 |
|
|
I've been preaching 25 years almost; I've never seen the anointing as frightening as I saw in Denver Friday night; and so when you hear me in just a little bit give blessings and cursings ... any who attack this anointing, I speak a judgment on them.
-- Benny Hinn, TBN, Denver CO
|
|
| |
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: What If The Creeds Are Wrong? (Score: 1)
 by Kyle Peterson (peterson.kyle@gmail.com) on Monday, February 12 @ 09:22:31 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | | This is one of the best articles by Ed I've read. I forgot how eloquent he can be when he writes regarding theology/eschatology. Thanks for the contribution! |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Monday, February 12 @ 13:46:18 PST
Re: Ed didn't go Far Enough! (Score: 1)
 by Starlight on Monday, February 12 @ 12:18:26 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Ed is making some very candid and strong points, but in my estimation his following comments do not go far enough. I have not had the opportunity to read the complete article so he may cover the position I’m bringing up but I doubt that he would.
Ed…“Yes! The creeds can be wrong and probably do deviate in a few points from the Biblical position. Only Scripture never needs change. All human documents need adjustments as experience and understanding grow.”
Ed…“If the creeds of the early church were perfect and needed no revision, why were they revised and updated in succeeding councils? Why didn’t the revision stop? Why didn’t the Western church stay with all the doctrines that she once held in the second and third centuries? Why didn’t the Eastern Orthodox churches follow the exact same creeds as the Western Roman churches? Why didn’t the Lutherans and Anglicans stay with the earlier Catholic beliefs? Why did the Reformers break away and develop even more independent creedal and confessional frameworks? Why are even more doctrines continually being developed today (such as the Reconstruction movement, etc.)? Doesn’t this tell us something? Our understanding of Scripture is constantly improving, so it shouldn’t surprise us that our creeds need revision”
I’ll take Ed’s position a step further, why do we blindly adhere to the “myth” that our earlier canonization of scripture by earlier fallible men cannot be scrutinized with new Preterist eyes today. The wholesale abandoning of religious writings from the permitted “authorized” list smells in my estimation. After reviewing recently some of the commonly read writings from the early periods it has become apparent to me we most likely would not have the dispensationalist view today if we had left some of these writings available to the common populace.
We have had the scriptures screened for us by those who do not read in a Full Preterist point of view. Therefore writings such as 1Enoch, The Book of Jubilees, and the Book of Barnabas which would have accurately pointed out the AD70 coming in less ambiguous language for readers have been kept hidden and listed as taboo for believers. There’s your conspiracy that I can finally buy into, one that has been perpetrated for hundreds of years on unsuspecting believers. It’s a similar viewpoint to the old idea that is still hanging around that the King James Version was the “authorized” version. Remember how hard it was for that idea to pass away, it literally took the physical passing away of that generation before it too started to die out.
The problem is that Preterist of all groups are still buying into the idea that fallible nonpreterist men should pick what is scripture for us. I propose that Preterist reevaluate the early writings and see what is out there and make new updated proposals. The problem is that very few Full Preterist have read for themselves the writings in question.
This raises the inquiry of how scripture should be identified in the first place. I suggest it should not be determined by those who do not understand the Full Preterist position. Ed has made some good points in his article, but taking on the creeds is small potatoes to one who never thought of them as infallible in the first place.
I can hear the “tradition encumbered” folks now as they start their death scream of anguish over this heretical idea, in fact they are probably still silently screaming because those poor Pharisees were thrown into the abyss in the first place.
Norm
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Monday, February 12 @ 13:52:50 PST
- by Starlight on Monday, February 12 @ 16:01:55 PST
- by Virgil on Monday, February 12 @ 17:35:03 PST
- by mazuur on Tuesday, February 13 @ 05:02:35 PST
- by Starlight on Tuesday, February 13 @ 07:23:36 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 13 @ 07:48:26 PST
- by Starlight on Tuesday, February 13 @ 08:10:08 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 13 @ 08:21:55 PST
- by Starlight on Tuesday, February 13 @ 10:38:31 PST
- by watton on Tuesday, February 13 @ 08:14:52 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 13 @ 08:19:03 PST
- by Starlight on Wednesday, February 14 @ 08:30:02 PST
- by Virgil on Wednesday, February 14 @ 09:32:30 PST
- by Starlight on Wednesday, February 14 @ 09:51:03 PST
- by Virgil on Wednesday, February 14 @ 09:54:55 PST
- by Starlight on Wednesday, February 14 @ 09:57:22 PST
- by Starlight on Tuesday, February 13 @ 17:03:21 PST
- by watton on Tuesday, February 13 @ 17:52:32 PST
- by Starlight on Wednesday, February 14 @ 08:18:52 PST
- by mazuur on Tuesday, February 13 @ 08:33:30 PST
- by Starlight on Tuesday, February 13 @ 12:22:31 PST
- by mazuur on Tuesday, February 13 @ 14:07:22 PST
- by Starlight on Tuesday, February 13 @ 14:37:55 PST
- by mazuur on Tuesday, February 13 @ 16:25:51 PST
- by mazuur on Tuesday, February 13 @ 17:42:21 PST
- by Starlight on Wednesday, February 14 @ 05:56:41 PST
- by mazuur on Wednesday, February 14 @ 06:18:39 PST
- by Starlight on Wednesday, February 14 @ 07:59:19 PST
- by mazuur on Wednesday, February 14 @ 13:39:29 PST
What if the Creeds are right? (Score: 1)
 by JL (j.l.preterist@gmail.com) on Monday, February 19 @ 21:35:19 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | What if the Creeds are right, but everyone is interpreting them wrong?
What if the Apostles' Creed came from the apostles? Then it's not wrong, it's fulfilled.
We already know that the Apostles' Creed is no longer used by the Church the way it originally was. It was a baptismal confession. The creedalists baptize infants incapable of confessing anything. These creedalists make the Apostles' Creed null and void by their own actions.
The Nicene Creed added, "We believe in baptism for remission of sins," because it had a different purpose. It has always been a corporate, liturgical confession. When the Apostles Creed was used, it was part of baptism. The Nicene affirmed that.
In John Chrysostom's Liturgy, the reciting of the Nicene Creed is followed by several prayers, three of which thank God for having raised the corporate body from the dead, Jesus' already past second coming, and for having brought God's kingdom. All fulfilled.
This Liturgy has been recited 41+ Sundays a year in every Eastern Orthodox congregation since about AD 400. It was recited in all Roman Catholic congregations until about AD 1200, and is still used by some to this day.
If the creeds are true, the Church of Christ and Christian Church could solve that problem by doubling the length our baptismal confession. We would not need to change our actual beliefs. Preterism is not the problem.
If the creeds are true, the rest of you are lost, but not due to preterism. Churches that have heresy trials and condemn people by the creeds are dead in their hypocrisy. They have condemned themselves by their false use of that standard. A fulfilled creed is not a problem. But a false baptism, a baptism contrary to the creeds, is damnable.
JL |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by MiddleKnowledge on Tuesday, February 20 @ 12:26:03 PST
- by JL on Tuesday, February 20 @ 12:55:05 PST
| 
|
