A Thread for Christian Liberty

[helmuth_hubener]

Yes, everything in the 66 books of scripture are the infallible, inerrant words of God.

Do you find any value in the other holy books, especially the ones that were considered holy by the early Christians, which do not happen to be in that 66? The Enoch literature, for example? The Nag Hammadi library? The Dead Sea Scrolls?

Just wondering.

It's good of you to come by and reply to kc's thread. You're a good sport.

[fisharmor]

Then I'm still curious as to why freedomfanatic would claim all books of the bible to be the infallible words of God, a position that even many Christians wouldn't dare take.

He subscribes to a novel dogma which did not exist prior to the 16th century, which claims that the books of the Bible are the infallible words of God (which most Christians would actually agree with), but goes further than that in claiming that it is the ONLY rule and norm of the Christian faith. This view did not exist for three-quarters of Christianity's history, and is still a minority view today.

But the majority of Christians would still agree that it is the Word of God. However, the majority also recognizes that Scripture does not contain clear-cut instructions as to how to interpret Scripture. Some external decisions have to be made about it.

Consider the US Constitution, a document that suffers from the same problem. "Well regulated" meant something completely different in 1789 than it does today. Today this obviously means lots of laws need to exist regarding militias and by extension also firearms. Back then, all it meant is that militias were to be orderly and regular, and the clear original meaning was that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to see to it that ordered militias existed. So in 200 years, we've gone from an original intent which was to preserve the militia system, to a point today, where militias no longer exist and society generally wants to involuntarily commit those who support the idea.

Two words. Of a document that's what, 6 pages long? Now look at a Bible and see how thick that is. This is why the majority of Christians have a Holy Tradition. It is not for locking people into rituals. It is mean to explain that gigantic document. And in order to do that, it has to be binding - it has to be something you can't just toss out on a whim.

How can any series of books with such a fantastic list of authors be compounded and then claimed to have originated divinely?

Because the collection of those writings was not the act that created Christianity. There was Holy Tradition first. This is axiomatic - if Holy Tradition is not binding, and it's Scripture instead, then there are a few centuries of Christians who are burning in hell because they didn't have a Bible.

And what about all the Biblical writings that were rejected by the Byzantines in the formation of modern, mainstream Christianity?

Well this argument is so worn out it's like throwing a hot dog down a hallway at this point, but this is the first time I've heard this blamed specifically on Byzantines.

To tie it in to what I already wrote in this post:
I've already pointed out that for 3/4 of Christianity's existence, nobody put the emphasis on "the Bible" that you see today in America. Scripture was coequal with Holy Tradition. And if someone wrote something that didn't jive with Holy Tradition, it was cut out right away. Those books you mention were never taken seriously, not even in their own time.

[heavenlyboy34]

Then I'm still curious as to why freedomfanatic would claim all books of the bible to be the infallible words of God, a position that even many Christians wouldn't dare take. How can any series of books with such a fantastic list of authors be compounded and then claimed to have originated divinely? And what about all the Biblical writings that were rejected by the Byzantines in the formation of modern, mainstream Christianity?

FF, IIRC, is a Sola Scripturist (and only WRT the Protestant canon). It's Reformation doctrine (some would say dogma, but I'm not versed enough to say so). It is indeed a difficult position to defend, as you say. Especially since there weren't any Sola Scripturists in Christian history until the Reformation.

ETA: Fish beat me to the punch, and did a better job, IMO.

[Christian Liberty]

Christian Liberty, how are the elders chosen?

Probably by election of all adult men in the town.

You dodged this one: I'd like you to answer that one, plz.

God certainly miraculously intervenes in the world, but he normally sets up three governments for the governance of men. That is family, church, and state governments. The state is the institution which God gives the right to enforce the civil sanctions in his law. That means capital punishment, enforced restitution, or flogging. They are the "enforcement mechanism" so to speak. It is true that as with all human institutions the state still makes errors. So does the church and family. But that doesn't mean those institutions aren't intended to exist. Sometimes any human judge will make errors... those errors aren't being excused but they are a fact of life. There are, however, real safeguards against lying. ANy false witnesses are punished exactly as they wanted their victims to suffer. That's resittution in a theft case, (probably) flogging in an assault case, and execution in the case of a false accusation of murder, rape, adultery, or whatnot.

