Have I gone MAD???

[Idolater]

You are simply too ignorant of the subject matter to have a constructive conversation with. Nothing you said here was even in response to anything I said or believe. It's as if you speak some foreign language and I'm not interested in taking you by the hand to teach you the 1st grade level basics of how to understand the human language and talk to people with common sense.

I'm asking you questions, and this is your response to my asking you questions?

Thanks for nothing!

 

[Clete]

I'm asking you questions, and this is your response to my asking you questions?

Your questions had no bearing on anything I said or believe or that has anything to do with what any Mid-Acts Dispensationalists teaches.

Thanks for nothing!

You get out what you put in.

 

[Lon]

So O.P., what's the deal? Have you "gone MAD," or what? Do you know the answer yet?

I'm not sure it needs an answer. It is rather, what do I agree with and where am I different from any other Mid Acts theologian? When I first came to TOL in 2004, I wasn't as solid on my own theology, kind of ecumenical with good training but no experience field yet to hammer out my theology. TOL has been very good for challenging me to take a stand and then further challenged to articulate that stance. Sometimes its about the journey but sure, there have been some amazing end-destinations along the way and I'm indebted to many on TOL for sharpening me, as iron sharpens iron. They may not always realize it, but fairly appreciate everyone here for doing the service! (Thank you!) It takes a lot of work correcting somebody else (or being likewise corrected). I am at least very appreciative of Mid Acts theologians and how Mid Acts theology has stream-lined what was a bit harder to categorize before I knew it. I'm also appreciative with as much guff as Mid Acts gets, that they have been gracious with me whether I am Mid Acts or not. So I've certainly gone MAD in my appreciations, and for now, that is enough. We'll see at the end of the thread/road maybe

 

[Lon]

I'm very short on time and so don't take this short response as me blowing off what you've said. Indeed, you've said here basically what I expected you to say and it is very much in keeping with what most Christians would say.

Agree.

What I don't understand is why you, as does practically every other Christian, think that this sort of wordy explanation is superior to simply reading the passages and taking them to mean what they seem to mean?

Because it does 'simply' say 'kind' of faith, as in "Can this kind of faith save him?" Otherwise, even if I 'were' Mid Acts, I'd have a hard problem with James counteracting what Paul says: "NOBODY is,was,ever shall be saved by keeping the works of the Law." You make a point last sentence "The Mid-Acts Dispensationalists can read both Romans 4:5 and James 2:26 and see no conflict." How? I'd think there is still a problem? Was Martin Luther right? Should we have ejected the book of James a long time ago (his quote in a moment)?

James is talking about what it takes to get saved and he very very very clearly states that faith alone doesn't cut it; that works are required.

Agree.

Why is it so hard for people to simply except that to be what James is saying?

Realize I'm coming 'to' a Mid Acts expression here. Before, it was unthinkable that James could possibly be arguing with Paul about Faith Alone, Grace alone in the same bible. Paul says point blank the exact opposite:
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
Jas 2:22 You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected by works.
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend.
Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Conversely Galatians: Gal 2:16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

The problem always was: How to I reconcile this?

For Martin Luther (could he have been Mid Acts???): “Therefore St James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.” —Martin Luther

Hence (and I'm close Clete) I have started rethinking this and appreciate the challenge here. Either James says clearly that (Jews) cannot be saved without works, or he is arguing something else, that saving faith is not without works. Again such is an extrinsic test of sorts, one to ask "Does Jesus have a hold of me? If so, am I looking more like Him today?"
The Mid Acts position, that James is talking to Jews, makes a lot of sense.

Well, the answer to that question is the writings of Paul. Indeed, one of the most important divisions within Christianity has Paul as the dividing line where one group emphasizes Paul's writings and takes them to mean what they say while conforming the teachings of Jesus, Peter, James and John to Paul's teachings, just as you have done above, while the other group does the reverse and takes Jesus, Peter, James and John to mean what they seem to say and conforming Paul's writing to fit. The later is very much harder to do and so many times when a group takes that tack, they end up pretty much just ignoring Paul altogether. Messianic Jews are a good example of this.

