Or
When Famed Theologian Dr. James White Reached His Level of Incompetence.
(published so I can use links in making a video - but UNDER CONSTRUCTION)
There is a saying in business that people rise through the ranks to their level of incompetence. There was actually a sociological study done of this, about matching talents and abilities to tasks and vocations. An example was seen for decades in the Evangelical movement where great evangelists who tried to be pastors most times failed and there were several reasons for this, the most common being simply the "traveler being out of his depths" since being a pastor is a thousand times more difficult and demanding that traveling and preaching several exciting canned sermons. In those days (and I do not speak of these days since Evangelicalism has become unrecognizable to me in the last to decades of Apostasy).
Do I dare make a fool of Dr. James White, when he has debated and I think won the debates with,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_White_(theologian)
I am reminded of the words of ( ) who said, "
Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and (according to the words of Paul the Apostle, to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5. 12) does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves."
Now, as to exposing the foolishness of Dr James White, where he has risen to the level of his incompetence, I make not judgement of him as a person, because for quite some time I have admired his apologetic work, his protection of the integrity of Holy Scripture despite his malformed understanding of what it is. He thinks it is the sum total of God's revelation, and apparently (he will deny this but it is true) - apparently he thinks it is a magic book that fell from heaven and that there was not Church Tradition in which it was formed.
Insert the Video:
My favorite Orthodox Bishop sent me a note saying, "@ minute 17:20 you named two categories of people that come to scripture without training or guidance, the rationalizers who destroy the scripture and the romanticizers who create spiritual fantasies and delusion, to be fair, there is a third category you should acknowledge, that being sincerely people who study in humility, which may lead them to prayer, and to faith in Jesus Christ and sometimes they find the Church."
He is right, in fact, I've met several people who exactly fit the category he describes.
++++++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
Bond Robin:
The visible Church has never been "perfect" but it is historically provable that the Holy Spirit has guided her both in forming the Liturgy of Worship first, based on the form of hours prayers and Temple Liturgy and the canon of scriptures second, having grasped from the beginning the Gospel in oral form, now having four parts which are greatly honored above all other written Icons. If I may use the analogy James White only understands "Reform" as the 7.9 earthquakes, that make corrections which destroy everything in its path. The Church Militant, filled with those sorry "sons" as White said in the video, exists in a constant state of seismic rumble. If it builds enough pressure to create the Earthquake, everyone in the world sees it, 1054 AD, 2019 AD, and it is under the pressure of Globalist powers, two earthquakes in two thousand years - that's a pretty good record.
New Age New Shoes said:
I wonder if an Indian, while meditating on the mountain, feeling the
heavenly spirit run through him as the wind blows, would benefit from
all those texts and religion.......probably not.
Bond
NOTE**
Even wikipedia and the Oxford dictionary are less truncated in their understanding.
From Wikipedia: Metanoia, a transliteration of the Greek μετάνοια, means after-thought or beyond-thought, with meta meaning "after" or "beyond" and nous meaning "mind". It's commonly understood as "a transformative change of heart; especially: a spiritual conversion."
Even the definition of "change of heart" barely touch the concept and change of mind tounches it NOT AT ALL.
I'm going to state something in the words of an old friend Fr Rosette, we were informally discussing how one comes to Orthodox Christianity to the Church and he wrote:
+++
The central focus of Orthodox practice is the Divine Liturgy. And no early Christian ever called it (1) A Mass or (2) The Lord's Supper. And this example show you how the people who do not follow Holy Tradition, only end up following man made Traditions "thinking" they are one step ahead of Orthodoxy.
"Ite, missa est", was the dismissal of the
catechumens and I thought is appropriate that what those Latins would remember was the dismissal.
