give their impression.

Thanks,

--Bro. Bob

The author wants to solve the problem of denominations, sects, etc and his solution seems a bit weird now, doesn't it? I quote:

"to say that our rule of faith and practice is the Scripture is to ignore the problem rather than solve it..........what is needed is an authoritative interpretation and application of Scripture.......simply claiming that Scripture is authoritative is not enough"

I'm not sure I understood him completely on what he considered authoritative unless it was man, creeds, denominations, etc.

Page 8: "the faith once for all delivered to the saints is also the faith generation by generation delivered by the saints. WE recive our faith as a gift--transmitted to us by those who have gone before"

Where does the gift of the Holy Spirit come into play I wonder?

Eileen~

[Whammer]

Well, by the time I got to the letters to the editor section, the only words that came to my mind were those of Paul in 2 Tim. 3:7........always learning and never able to arrive at a knowlegde of the truth..... and also verse 5 as they have an "appearance of godliness........but deny its power"

These people still have another jesus who is not Jesus. They make it clear that in their jesus......he died for everyone's sins.......there is no mention of a Jesus that died and saved His people from their sins. There are some statements that are "close"........but still empty of the whole truth!

They also consider RC and EO to be part of the same "tree of true christianity"......as having the same faith that was once delivered to the saints by the apostles. Their diagrams bear this out.

[Robert R. Higby]

Great observations Eileen and Bryan!

I'll start with point one that I have to make: Real Christians have no family tree that we need to get connected to in order to get faith and enter the covenant! We are all connected to the Lord Jesus Christ directly by Holy Spirit regeneration and the resulting gift of faith in Christ's work. That is the only 'family tree' doctrine in the New Testament.

The Papacy and EO are not part of and never were part of the elect family of God in Christ. If our view of Reformation is 'reforming' either of those institutions then we are trying to marry the great whore.

Simply affirming tenets of Christological truth that were confessed in the 4th and 5th centuries does not make one a believer. The truth in those confessions was confessed already by true believers for centuries before. Plus two more facts regarding the 'little C' Catholic church are important to note:

1. Out of it (the 'early' creeds) we have no orthodox definition of Christ's finished work unto salvation and how the elect come to know they are included in it.

2. In the 'early' creeds we have a completely unbiblical doctrine of the sacraments and church power affirmed.

--Bob

[Brandan Kraft]

Yup, there are no Grandchildren in God's family.

[Whammer]

On page 4, at the end of the 1st part of Sharon's testimony, she makes this statement, quote...."and though I loved Jesus, I didnt really know him, or have the deep desire to let him take control."

This is words from someone who now considers themselves "enlightened"..? This is their interpretation of past events? This kind of thinking shows a mind filled will satanic conclusions. Lies in the foundation of thinking still lodged deeply that other thinking is erected on.
What does she mean that she "loved Jesus". How do you love someone that you hardly even know? Could it be that she still holds to some form of "decisional regeneration"? Maybe?

And, she still thinks that she was in "control" of things? God basically just wont violate man's freewill? He cant? She needed to "let God" do something? This is not the God I worship....Psa. 115:3

[Robert R. Higby]

These people have nothing but contempt for the doctrines of sovereign grace, I can vouch for that having known them and their material for many years. Most of this particular segment of former SDA's are either in the Evangelical Free Church or Calvary Chapel; both of which either denounce sovereign grace (ala Dave Hunt & company) or do not want it taught or discusssed.

The view of 'family tree' here obviously wants to include a host of divergent free-will doctrine in the gospel.

What is in this paper is not unique but it is just another 'cast' of all of the false teaching that we have become so familiar with on soteriology and ecclesiology. That was my main point in showing this--the same doctrines similar to FV/NPP are taking over evanjellyfish Christendumb everywhere.

[Saint Nicholas]

Great thread Brother Bob.

Since I could not copy and paste specific passages of Rick Langer's article, I was forced to waste 4 clean sheets of copy paper on his article. When I attended Cathedral Latin Catholic High School in Cleveland from 1966-1970, A very similar Christian family tree was taught to us in religion class. this is nonsence.

Rick Langer states on page 9, that the splits were due to differences in the understanding of Apostolic succession. Also differences in worship practices. And then he states that "there were also doctrinal differences on comparatively minor points" MINOR POINTS!!!?????

The Gospel of our Justification is a MINOR POINT?!?!?

Without Justification by an Extrinsic and Alien (Christ's) righteousness. Imputed to the Believer. THERE IS NO GOSPEL! AND THUS NO CHRISTIAN CHURCH!

I'm sorry I wasted 4 good sheets of copy paper on this article.

However thank's again Bob for starting this thread. Good Night

[Robert R. Higby]

Nick,

There are ways to convert .pdf documents to extract text:
1. Buy the professional version of Adobe which allows you to convert a .pdf to a Word document (which some may not want to spend the money on).
2. Find a free .pdf to text converter on the internet (I think they are out there).
3. Some scanner software will allow you to extract text once you scan the document.

Brandan and others know a whole lot more about this than I do, I'm sure.

On the 'family tree' issue you are 100% right on--what Langer presented on it is the same teaching coming out of Roman Catholic dogma and also the Federal Vision/New Perspective movement. The notion is that that you have to be connected to a historic religious institution with catholicity (universal broad recognition) in order to be certain of a genuine position in God's family. This is nonsense and denies the priesthood of all believers ENTIRELY!