(truly, thinking, and thank you for it)

The point here being that Mid-Acts Dispensationalists do neither! The Mid-Acts Dispensationalists can read both Romans 4:5 and James 2:26 and see no conflict at all. There is no need to conjure up different kinds of faith or any other such thing to dilute the point that James was so obviously making. James was telling his audience (who were all "zealous for the law" - Acts 21:20) that works are required for salvation and Paul was telling his audience that no work is required at all. The point being that they were talking to two different audiences. Simple! Context context context!

If Martin Luther had been Mid Acts, he likely wouldn't have wanted to remove it from the canon? Or do you see a benefit of James today for the Jew?

 

[Clete]

Agree.

Because it does 'simply' say 'kind' of faith, as in "Can this kind of faith save him?" Otherwise, even if I 'were' Mid Acts, I'd have a hard problem with James counteracting what Paul says: "NOBODY is,was,ever shall be saved by keeping the works of the Law." You make a point last sentence "The Mid-Acts Dispensationalists can read both Romans 4:5 and James 2:26 and see no conflict." How? I'd think there is still a problem? Was Martin Luther right? Should we have ejected the book of James a long time ago (his quote in a moment)?

Agree.



Realize I'm coming 'to' a Mid Acts expression here. Before, it was unthinkable that James could possibly be arguing with Paul about Faith Alone, Grace alone in the same bible. Paul says point blank the exact opposite:
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
Jas 2:22 You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected by works.
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend.
Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Conversely Galatians: Gal 2:16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

The problem always was: How to I reconcile this?

For Martin Luther (could he have been Mid Acts???): “Therefore St James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.” —Martin Luther

Hence (and I'm close Clete) I have started rethinking this and appreciate the challenge here. Either James says clearly that (Jews) cannot be saved without works, or he is arguing something else, that saving faith is not without works. Again such is an extrinsic test of sorts, one to ask "Does Jesus have a hold of me? If so, am I looking more like Him today?"
The Mid Acts position, that James is talking to Jews, makes a lot of sense.

(truly, thinking, and thank you for it)

If Martin Luther had been Mid Acts, he likely wouldn't have wanted to remove it from the canon? Or do you see a benefit of James today for the Jew?

No Mid-Acts believer would ever desire (rightly) to remove James from the scripture. James wrote a brilliant epistle that is not only profitable now but will be critical when God returns to working directly with and through Israel. Besides, you couldn't remove the book of James without the same logic causing you to remove everything from Hebrews through Revelation!

The key to understanding the difference between what Paul teaches vs what all of the rest of the New Testament authors teach is to understand the difference between Israel and the Body of Christ. That difference being the law vs. grace. The law required faith but it also required obedience whereas Paul's gospel requires faith only. The confusion comes when we start talking about how the law in and of itself never saved anyone, right. Salvation is of grace and always has been but there is no disputing that obedience to the law was an absolute requirement so how does that work?

Well, it works because God gets to decide whom He will be gracious toward and for what reason. OH! That sounds sort of Calvinistic, you might be thinking! Well, that's another source of confusion on this matter in that Calvinism (Augustinianism actually) has so muddied the water that it actually difficult to discuss this stuff without getting misunderstood. I'm not saying anything that a Calvinist would actually agree with except in the broadest possible sense. The simple fact is that God was not required to save anyone. He could have removed Adam and Eve from existence and started over from scratch but, in His wisdom, decided on a better course where He would provide what was needed to satisfy justice and apply that payment to those He saw fit to apply it to.

So, who did He see fit to apply it to? Well, the answer to that question isn't arbitrary and it has changed from time to time. There's not sufficient time to go into all that in any detail and so let me just say, for the sake of brevity, that the common denominator has always been faith. The point being however, that it hasn't always been faith alone. In fact, it has only been faith alone since Paul's ministry. Prior to that, from righteous Cain right through to the early Acts period, obedience has been a major ingredient.

