With a scriptural presupposition of perpetuity enough historical evidence exists to support that viewpoint. Many historians vouch for this. Cardinal Hosius wrote in the 16th century that the Anabaptists had been persecuted by the state church for years :.
We shall afterwards show the rise of the Anabaptists took place prior to the Reformation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the Continent of Europe small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of Divine Truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church.
We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times, Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who, long in the history of the church, received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the apostles, and, as a Christian society, has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all ages.
I include these only as samples. There are many more quotes that back the hypothesis that assemblies existed separate from Roman Catholicism, which believed and practiced the Bible. They long predate the Reformation, substantiating a perpetuity viewpoint. Modernism of the nineteenth century brought a solely empirical basis for truth. The nature of knowledge brought the necessity of rational justification for faith. Traditional beliefs that proceeded from scripture alone were questioned and criticized.
The empiricist claimed knowledge through the senses alone. The only reasonable view of the world comes by scientific discovery. Sufficient evidence for perpetuity could be questioned next to the massive documentation of Roman Catholicism.
This clashes with the doctrine of scripture. Faith is the basis of pleasing God and faith comes by hearing the Word of God. I like to say that faith bypasses our lying eyes. Revelation exceeds, transcends, or eclipses discovery. At the same time, perpetuity is reasonable because scripture is reasonable.
Enough history exists either direct or indirect to corroborate the scriptural presupposition of perpetuity. Saying that the truth was lost and the church ceased as an institution is not reasonable. You know the conclusion. Restoration and reformation are false, but perpetuity is true.
What does that mean for authority, the truth, or the church? It has repercussions worth exploring. What does that leave you? Pleasing God requires living by faith, which means obeying scripture.
With a different explanation, it can also be false though, and dangerous. What I read, very often it is. T etelestai is perfect passive not to get super Greeky with you , not the aorist tense, completed action.
With the perfect, the work is done, but the results are ongoing. How do you know your salvation is done? The work that Jesus does transforms the actual life, not some kind of fanciful, chimerical life, not actually lived.
You are when you lump sanctification with justification. It shows up. God provides measurables. They changed their mind about their not trusting in what Jesus did. They repented of depending on self. When God saves someone, He changes him, makes him a new creature 2 Cor The eternal life he possesses is more than a quantity of life, but a quality of life. The epistle of 1 John says the life of God indwells the done one 1 John ,2, , what Peter described as partaking of the Divine nature 2 Peter First, the Holy Spirit is so called because He possesses the infinite Divine holiness, in contrast to all created spirits and it should not surprise us that the Holy Spirit is the immediate Agent of Christ casting out unclean spirits.
Second, as One who is utterly transcendent and pure in His being, and One who is to the highest degree consecrated to and in the closest union with the Father and the Son—that is, as One who is holy, and in accordance with the order of operations in the Trinity where the Divine acts are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit, because the Son is eternally of the Father, and the Spirit eternally from the Father and the Son, the Spirit is the Divine Person who immediately acts in making men holy.
In other words, He is called the Holy Spirit because His nature is holy and His operations or works are holy and produce holiness in redeemed creatures. This is the most usual appellation of him in the New Testament; and it is derived from the Old: Ps. Some suppose it is only from his peculiar work of sanctifying us, or making us holy: for this effect of sanctification is his peculiar work, and that of what sort soever it be; whether it consist in a separation from things profane and common, unto holy uses and services, or whether it be the real infusion and operation of holiness in men, it is from him in an especial manner.
And this also manifesteth him to be God, for it is God alone who sanctifieth his people: Lev. And this respects his nature , in the first place, and not merely his operations. So also are they opposed with respect unto their natures.
His nature is holy, whereas that of the unclean spirit is evil and perverse. So 1 Sam. Bavinck Reformed Dogmatics, vol. The Spirit is God as the immanent principle of life throughout creation. You can learn more about the true God, the Triune God, in the class here. Search Search. Tozer explained it the same way: The sad and depressing bitter soul will compile a list of slights at which it takes offense and will watch over itself like a mother bear over her cubs.
Perhaps the preceding verse, verse 14, gives a clue: Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Postmodern Grace Spurgeon assessed failing of true grace comes by replacing it with something short of the grace of God. God in His sovereignty chose to have us seek Him. That is who He is. The lesser seeks the greater. It is humble. How obvious God is pertains to His wanting us to seek Him. Pride and lust get in the way of not seeking God. Those exalting themselves above God will not seek God.
They seek after what they exalt, which is their own lust. Men walk after their own lust and this inhibits seeking after God. Men serve the creature rather than the Creator. God has done everything for us. It should be us seeking Him. It must be. Faith pleases God. The way God reveals Himself requires faith from men. Faith is not be sight 2 Corinthians Faith occurs in this age.
The way God reveals Himself is good enough for the one who believes. Only the one who believes receives eternal life with God John ,16, Kent and Bridget had both just finished college and graduate school and sent by a Baptist church, he got a job at a sporting goods store and her as a bank teller. They began in the multipurpose room of an elementary school, but after a year and a half obtained a building and Bethel Baptist Church was founded in El Sobrante, California, just north of Berkeley in the East Bay.