Yes, I realize God could just personally intervene, but that's not how he chooses to do things.

I'm really not qualified to answer the canon issue directly. That's an issue I need to learn more about. I do think this article is pretty good:

http://biblicalblueprints.org/wp-con...fScripture.pdf


I've never heard of anyone who took pseudopigraphal books like Enoch as canonical but I know Catholics and EOs take the Apocrypha. One piece of evidence that I would have against that is the prophets being "from Abel to Zechariah" which implies the exclusion of the Apocryphal books.

[Christian Liberty]

FF, IIRC, is a Sola Scripturist (and only WRT the Protestant canon). It's Reformation doctrine (some would say dogma, but I'm not versed enough to say so). It is indeed a difficult position to defend, as you say. Especially since there weren't any Sola Scripturists in Christian history until the Reformation.

ETA: Fish beat me to the punch, and did a better job, IMO.

I think its funny that you make this argument as an anarcho-capitalist (since ancap didn't exist until Rothbard ) but I don't think this argument is true either:


https://carm.org/early-church-fathers-scripture

I don't know the context of all these for sure but it seems like sola scriptura existed before the Reformation. Although I will note that a proper place fo sola scriptura does not deny that historical interpretations of scripture are helpful

[Christian Liberty]

It's good of you to come by and reply to kc's thread. You're a good sport.

No problem.

I addressed the canon question in my previous post. Not as well as I would have liked, but I gave what I have.

[Sola_Fide]

Do you find any value in the other holy books, especially the ones that were considered holy by the early Christians, which do not happen to be in that 66? The Enoch literature, for example? The Nag Hammadi library? The Dead Sea Scrolls?

Just wondering.

It's good of you to come by and reply to kc's thread. You're a good sport.

I do find value in them. They are especially good for understanding the heresies they promote during the times when they were written.

[fisharmor]

I think its funny that you make this argument as an anarcho-capitalist (since ancap didn't exist until Rothbard )

I'm pretty sure HB is AnCap like he's Orthodox: about 95% there but hasn't put a ring on it. Correct me if I'm wrong, HB.

but I don't think this argument is true either:
https://carm.org/early-church-fathers-scripture

I don't know the context of all these for sure but it seems like sola scriptura existed before the Reformation. Although I will note that a proper place fo sola scriptura does not deny that historical interpretations of scripture are helpful

But there is nothing in the section defending Sola Scriptura which denies Holy Tradition.

[RJB]

But there is nothing in the section defending Sola Scriptura which denies Holy Tradition.

I noted that as well. Those were all very Orthodox beliefs in those quotations.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm really not qualified to answer the canon issue directly.

Understand: I wasn't trying to challenge or threaten your views. I just was wondering what those views were, for you, personally.

http://biblicalblueprints.org/wp-con...fScripture.pdf

Well, I browsed through and read some relevant parts, but it doesn't seem to say a lot about the holy books I was talking about, except, I suppose, by implication that because they're not in the Bible, well, they're no good. Anyway, I doubt that the article perfectly explains your view, which is what I was wondering.

I've never heard of anyone who took pseudopigraphal books like Enoch as canonical

Well it's in your own article! The Ethiopian Orthodox Church accepts 1 Enoch.

So anyway, I still don't know whether you accept these extra-Biblical books as the word of God or not, or how you feel about them. Your views may be complex, or you may as of yet not formed any strong views on it. Or maybe you just reject them. I don't know. I'd be interested to hear!

I personally think that a nuanced view, accepting that they have some level of holiness and divinity but not to the same degree as the books that were included in the Biblical library, would be very defensible. It might be harder to explain convincingly why to accept one book and totally reject another when both are found right next to each other in archeological digs and both seem to have been accepted as authoritative by the early Christian communities.

Not that you are obligated to defend matters of your faith to anyone.

[RJB]

...

[helmuth_hubener]

I do find value in them. They are especially good for understanding the heresies they promote during the times when they were written.