So, if obedience was required, how is it grace? Well, there are two things here. First, no one can be perfectly obedient and the reason they cannot be is because of the second thing which is the fact that we are descended from fallen Adam. Christ dealt with both issues at Calvary. Absolutely everyone that has ever lived, whether they were a believer or not, benefited from Christ dealing with that inherited part that we call the flesh. No one will go to Hell because they are descended from Adam (See Romans 5 and Ezekiel 18 - the whole of both chapters). That takes care of the second issue but what about the first? That too is dealt with by grace!

Israel had a covenant of law, not a covenant of grace. Law and grace are not synonyms, right! So a believing Jew would trust in God and obey the law to the best of his ability. He would repent when he failed and perform whatever ritual the law required to atone for his sins and in response to the obedient faith, God would grace that believer out in regards to any imperfections in his obedience. And so the law was under-girded by grace.

The covenant of grace, by the way, came first. Abraham (Abram at the time) made a covenant with God, or I should say that God made a covenant with Abraham where the blood sacrifices were cut in half (this is where the idiom "to cut a deal" comes from) and laid out and then God put Abraham into a deep sleep and God walked through the sacrificed animals alone. There was nothing required of Abraham in this covenant because he was unconscious when the deal was consummated. It wasn't until after this covenant was in place that the covenant of circumcision came about (circumcision and law are the same thing - both being a cutting off of the flesh - one physically symbolizing the other).

So, everyone who has been saved, under any dispensation, has been saved by grace but access to that grace has had different requirements at different times for various and very wise reasons.

And to just bottom line this entirely too long post...

Jesus, Peter and the Twelve, James, Philip et. al all taught a gospel that was in keeping with the covenant of law which the nation of Israel had with God. Israel, as a nation, responded to that gospel by murdering Philip and seeking to kill or imprison anyone who was a follower of Jesus. God then decided to cut off the people of the circumcision (no coincidence there!) and to turn instead to the Gentiles with a new gospel where the law has no place and where people are still saved by grace but this time through faith alone apart from works. (Romans 4:5) Thus, what James says makes perfectly clear sense and it isn't hard at all to understand whatsoever. In fact, it would create a problem if James didn't teach that works were required because James was there when the agreement was made with Paul that they (Peter, James and John et. al.) would minister to "the circumcision" while Paul went to the Gentiles. (Galatians 2:6-9)

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Jesus, Peter and the Twelve, James, Philip et. al all taught a gospel that was in keeping with the covenant of law which the nation of Israel had with God. Israel, as a nation, responded to that gospel by murdering Philip and seeking to kill or imprison anyone who was a follower of Jesus.

I believe that you meant Stephen.

 

[Lon]

No Mid-Acts believer would ever desire (rightly) to remove James from the scripture. James wrote a brilliant epistle that is not only profitable now but will be critical when God returns to working directly with and through Israel. Besides, you couldn't remove the book of James without the same logic causing you to remove everything from Hebrews through Revelation!

Thank you, actually good information for grasping what Mid Acts is, and what Mid Acts isn't. Appreciate it.

The key to understanding the difference between what Paul teaches vs what all of the rest of the New Testament authors teach is to understand the difference between Israel and the Body of Christ. That difference being the law vs. grace. The law required faith but it also required obedience whereas Paul's gospel requires faith only. The confusion comes when we start talking about how the law in and of itself never saved anyone, right. Salvation is of grace and always has been but there is no disputing that obedience to the law was an absolute requirement so how does that work?

Well, it works because God gets to decide whom He will be gracious toward and for what reason. OH! That sounds sort of Calvinistic, you might be thinking! Well, that's another source of confusion on this matter in that Calvinism (Augustinianism actually) has so muddied the water that it actually difficult to discuss this stuff without getting misunderstood. I'm not saying anything that a Calvinist would actually agree with except in the broadest possible sense. The simple fact is that God was not required to save anyone. He could have removed Adam and Eve from existence and started over from scratch but, in His wisdom, decided on a better course where He would provide what was needed to satisfy justice and apply that payment to those He saw fit to apply it to.