There is only one reference to "the Lord's Supper" in scripture I can find - if I'm wrong correct me - And that is the scripture in where the Apostle Paul is scolding the Corinthians who had apparently created an innovation from their pagan roots and were having what was "a Feast of the Lord" which was a big gluttonous and drunken celebration." I would have loved to see it. Honest, it would have been great entertainment, but NOT "the Lord's Supper" and certainly not the Holy Eucharist. And in fact in emphatic language the Apostle Paul tells them "This is NOT the Lord's Supper" that the gluttonous, drunken feast they were enjoying was NOT the Lord's Supper. That eleventh chapter starts out with a very instructive sentence - let's examine it. (compare the translations hiding the word Tradition in the second verse. Then go to the titles in the "reformed bibles" all of them labeling the text "the Lord's Supper" and even the popular and scholarly Roman Catholic addition "Lord's Supper") Now this is all very strange when you realize that the first time the phrase "The Last Supper" appears in Christian literature is Augustine in AD 420, the 5th century and by a Latin Father who didn't read or speak Greek. And it is anyone's guess when the term "The Lord's Supper" turned up, since in the New Testament it is spoken ONLY IN REBUKE.
Now if it took 400 years for even the phrase The Last Supper to appear in Christian Literature, do you really think that when the Reformed Theologian James White, lectures on "The Lord's Supper" that he is truly referencing the Eucharist, the Eu-Charis the New Grace, that is and was the central point of the Divine Liturgy? How far is his "TRADITION" removed from the Reality.
(Insert Video Clip)
"The Lord's Supper, that SYMBOL of Unity." - White said: six hours of instruction - I don't have the patience to watch it. Why? Because at the end I would have wasted my time, there is nothing about any reconstruction of the Orthodox Central Ancient Christian Worship that can have any meaning for me, other than just jaded curiosity.
The Lord Jesus, in the now close proximity of His passion, after praying for His disciples, whom He also named apostles, with whom He had partaken of that last supper from which His betrayer had taken his departure on being revealed by the sop of bread, and with whom, after the latter’s departure, and before beginning His prayer in their behalf, He had already spoken at length, conjoined all others also who were yet to believe on Him, and said to the Father, ... " - Tractate CIX. Chapter XVII.
Orthodox Christians were meeting and worshiping and celebrating the Divine Liturgy whose central focus was the Eu-Charis the means of accepting the New Grace made available through Christ's sacrifice, the Eucharist, not the Lord's Supper, but having a correspondence with what was NOT Christ's Last Supper, because he broke bread with the Disciples with whom he traveled on the road to Emmaus and in the same time period he ate fish and bread with the Apostles, this was post resurrection.
So really the two "clouding - phrase migrating" expressions of the Reformers, Last Supper and Lord's Supper is part of their TRADITION.
By Father Roselli: (2007)
A discussion
of Orthodoxy needs to be predicated on a few things:
1. Orthodoxy is not a discussion, it's an experience. What I mean by that is, you can't really know what Orthodoxy is by trading descriptions of it, because it isn't an academic subject: it's the stuff of Personal, living relationship with Jesus Christ.
I, for instance, could ask, "What kind of clothes does Kirk have in his closet? What brand of toothpaste does he use? Which "management gurus" inspired him to do his job the way he does it?
This would give me a lot of information *about* Kirk, but I would not really *know* Kirk until I walked up, shook his hand, looked him in the eye and had a face-to-face discussion with him. Orthodoxy leads us into such an experience of Jesus.
You and I have been rattling on, now, on the same discussion group, for a couple of weeks. Still, you don't know me and I don't know you. We can identify schools of thought the other fellow might subscribe to, but we don't know each other because we have not really experienced each other.
So, Orthodoxy must be seen in terms of relationship, not didactics.
2. Orthodoxy is not studied, it is absorbed. By this I mean that we can read all the catechisms in the world, memorize the Orthodox Study Bible's commentary notes, memorize all eight tones of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and be able to follow it, word for word, in Greek, Slavonic and whatever our native language is, and score perfectly on a Comparative Religion "Orthodoxy" exam--and we will still know nothing about Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy proceeds from a mindset. That mindset comes from absorbing oneself in the Church Fathers, and permitting one's outlook and way of thinking to be molded by them.
This is not a search for "the rules." The Fathers were a widely varied bunch, and they occasionally argued with each other over the best ways to live. The thing is, though, they did it within an identifiable point of view. But we can't find this point of view by looking for it with an eye to defining it. It needs to be formed inside of us.
3. It isn't an ordeal. By this I mean that people are all too often looking for hard things to do to "prove themselves to God." How do we do that? God already knows everything about us.