Thanks, Sola. Good to know.

The book of Jude sure is interesting, isn't it?

[Sola_Fide]

Thanks, Sola. Good to know.

The book of Jude sure is interesting, isn't it?

Yes it is. Go ahead and ask the question and I'll give you the answer.

[fisharmor]

(since ancap didn't exist until Rothbard )

'DOH!! Missed this the first time around - not sure how.
Anarcho-capitalism has existed since the dawn of time and I know you've been in the threads where we've discussed this.
I don't "believe" in AC. Not in the way people "believe" in global warming or "believe" in the rapture.
I know that it works, because I've read something on historical examples.
I know that it is a viable way to own property, live under equitable laws, and enjoy the maximum amount of freedom possible.

I also know that an anarchocapitalist society cannot withstand a vastly numerically superior genocidal force bent on destroying it. I freely admit - I have no defense for this. And I have also said often in the past that the fact that a state is willing to rob, rape, imprison, murder, and commit genocide to stop statelessness is not, in fact, a valid defense of the state.

[helmuth_hubener]

Yes it is. Go ahead and ask the question and I'll give you the answer.

No, that was all!

[CaptainAmerica]

The mistake is using the bible to support man made government, the bible is about Jesus Christ and the revealing of God the Father, not about government.

[Sola_Fide]

The mistake is using the bible to support man made government, the bible is about Jesus Christ and the revealing of God the Father, not about government.

I agree. It is the sinfulness of man that he wants to lord it over people with government.

[Christian Liberty]

I agree. It is the sinfulness of man that he wants to lord it over people with government.

I've got no interest in "lording it over people with government." Thats not what I'm about at all. I want to reduce government down to Biblical standards. Just because I don't want to eliminate the State completely does not make me authoritarian or a tyrant.

[Sola_Fide]

I've got no interest in "lording it over people with government." Thats not what I'm about at all. I want to reduce government down to Biblical standards. Just because I don't want to eliminate the State completely does not make me authoritarian or a tyrant.

There isn't "Biblical standards for government". There isn't a blueprint for government in the Bible.

[Christian Liberty]

There isn't "Biblical standards for government". There isn't a blueprint for government in the Bible.

This is first of all not true, and second of all, if it were true than statism would be legitimate. So really, your arguments here are very much not good. I think your arguments on other topics are frankly better than on this one....

Incidentally, John Robbins would (I think) disagree with you that the Bible lacks a blueprint for government... and for the better.

[Sola_Fide]

This is first of all not true, and second of all, if it were true than statism would be legitimate. So really, your arguments here are very much not good. I think your arguments on other topics are frankly better than on this one....

Incidentally, John Robbins would (I think) disagree with you that the Bible lacks a blueprint for government... and for the better.

What is the blueprint for government in the Bible? The Mosaic covenant? I don't think so. There is a blueprint for PEOPLE in the Bible, not government.

[Christian Liberty]

What is the blueprint for government in the Bible? The Mosaic covenant?

Yes, although I understand that your covenant theology is wrong (as a confessional reformed baptist you probably think the Old Covenant was a covenant of works, while nonetheless oddly yet correctly believing salvation is by grace) and so it won't make sense to you that the Mosaic Covenant can still apply if it was a covenant of works.

If you have an email I could use I can send you one of the better refutations of Reformed Baptist covenant theology that I've seen.

Although, come to think of it, even if the Old Covenant were a covenant of works, we're still commanded to do works (not for salvation, but as evidence thereof) and that includes upholding justice, which God gets to define, not us.

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, although I understand that your covenant theology is wrong (as a confessional reformed baptist you probably think the Old Covenant was a covenant of works, while nonetheless oddly yet correctly believing salvation is by grace) and so it won't make sense to you that the Mosaic Covenant can still apply if it was a covenant of works.

If you have an email I could use I can send you one of the better refutations of Reformed Baptist covenant theology that I've seen.

Although, come to think of it, even if the Old Covenant were a covenant of works, we're still commanded to do works (not for salvation, but as evidence thereof) and that includes upholding justice, which God gets to define, not us.