I'm following so far, and yes, Calvinistic, but I have no problem with that. I've been labelled a Calvinist and a Mid Acts theologian specifically because of theology that agrees, likely.

So, who did He see fit to apply it to? Well, the answer to that question isn't arbitrary and it has changed from time to time. There's not sufficient time to go into all that in any detail and so let me just say, for the sake of brevity, that the common denominator has always been faith. The point being however, that it hasn't always been faith alone. In fact, it has only been faith alone since Paul's ministry. Prior to that, from righteous Cain right through to the early Acts period, obedience has been a major ingredient.

I think that's sufficient in and unto itself, I agree: faith. That said, would enjoy more whenever you get time and really (how much do I owe you?) appreciate you taking the time here. I have been trained in 2nd Acts Dispensationalism. If I have any feedback for that seminary, I'd suggest they send students to TOL for a year to discuss all of what they are learning. The most appreciable thing I've gotten from TOL over these 20 years is a genuine challenge to everything I believe or hold on to. Mid Acts is a very good theological skeleton, it is very easy (well, MOSTLY) system to hang all the rest of scripture onto for filtering how it makes sense. All that a long-winded way of saying 1) I think I follow even with small bit and 2) appreciate that there are long answers as well.

So, if obedience was required, how is it grace? Well, there are two things here. First, no one can be perfectly obedient and the reason they cannot be is because of the second thing which is the fact that we are descended from fallen Adam. Christ dealt with both issues at Calvary. Absolutely everyone that has ever lived, whether they were a believer or not, benefited from Christ dealing with that inherited part that we call the flesh. No one will go to Hell because they are descended from Adam (See Romans 5 and Ezekiel 18 - the whole of both chapters). That takes care of the second issue but what about the first? That too is dealt with by grace!

Yes, it is what I've always believed, but appreciate hearing it from someone in Mid Acts.

Israel had a covenant of law, not a covenant of grace. Law and grace are not synonyms, right! So a believing Jew would trust in God and obey the law to the best of his ability. He would repent when he failed and perform whatever ritual the law required to atone for his sins and in response to the obedient faith, God would grace that believer out in regards to any imperfections in his obedience. And so the law was under-girded by grace.

Yes, totally on page. Note with me: I 'think' 2nd Chapter Dispensationalism is convoluted. It REALLY was confusing for not just me, others that actually 'were' 2nd Acts Dispensationalists were confused in that class too. Until that point I'd have been more Covenant, and likely as you say, because at that time I had no exposure to Mid Acts (was seen as WAY away from orthodoxy). Maybe they were worried a lot of us would have become Mid Acts. Would explain some.

The covenant of grace, by the way, came first. Abraham (Abram at the time) made a covenant with God, or I should say that God made a covenant with Abraham where the blood sacrifices were cut in half (this is where the idiom "to cut a deal" comes from) and laid out and then God put Abraham into a deep sleep and God walked through the sacrificed animals alone. There was nothing required of Abraham in this covenant because he was unconscious when the deal was consummated. It wasn't until after this covenant was in place that the covenant of circumcision came about (circumcision and law are the same thing - both being a cutting off of the flesh - one physically symbolizing the other).

So, everyone who has been saved, under any dispensation, has been saved by grace but access to that grace has had different requirements at different times for various and very wise reasons.

And to just bottom line this entirely too long post...

No, likely not long enough but 'seems' sufficient (remember this is why I started this thread). Thank you and the loving effort. Appreciate it.