I liken God to a heated swimming pool: relax, Be comfortable. Lie back. You'll float. The more you tense up, the more work you try to do yourself, the less relaxed you are, the more you sink.
When people ask me how they should read the Fathers, I tell them to sit in their favorite chair in their favorite spot at a comfortable time of day, maybe with a brandy and a cigar, a cup of coffee, a root beer or nothing at all. Whatever they prefer. And just read for enjoyment, without trying to unearth any "deep spiritual truths." After a while you
will discover yourself discovering some deep spiritual truths, totally unbidden, without working for them.
4. Orthodoxy is about Jesus. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, of Orthodoxy. He is also the Middle. So, before we do anything else, we need to understand that Jesus is Lord. Not one of many "lords," not "a god," not one of many great spiritual teachers, not one choice among many--but very God, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Son of God and God the Son, the only Lord, The Way, The Truth and The
Life, in Whom there is salvation.
This is where it all starts.
Whenever someone is making an absolute beginning in Orthodoxy, the first place I direct him to is a book written by C.S. Lewis entitled "Mere Christianity. " It is the finest basic primer on the Christian Faith that I have ever encountered, bar none. I invite him to discuss the book with me as questions arise.
Fr. Jim Rosselli
The Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom is the shortened version of the Liturgy of Saint Basil
Saint John died just seven years into the 5th century (AD 407)
Saint Basil died AD 376.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17972/what-is-the-earliest-written-surviving-liturgy
What is the earliest written surviving liturgy?
What is the earliest written surviving liturgy?
The first source for the history of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist is obviously the account of the Last Supper in the New Testament. It was because Our Lord told us to do what He had done, in memory of Him, that Christian liturgies exist. Despite the differences in the various Eucharistic liturgies they all obey His command to do "this," namely what He Himself had done. A definite pattern for the celebration of the Eucharist had developed within decades of the death of Our Lord, a pattern which was carried on well past the conclusion of the 1st century, and which can still be discerned clearly in the finalized Roman Mass of 1570.
The earliest and most detailed account of the Eucharist is found in St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, which, of course, predates the Gospels, and was written in Ephesus between 52-55 A.D. Scholars agree that the Consecration formula used by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11, quotes verbatim from a stylized formula already in use in the Apostolic liturgy. St. Paul's account reads:
"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: This is My Body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after He had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in My Blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For as often as you shall eat this Bread, and drink the Chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this Bread, or drink the Chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord." [1 Cor: 11: 23-27].
Throughout the first century or so after St. Paul's description of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist there can be found written fragmented accounts of how the early liturgical celebrations developed. Most of these accounts are the testimonial fruits of of religious intolerance and/or persecution.
One account comes from Pliny (C. Plinius Caecilius, c. 62-113). About the years 111-113 he writes as the young governor of Bithynia to his master, the Emperor Trajan, to ask about what he should do to Christians. He describes what he has learned about them from Christians who had apostatized under torture. Referring to his apostate informers, he recounts what the apostates revealed about Christian worship:
“They assert that this is the whole of their fault or error, that they were accustomed on a certain day to meet together before daybreak and to sing a hymn alternately to Christ as a god, and that they bound themselves by an oath (sacramento) not to do any crime, but only not to commit theft nor robbery nor adultery, not to break their word nor to refuse to give up a deposit. When they had done this, it was their custom to depart, but to meet again to eat food - ordinary and harmless food however.”
The earliest account of a finalized liturgy is given to us by St. Justin Martyr (100–165). In his apologetic account of Christian life to the Roman hierarchy he describes the Christian liturgy of the Early Church in his First Apology (ca. 150) (Chapter 65):
“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president (i.e. presiding Presbyter) of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο (so be it). And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.”
Although the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist has somewhat changed extrinsically since the Last Supper, its basic components and movements have remained very similar to the liturgy described above in Justin Martyr’s apologetic account – especially in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. The current ordinary form of the Latin Mass is synonymous to his liturgy in almost every aspect. - (composed by
John Peyton
One of the oldest preserved liturgies (a 1st Century liturgy) is for "St Mark the Evangelist" and writer of the 2nd Gospel (and also a disciple of St Paul, review Acts 15:37, 2Tim 4:11) who came to Egypt through Libya, established one of the earliest churches, and His liturgy was well preserved and later included entirely in the St. Cyril liturgy that the "Coptic Orthodox Church" still pray till today. The additions made by St. Cyril are known and old papyrus in the desert monasteries in Egypt helped scholars (such as late Fr. Matta El Maskeen) identify the addition by St Cyril.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canons_of_Hippolytus
The Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles
Composed by St Adaeus and St Mark (Oriental Orthodox) Dates by to the 2nd century.
