A Helpful Review of Whosoever Will

-
Trevin Wax has a helpful review on the book I’m blogging through posted here.

He is more balanced than me.

[5/8/10: Here's a book review from someone who is much more sympathetic.]

Comments

Phillip said…
John, You stated, on FB "Orthodoxy is by definition what the Bible teaches..."

Webster defines orthodox as "conforming to established doctrine especially in religion" But how is that "doctrine" established?

The Cambridge English Dictionary narrows it down to "the generally accepted beliefs of society at a particular time."

Since the orthodox view can change with time, or with different leadership, we agree that it should be established by Scripture, but since man takes different positions on the meaning of certain passages, how can truth be established by men? I assert that it cannot. Man is flawed. Only God is perfect, and has perfect understanding.

If that is true, then we cannot look to man's writings about the Scriptures, and the meaning thereof. The WC, the TULIP, the Nicean Creed, the Apostles Creed, even the Baptist Faith and Message, are all used to establish orthodoxy, although the writers of these materials all agree that the only embodiment of written truth, is found in "sola scriptura".

While men may write many wonderful books about the Bible, and even give their understanding of certain passages, and in conjunction with other men, establish an orthodox concensus, that cannot establish truth.

The Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees, etc., all had one thing in common. They each had orthodoxy. And yet, TRUTH dispelled their views, and said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man cometh to the Father, but by Me.

There are differing views of how men come to Jesus. There are differing views on what it means to come to Jesus.There are even differing views on Jesus Himself.

I believe that each of these groups, who sincerely were seeking to establish truth, through the study of God's Word were, and are, seeking to be honorable. But even honorable men, can be wrong. The Pharisees and the Sadducees differed. But, when Jesus threatened their understanding of "truth" (the orthodox view at that time), they crucified Him.

We also saw that when others threatened orthodoxy. A new translation into the English language got Tyndale burned by religious leaders. I only know of one religious view that allows for differing views, within its ranks. It is among Baptists, which hold to the priesthood of the believer and soul competency. Even that is changing, and has changed over time, and now we have some "Baptists", if you challenge them on doctrine, will say, "Well, the Baptist Faith & Message says..."

The Councils never got it all correct, and I don't either. Job, "bless his heart", had his friends telling him one thing, and even they couldn't all agree. But Job, the one that God gave testimony of, "...that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil..", was confronted by God, when he thought he had it all figured out, and was chided by the Almighty.

God help us to never think we have everything about God, His salvation, His Son Jesus Christ, nor any such doctrine, until we see him as He is, and we are made like Him.

With Love In Christ,
Phillip Senn
October 19, 2021
J. K. Jones said…
My religion defines orthodoxy as what the Bible says, not what culture says. Please be careful that in your comments you don't make knowledge of God and the Bible impossible. You come close to doing just that.

As soon as you explain to me what the Bible says you have established a creed or confession. In that sense, creeds and confessions are unavoidable. You can say, for example, that we only need to worry about Jesus and not doctrine, but as soon as I ask you who Jesus was, you are engaging in theology and have developed some form of creed. If you refuse to tell me who Jesus was, you have failed in your witness.

Job was confronted by God because Job questioned God's justice and wisdom throughout the book which bears his name in the chapters that follow the one you quoted from. He was not confronted because he had it all figured out. Job is a bad example for your argument.

To not know everything about God is a different thing than to not know anything about God. We cannot know everything about God, but we can know what He has revealed about Himself. To say that we cannot know something that God has clearly revealed in the Bible is to insult God by basically saying He is incapable of explaining Himself.

Lastly, just because someone does not have the right understanding of Scripture does not mean that no one has the right understanding of Scripture. Either someone is telling the truth or no one is telling the truth, but it does not follow that truth cannot be known.
October 19, 2021
Phillip said…
John, There is a big difference in a doctrinal statement or confession of beliefs, and a creedal statement, the latter of which some men use as a standard of what is necessary to believe to be right. When men use, as the standard for truth, other men's writings, they have strayed from the truth. Clearly, man can see revealed truth, in God's Word, but man's writings, and understandings, concerning God, will always have two limitations, the human nature and the fact that God limits Himself, as to what He reveals of Himself.
October 19, 2021
J. K. Jones said…
Yet the fact remains that God has revealed what I believe concerning salvation in the Bible. Jesus Christ was a Calvinist. So was the Apostle Paul. I use what is clearly defined in the Bible in defense of my doctrine/dogma/orthodoxy. To fail to believe what God has revealed once it is understood is sin in and of itself.

It's it time we abandon this line of argument and start talking about what the Bible says?
October 19, 2021
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr
Read more