Jesus, Peter and the Twelve, James, Philip et. al all taught a gospel that was in keeping with the covenant of law which the nation of Israel had with God. Israel, as a nation, responded to that gospel by murdering Philip and seeking to kill or imprison anyone who was a follower of Jesus. God then decided to cut off the people of the circumcision (no coincidence there!) and to turn instead to the Gentiles with a new gospel where the law has no place and where people are still saved by grace but this time through faith alone apart from works. (Romans 4:5) Thus, what James says makes perfectly clear sense and it isn't hard at all to understand whatsoever. In fact, it would create a problem if James didn't teach that works were required because James was there when the agreement was made with Paul that they (Peter, James and John et. al.) would minister to "the circumcision" while Paul went to the Gentiles. (Galatians 2:6-9)

This is what I was attempting to synchronize between James and Paul. Both you, JR, and RD are correct. It'd likely be a better to say "2nd Chapter convolution" than "Churchanese" (or however JR spelled that). Sometimes when we go too hard, we get a knee-jerk reaction in response (thinking of the 'argument from silence faux pas in the other thread). Once someone doubles-down, dialogue is over. Jesus certainly did that with the Pharisees. I'm not Him, so 'try' to plant and water. Perhaps one can make a good case that water makes good cement? I'm more of a lover than a fighter. It has taken TOL a long time to hone me as iron sharpens iron appreciatively.

Clete

Thank you for all of this. Don't feel a need to respond to too much of my response, mostly it is appreciation but if the muse hits you... Be blessed today, Clete.

 

[Lon]

I believe that you meant Stephen.

Maybe Clete has inside information, ever think about that! You don't know!
(possibly died in Turkey, hanged but....)

 

[Clete]

I believe that you meant Stephen.

Yes! Of course I meant Stephen!

This error is actually what woke me up this morning at 4:30 and wouldn't let me go back to sleep.

It is also not the first time I've made this exact same mistake! I seem to have a glitch in my brain that wants to call Stephen, Phillip! I even do it when speaking to people about Stephen. I hate when weird unexplainable stuff like that happens.

 

[Clete]

Maybe Clete has inside information, ever think about that! You don't know!
(possibly died in Turkey, hanged but....)

Maybe Phillip was his middle name!

 

[Clete]

Thank you, actually good information for grasping what Mid Acts is, and what Mid Acts isn't. Appreciate it.

I'm following so far, and yes, Calvinistic, but I have no problem with that. I've been labelled a Calvinist and a Mid Acts theologian specifically because of theology that agrees, likely.

I think that's sufficient in and unto itself, I agree: faith. That said, would enjoy more whenever you get time and really (how much do I owe you?) appreciate you taking the time here. I have been trained in 2nd Acts Dispensationalism. If I have any feedback for that seminary, I'd suggest they send students to TOL for a year to discuss all of what they are learning. The most appreciable thing I've gotten from TOL over these 20 years is a genuine challenge to everything I believe or hold on to. Mid Acts is a very good theological skeleton, it is very easy (well, MOSTLY) system to hang all the rest of scripture onto for filtering how it makes sense. All that a long-winded way of saying 1) I think I follow even with small bit and 2) appreciate that there are long answers as well.

Yes, it is what I've always believed, but appreciate hearing it from someone in Mid Acts.

Yes, totally on page. Note with me: I 'think' 2nd Chapter Dispensationalism is convoluted. It REALLY was confusing for not just me, others that actually 'were' 2nd Acts Dispensationalists were confused in that class too. Until that point I'd have been more Covenant, and likely as you say, because at that time I had no exposure to Mid Acts (was seen as WAY away from orthodoxy). Maybe they were worried a lot of us would have become Mid Acts. Would explain some.




No, likely not long enough but 'seems' sufficient (remember this is why I started this thread). Thank you and the loving effort. Appreciate it.

This is what I was attempting to synchronize between James and Paul. Both you, JR, and RD are correct. It'd likely be a better to say "2nd Chapter convolution" than "Churchanese" (or however JR spelled that). Sometimes when we go too hard, we get a knee-jerk reaction in response (thinking of the 'argument from silence faux pas in the other thread). Once someone doubles-down, dialogue is over. Jesus certainly did that with the Pharisees. I'm not Him, so 'try' to plant and water. Perhaps one can make a good case that water makes good cement? I'm more of a lover than a fighter. It has taken TOL a long time to hone me as iron sharpens iron appreciatively.