Justin Martyr
G K Chesterton: "
This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic. The Church in its early days went fierce and fast with any warhorse; yet it is utterly unhistoric to say that she merely went mad along one idea, like a vulgar fanaticism. She swerved to left and right, so exactly as to avoid enormous obstacles. She left on one hand the huge bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make Christianity too worldly. The next instant she was swerving to avoid an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly. The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable. It would have been easier to have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom -- that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.
+++
Reformed Baptist TRADITION
https://www.amazon.com/Trinity-Hymnal-Baptist-First-Printing/dp/B00LTXKBBU
https://www.gcp.org/TrinityHymnal.aspx
Reformed Baptist Tradition - it is all the Traditions of Men, it is not apostolic and holds nothing in common with the Church except, accepting one Ikon of the Church (the Bible in a truncated form) and the creation of many divergent theologies following DIFFERING Reformed Baptist Traditions all based upon individual teachers explication of scripture. To Wit:
https://www.theopedia.com/reformed-baptist
Reformed Baptist
The name Reformed Baptist does not refer to a distinct denomination but instead is a description of the theological leaning of certain Baptist churches. Not all churches that are reformed in doctrine identify themselves as such. There are two associations of Reformed Baptist churches in the United States: the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America, which began in 1997, and the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals, organized in 2000. There are also many associations and churches in other countries.
Reformed Baptist churches quite often adhere to either the First or Second London Baptist Confession of 1644 and 1689 respectively. These two statements are usually not considered exhaustive, but instead are convenient summaries of a church's belief. Reformed Baptists attempt to derive all of their doctrine directly from the Bible, which they see as the sole authority of faith and practice.
Reformed Baptist Churches are distinct in that they are both Reformed (adhering to much of Calvinism) as well as Baptists (believing in baptism for believers only, and that by immersion). Historically, the Five Points of Calvinism have been central tenets of the Reformed faith, with which all Reformed Baptist churches agree by definition.
However, Reformed theology is normally committed to Covenant theology, one application of which is to justify the practice of infant baptism. For this reason more traditional Reformed branches of Christianity ( Presbyterian, etc) sometimes refuse to accept their Reformed Baptist brothers as truly Reformed. Nevertheless, Reformed Baptists are distinctly Covenantal in their theology, regarding the Covenant of Grace as made only with the elect. Baptism is seen as a sign of the New Covenant administration - made with those who have been regenerated by having the law written on their hearts, their sins forgiven and who savingly know the Lord (Jeremiah 31:31-34). As typical of Baptists, only those who can credibly profess this reality are to be baptized.
Modern Reformed Baptists usually consider themselves the spiritual heirs of English Baptists John Bunyan and Charles Spurgeon. The Calvinist theology of the Reformed Baptist is akin to if not descended directly from that of early English Particular Baptists.
Common traits of Reformed Baptists
-
The centrality of the Word of God: the church takes no part in human schemes for church growth, nor searches for popularity, but sows the Word and trusts God will make it multiply.
-
Creedalism: historic creeds of the faith are considered useful, but not necessarily authoritative.
-
The Regulative Principle of Worship: the belief that "the acceptable way of Worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself; and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be Worshipped according to the imaginations, and devices of Men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures," (from chapter 22, paragraph 1 of the London Baptist Confession of 1689). This is usually manifested in a relatively simple liturgy.
-
Covenant Theology: most hold to the classic Reformed contrast between the Covenant of Works in Adam and the Covenant of Grace in Christ (the last Adam) - and the Elect in Him as His seed. This eternal Covenant of Grace is progressively revealed through the historic Biblical covenants.
-
Local autonomy: each congregation is a fully independent church, which considers itself accountable directly to Jesus Christ rather than intermediately through an earthly organization such as a Convention, Synod or Presbytery.