The church grew almost entirely through new converts, very few transfers of membership, door-to-door evangelism, evangelistic Bible studies, thirty week discipleship, and expository preaching through every book of the Bible. Several men with the desire of the office of a bishop were trained, and the Brandenburgs left one of them to pastor, David Sutton, as Bethel sent them out again this time as missionaries, first in Southern Oregon, in Jackson County, population , In the first year, they will both evangelize, plant the church, and raise support from other like-minded churches.
Historical fundamentalism was not exclusively Baptist, dispensational, or pre-millenial, yet today those have become fundamentals to a highly visible segment of "fundamentalists" who will separate over those beliefs. Most of the people I encounter aren't familiar with the term unless it is applied to Islam. They do understand and engage in conversation when I use words like Bible, God, and Jesus. I agree that the term, "fundamentalist", isn't very helpful these days unless speaking amongst ourselves.
I don't really like being called one because of its associations. But the bigger issue for Mr. Brandenburg is the issue of fellowship.
The Bible values fellowship amongst God's people, and even amongst God's local churches. From what I know of Mr. Brandenburg, he does not value fellowship. Rather, he thrives on separation. Thus, the real reason for his slap at "fundamentalists". The word "worship" has become one of those words that floats from meaning to meaning. Even the word "church" to some means a building, to others, clergy, to many believers "them," but never "us.
Words like love, Christian, Biblical, evangelical, reformed , or fundamentalist must be defined for any discussion to be intelligent, and one must adhere to that definition. To me, Brandenburg represents why I evaded the term "fundamentalist" for a while.
The definition of terms cannot be emphasized too much. We cannot speak intelligently if we do not agree on definitions, at least within a particular conversation.
Brandenberg's definition of fundamentalism seems to be the original one. He is right, that, based upon the original definition, he is not one. Based upon the popular definition within the evangelical world , he is a fundamentalist -- exemplifying the reason why many evade the term including me, for a while. Like Brandenberg, I seek to be Biblical. Unlike Brandenberg, I recognize being Biblical is an aspiration, and it would be arrogant of me to say that I am Biblical.
The Bible is infallible; attempts to implement the Bible are very fallible. Further complicating the matter, apart from how you define "Fundamentalist," is how Kent defines "fellowship" vs. For him, it's basically specific cooperative ministry endeavors, period. Sharing a cup of coffee isn't fellowship, and there aren't different levels based on levels of agreement.
He can be cordial to someone and enjoy some kind of a relationship and ongoing conversation, but that isn't "fellowship" in any sense of the term as far as he is concerned. For him, "fellowship" is going to take place in a local church context with a few other exceptions.
It took longer than I would have expected, but someone above did finally indirectly attach the glaringly obvious label that applies to Brandenburg and apparently KLengel : hyper-fundamentalist. There are other labels that come readily to mind, but I suppose it wouldn't necessarily be constructive to go there. If there is a more accurate label that does not include the term "fundamentalist" at all, that would benefit those who do accept the fundamentalist label more even more than it would gratify Brandenburg et al.
First of all, you don't know me. Second, I don't believe I nor Kent are hyper-fundamentalists. I have read Dr. Bauder's characterization of hyper-fundamentalists, and I can tell you that I am not.
Third, I think labelling people in general is not a very Christ-like thing, especially when using perjorative labels for others. Fourth, many on this board constantly challenge those who are more conservative than themselves in this fashion, regardless of the intellectual and thoughtful scholarship of those men. I would suggest that some on this forum show a lack of appreciation for scholarship and use innuendo many times in response to others. Those are clear signs of hyper-fundamentalists.
Perhaps you should look in the mirror in your glass house. KLengel wrote: I think labelling people in general is not a very Christ-like thing. I'm a Puxoxfordistialist. What's a Puxoxfordistialist?
I just made up the word. It has no meaning. But puxoxfordistism is a better word that fundamentalism because, while it is void of meaning, at least it has not been reinvented, revisionalized for the umpteenth time.
Why are people so quick to malign Brandenburg? He's not a raving maniac, you know! I haven't seen any videos of him burning NIV's or pushing for the theory that Codex Sinaiticus was a Jesuit conspiracy.
Nobody has to agree with everything the guy says I certainly don't! Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. TylerR wrote:.
Tyler, I agree that people shouldn't be so quick to malign or jump to innuendo or ad hominem when dealing with a brother like Kent. However, you should understand that for long-timers here, there is a bit of history there, even though that doesn't completely excuse it. Kent himself is somewhat, shall we say, pugilistic at times in his tone and argumentation. Maybe more than just at times, at least back then. In fact, the original owner of SI disabled his posting privileges back a number of years ago with the main stated reason being "tone," though there may have been more behind it.
I didn't agree with that decision, though I wasn't on the admin team at that time, because I thought SI would be more likely to fulfill its mission if fundamentalists across the spectrum or those similar in doctrine to fundamentalists, as Kent doesn't claim that label any longer -- he may not have even at the time -- I don't remember any more took part in the discussions.
Staff Picks. Comments , ALL sec. Top Sermons. Online Bible. Daily Reading. Our Services. Broadcaster Dashboard. Members Only. Broadcasters Biography none given. Page 1 Found: 6 sermons. Kent Brandenburg Cozaddale Baptist Temple. MP4 RSS. Sermon: Exodus 80 My Angel Dr.
0コメント