Church Doctrine or Bible Based

Bluebonnet · Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:06 pm

Sky and Ruts

Thank you both so much for the very lively discussion we are having here. I learn so much from both you it is mind boggling.

Both of you make me take a good, hard look at my beliefs and you challenge me to ask myself if these beliefs are church doctrine or Bible based.

Please understand that I am not saying that church doctrine is wrong in any way, shape or form. But for me, I think it is important for me to recognize doctrine when I state it as a belief.

Does that make sense?

This rambling mess above got started this morning when I read on MSNBC another article about Jesus having a wife. Don't go there...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/24/14066248-too-holy-for-sex-the-problem-of-a-married-jesus?lite

The link above is to the story I read but it is not what is important in this posting.

What IS important is this paragraph:

Quote:

Unlike their modern counterparts, there is evidence that some early Christians -- the Valentinian Gnostics -- believed Jesus was married, according to April DeConick, a biblical scholar at Rice University. The recently discovered papyrus, she told NBC News, would be the second piece of evidence from an ancient Christian gospel that early Christians were not bothered by the idea of a married Jesus. The first piece of evidence -- which DeConick said comes from the Gospel of Philip -- identifies Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife.

I'm sure Sky is nodding his head right now. :mrgreen:

I will admit that I had no earthly idea WHO the Valentinian Gnostics even WERE. :embarressed

So I looked it up and found this in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinus_(Gnostic)

Hmmmm - very interesting. I love learning stuff, don't you? :mrgreen:

Quote:

A Valentinian teacher Ptolemy refers to "apostolic tradition which we too have received by succession" in his Letter to Flora. Ptolemy is known only for this letter to a wealthy gnostic lady named Flora, a letter itself only known by its full inclusion in Epiphanius' Panarion; it relates the gnostic view of the Law of Moses, and the situation of the Demiurge relative to this law. The possibility should not be ignored that the letter was composed by Epiphanius, in the manner of composed speeches that ancient historians put into the mouths of their protagonists, as a succinct way to sum up.

Hmmm - never heard of this Letter to Flora - off to look IT up. (See where you send me Sky?) :crylaugh

http://gnosis.org/library/flora.htm

The Gnostic Society Library - who knew? :dunno

Ahhh the Letter to Flora...

Very, very interesting.

Now what is the "apostolic tradition?" And here we go... (This is where you come in, Rutsie)

After much rooting around the 'net and (some) interesting reading, I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism

Big word, huh? :whistle

Quote:

Antinomianism (a term coined by Martin Luther, from the Greek ἀντί, "against" + νόμος, "law" + -ism; compare antinomy) is a position defined by its holding that, under the gospel dispensation of grace, moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone (Sola Fide) is necessary to salvation.[1] Although the position of antinomianism and the doctrine of Sola Fide, where justification is through faith alone, are related, antinomianism takes the notion of the relative weight of law to its logical extreme, opposing law as a groundwork. It is seen by some as the opposite of the notion that obedience to a code of religious law earns salvation: legalism or works righteousness.

While there is wide agreement within Christianity that "antinomianism" is heresy, what constitutes antinomianism is often in disagreement. The term "antinomian" emerged soon after the Protestant Reformation (c.1517) and has historically been used mainly as a pejorative against Christian thinkers or sects who carried their belief in justification by faith further than was customary.[2] For example, Martin Luther preached justification by faith alone but was also an outspoken critic of antinomianism, perhaps most notably in his Against the Antinomians (1539).

Ahhh sooooo, grasshopper! Dear ole Martin Luther.

Quote:

Given the Protestant belief of justification through faith alone, versus on the basis of merit, most Protestant Christians consider themselves saved without having to keep the commandments of the Mosaic Law as a whole. However, consistent with the Reformed formula, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone”[3], salvific faith has overall been seen as one that effected obedience, with those teachings (known somewhat imprecisely) as the moral law in contrast to ceremonial law being retained in almost all Christian denominations. Upon hearing that he was being charged with rejection of the Old Testament moral law, Luther responded:

And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours.

—Martin Luther, [4]

In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is,

a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!

—[5]

The Westminster Confession of Faith states:

Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.

—[6]

The classic Methodist commentator Adam Clarke held,

The Gospel proclaims liberty from the ceremonial law: but binds you still faster under the moral law. To be freed from the ceremonial law is the Gospel liberty; to pretend freedom from the moral law is Antinomianism.

—[7]

The entire article is most enlightening as it also talks about Buddhism, Islam, Secularists, etc.

Hmmm

From the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline

Quote:

Article 6—Of the Old Testament

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard who feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.

Hmmmmm - but that isn't what they teach...

So now I am back to the conundrum again re: Keep the Sabbath holy. If the above is true, why don't Methodists meet on Saturday for worship?

GAH!

Church Doctrine or Bible Based

Who is online