-
Plurality in Leadership: each local church has multiple Elders as well as one or more Pastors (also known as plurality of elders); often the terms are interchangeable or denote only a difference in full or partial-time dedication to the ministry. Often all leaders are called elders, with the pastor being considered only a primus inter pares.
-
The reservation of the Elder role for men, and usually also that of Deacon.
-
Moderate Cessationism: the supernatural Gifts of the Holy Ghost in general, and Revivals specifically, are considered exceptional measures sovereignly bestowed by God, not to be searched as a common policy. Thus a rejection of man-generated Revivalism in general and Pentecostalism specifically.
-
The idea of the Sunday as the Christian Sabbath (except for New Covenant Theologians).
Other Calvinistic Baptists
Other independent Calvinistic Baptist churches have purposefully avoided calling themselves "Reformed" Baptists because of recognized differences beyond the issue of baptism. Many of these have become associated with New Covenant Theology which is seen as an alternative to the Reformed Covenant Theology. These churches usually adhere to the First London Baptist Confession of Faith (especially in its 1646 edition) rather than the later London Baptist Confession of 1689 which was for the most part a restatement of the Westminster Confession with minor changes to accommodate believer baptism.
Related history
In the early 17th century, Baptists in England developed along two different theological lines. The General Baptists were so-called because they held to a General (or universal) atonement, which maintains that Christ died for all men alike, making a general provision for all on the condition of faith. This is the same universal atonement of Arminianism. Early General Baptist leaders included John Smyth and Thomas Helwys.
The Particular Baptists were so-called because they held the Particular (or limited) atonement. The Particular view of the atonement is that Christ in His death undertook to save particular individuals, referred to as the elect. This position is the same limited atonement of classic Calvinism. Some early Particular Baptist leaders included Benjamin Keach, Hanserd Knollys, and William Kiffin.
Present day Strict Baptists of England are descendants of the Particular Baptists. Sometimes they are referred to as "Strict and Particular" Baptists. The term "strict" refers to the strict or closed position they held on membership and communion. The majority of early Particular Baptists rejected open membership and open communion. One notable exception was the author of Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan. Over the 18th century, General Baptists lapsed into theological liberalism and practically disappeared from the scene in England. During this same period, the Particular Baptists moved toward extreme doctrinal conservatism, which some have described as Hyper-Calvinism and Antinomianism. In 1785, Andrew Fuller (1754-1815) published The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. This helped turn many Particular Baptists toward a new evangelicalism that was dubbed "Fullerism," and would lead to eventual division among the Particular Baptists of England. The "Fullerites" are probably best represented by Fuller and William Carey (1761-1834), Baptist missionary to India. The leading spokesman for strict Calvinism was John Gill (1696-1771), perhaps best known for his Exposition of the Whole Bible, the only commentary to comment on every verse of the Bible. Among the "Fuller strain" of Particular Baptists, Calvinism declined and the practice of open communion grew. In 1891, most of the remaining General Baptists merged with the Particular Baptists in the Baptist Union of Great Britain (formed 1813). The Old Baptist Union represents General Baptists that did not participate.
External links
-
Reformed Baptist Fellowship — Reformed Baptist Fellowship is a global network of churches adhering to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. RBF encourages mutual cooperation for missions, church planting, edification and fellowship.
-
Founders Ministries — a site committed to preserving historic Reformed principles within the Southern Baptist Convention
-
Grace and Truth Christian congregation in Israel — a Reformed Baptist congregation
-
International Fellowship of Reformed Baptists — an international body to promote unity among Reformed Baptists
-
Johnny Farese's Reformed Baptist Church Directory — an informal directory of "churches which either claim to hold to the 1689 Confession of Faith; correspond with and pray for other sister churches; and/or fellowship with other sister churches through family conferences, pastors' conferences, etc."
-
New Zealand Reformed Baptist Churches — official site
-
Reformed Baptist Association in South Africa Web Site — official site, in Afrikaans and English
-
What is a Reformed Baptist — a Reformed Baptist explains his beliefs
-
- Free Webpage for Reformed Baptist Churches Worldwide
-
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America — official site