Thank you for all of this. Don't feel a need to respond to too much of my response, mostly it is appreciation but if the muse hits you... Be blessed today, Clete.

My only response to this is to say three things...

First of all, I'm sorry about the Phillip/Stephen error. So embarrassing!

Second, I agree with, sympathize with and agonize over the confusion created THROUGHOUT the church by Acts 2 Dispensationalism. I simply hate the fact that it is the version of dispensationalism that has become main-stream, not only because it creates confusion among it's own proponents but because the same things that cause that confusion can so easily be used by the covenant theologians to discredit it. And, of course, when they do so, they get out their broadest brush and use it to discredit the whole of dispensational thinking, which is then exacerbated by the fact that Acts 2 dispensationalists are quick to label the Acts 9 version of the same doctrine as "hyper" or "extreme" or whatever term sounds the worst.

It seems that errors that get close to the truth are often the most damaging. Very frustrating!

Lastly, you ask good questions! Don't stop!

 

[Lon]

My only response to this is to say three things...

First of all, I'm sorry about the Phillip/Stephen error. So embarrassing!

Lol, I noticed BUT 1) I do it too AND it is usually JR that points it out! He's also a grammar nazi! (I actually appreicate the corrections because it also bugs me too) meh, we aren't perfect. I've come to also not get to hung up on some theology misapprehension. 2) I want to be 'right' and I believe it 'can' and should be Christ-honoring but sometimes its a pride thing. God has my back, I can be wrong once in awhile. I'm in good company of a plethora of saints. 3) I knew what you were talking about, if only my mistakes were this simple. Besides, I like the middle-name theory. I'm going to use it again on JR in the future (again, I actually appreciate the corrections JR, just razing you in good-hearted brotherly fun).

Second, I agree with, sympathize with and agonize over the confusion created THROUGHOUT the church by Acts 2 Dispensationalism. I simply hate the fact that it is the version of dispensationalism that has become main-stream, not only because it creates confusion among it's own proponents but because the same things that cause that confusion can so easily be used by the covenant theologians to discredit it. And, of course, when they do so, they get out their broadest brush and use it to discredit the whole of dispensational thinking, which is then exacerbated by the fact that Acts 2 dispensationalists are quick to label the Acts 9 version of the same doctrine as "hyper" or "extreme" or whatever term sounds the worst.

As I said above, "Okay, my non-salvific theology is a bit messed up, I think God's got me and is sovereign." In sovereignty, He has used TOL to hone my theology, by example. I'm in His eternal hands not by my own ability, but by His incredible and complete gift, desire, and power.

It seems that errors that get close to the truth are often the most damaging. Very frustrating!

I think so, and yes, I see the frustration. It gives me a lot of patience. I really want others to get this, even if they double-down because I too was (and likely still am in many ways) that guy.

Lastly, you ask good questions! Don't stop!

Thank you brother(s). Appreciate that. This thread needed to exist, I think for this exact reason. Appreciate the dialogue, instruction, and fellowship. Good for my soul.

 

[Idolater]

I'm not sure it needs an answer. It is rather, what do I agree with and where am I different from any other Mid Acts theologian? When I first came to TOL in 2004, I wasn't as solid on my own theology, kind of ecumenical with good training but no experience field yet to hammer out my theology. TOL has been very good for challenging me to take a stand and then further challenged to articulate that stance. Sometimes its about the journey but sure, there have been some amazing end-destinations along the way and I'm indebted to many on TOL for sharpening me, as iron sharpens iron. They may not always realize it, but fairly appreciate everyone here for doing the service! (Thank you!) It takes a lot of work correcting somebody else (or being likewise corrected). I am at least very appreciative of Mid Acts theologians and how Mid Acts theology has stream-lined what was a bit harder to categorize before I knew it. I'm also appreciative with as much guff as Mid Acts gets, that they have been gracious with me whether I am Mid Acts or not. So I've certainly gone MAD in my appreciations, and for now, that is enough. We'll see at the end of the thread/road maybe

At the end of the day the Berean method of examining the Scriptures to see if what someone says is true (up to and including an Apostle), is the Protestant Reformation, Lutheran (not the denomination but the man), Calvinist (not the branch of Christian theology but the man), Evangelical Sola Scriptura method.

It's ultimately about induction, and systematic induction at that, of the entire Christian Bible. Well except for seven books, which only are printed in Catholic Bibles, some modern Evangelical translations, and many older Bibles had them printed together, but they were gathered together into one section called the Apocryhpa, but most modern printers simply delete the "Apocrypha" (aka deuterocanon or deuterocanonical); they just don't provide these seven books to you.

But regardless the Sola Scriptura method is about induction, where the facts or raw data are the Scriptures themselves. Inductively then the task is to derive or determine or discern or interpret or understand or conceive of the deep structure of the Bible, to steal or borrow a term from linguistics.

Without this work we just say the Bible is God's Word and is infallible, but JW's say the same thing.

So the inductive work leads us to different branches of Christian theology, like Calvinism, JWism (modern Arians), Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, etc. All the isms are different takes with different narratives of what is ultimately an inductive investigation, where we're trying to discern the deep structure of the Scripture, which is what we each conceive of as the ontological truth of God.

But it's almost like Evangelicals leave out the fact of the story of the Bereans where it all began with a proposed teaching, it was what Paul was preaching to them. They went and checked on him, using the Scriptures (undoubtedly the Greek Septuagint since they were not in Palestine), but they did not linger there and inductively determine what the Scriptures actually say systemically. They just accepted Paul as speaking the truth of God to them, and listened to him.

The idea of starting from scratch, from a Cartesian skepticism, and building up from zero, is not found in the Bible anywhere, and certainly not in the story of the Bereans. They didn't create a systematic theology from whole cloth like you all are doing and trying to do. They started with Apostolic teaching.

 

[Right Divider]

The RCC is anti-Biblical.

 

[Idolater]

The RCC is anti-Biblical.

Arianism is anti-Biblical then too.

 

[Right Divider]

Arianism is anti-Biblical then too.

Thanks for confessing that the RCC is anti-Biblical.

P.S. Good thing that I'm not an Arian.

 

[Idolater]

Thanks for confessing that the RCC is anti-Biblical.

P.S. Good thing that I'm not an Arian.

But why is it anti-Biblical? Because it's not because Arians don't prove Arianism from the Bible. It's something else that they fail. Not the Sola Scriptura test. Every single Arian, both historically and modern day (JWs), always use the Bible to prove Arianism. So if it's anti-Biblical, then how? How does it work? What are the mechanics?

 

[Right Divider]

But why is it anti-Biblical? Because it's not because Arians don't prove Arianism from the Bible. It's something else that they fail. Not the Sola Scriptura test. Every single Arian, both historically and modern day (JWs), always use the Bible to prove Arianism. So if it's anti-Biblical, then how? How does it work? What are the mechanics?

The body of Christ is NOT a descendant of Israel, it is a NEW creature.
The body of Christ does not have twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. We have a single apostle as our source.

1Cor 11:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:1) Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.​

The RCC has tried to "cheat the system" by claiming to have authority derived from Israel.

P.S. I'm fully aware that this will fall on your deaf ears.

 

[Idolater]

The body of Christ is NOT a descendant of Israel, it is a NEW creature.
The body of Christ does not have twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. We have a single apostle as our source.

1Cor 11:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:1) Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.​

The RCC has tried to "cheat the system" by claiming to have authority derived from Israel.

That has nothing at all to do with whether or not Arianism is anti-Biblical. You're not even addressing the question.

P.S. I'm fully aware that this will fall on your deaf ears.

 

[Right Divider]

That has nothing at all to do with whether or not Arianism is anti-Biblical. You're not even addressing the question.

I don't care to discuss Arianism.