No. Its not that the old testament is works and the new testament is grace. It's that there are presently two kinds of people in this world: one person who is condemned on the basis of his works, and one person who is justified on the basis of Christ's works.

People alive right now are under the covenant of works. This is explained in several places, the book of Galatians chapters 3-5 talk about this. Also Romans chapters 3-10.

[Sola_Fide]

The Mosaic covenant is not a blueprint for government. It was a blueprint for God's chosen people when His presence was there among them. God's presence is now with his people in the church.

No where in Scripture is it a sin that the wicked nations did not adopt the Mosaic code. The Mosaic code existed for a certain time. Only the moral equity of those laws are applicable today. Stoning the incorrigible child is morally applicable to the enduring moral law that children should honor their father and mother. It is not a blueprint for the State to enforce.

[kcchiefs6465]

Probably by election of all adult men in the town.

Is there a template for it described or prescribed in the Bible? If not, would you have a preferred method of how elders are chosen?

Forgive my ignorance but are they essentially elected judges?

If that is the case, knowing what you know, why would you subscribe to such a model?

Central planning, collectivism, legal positivism, you object to these things, correct? You know the issues with them, I believe.

Why the exception?

[Christian Liberty]

No. Its not that the old testament is works and the new testament is grace. It's that there are presently two kinds of people in this world: one person who is condemned on the basis of his works, and one person who is justified on the basis of Christ's works.

People alive right now are under the covenant of works. This is explained in several places, the book of Galatians chapters 3-5 talk about this. Also Romans chapters 3-10.

I agree, but if you believe the Old Covenant itself is a covenant of grace, you should be a Presby

The Mosaic covenant is not a blueprint for government. It was a blueprint for God's chosen people when His presence was there among them. God's presence is now with his people in the church.

No where in Scripture is it a sin that the wicked nations did not adopt the Mosaic code. The Mosaic code existed for a certain time. Only the moral equity of those laws are applicable today. Stoning the incorrigible child is morally applicable to the enduring moral law that children should honor their father and mother. It is not a blueprint for the State to enforce.

Stoning the incorrigible child's general equity is that the incorrigible child be killed (I'll give you credit though, at least you represented the law fairly... nobody else does that ). That's a principle of the perfectly just law of God. You can't just change it without New Testament warrant, and you don't have any.

Is there a template for it described or prescribed in the Bible?

I know that David was not accepted as king until he was chosen by the people despite divine annointing, and that Saul was chosen by the people. I don't know a ton about this though.

If not, would you have a preferred method of how elders are chosen?

I can't really think of a better one than what is mentioned above.

Forgive my ignorance but are they essentially elected judges?

Probably.

If that is the case, knowing what you know, why would you subscribe to such a model?

Central planning, collectivism, legal positivism, you object to these things, correct? You know the issues with them, I believe.

Why the exception?

This is a misunderstanding. Voting on who the judges are is not democracy. Democracy is the belief that everything, including the laws themselves, are up to majority vote. Now, it is a fact of life that if enough people want to abuse literally anything they can get away with it. But a theonomy isn't designed with the idea that people can just invent their own laws. Although honestly I think we'll need to see massive Christian revival (which I do believ e will happen eventually) before theonomy will "succeed" because until then it would always be hijacked by humanists and statists.

[Christian Liberty]

What is the blueprint for government in the Bible? The Mosaic covenant? I don't think so. There is a blueprint for PEOPLE in the Bible, not government.

People make up governments. Saying there's no blueprint for government is like saying there's no blueprint for family. Family, of course, has much more latittude than State, though even then the instructions God gave still apply...

[Jamesiv1]

The story of Jacob has a good bit more going on, and Jacob learns his lesson the hard way about screwing over family, by family member who one ups Jacob through deception. His reconciliation with his brother is a wonderful testimony of forgiveness and moving forward, rather than seizing the moment for revenge. Everyone makes crappy decisions from time to time, and if the Bible only showed infallible people becoming successful and favored by the Creator most folks would give up before they start a walk of Faith because they would not be able to connect with the story as they would be consumed by their own shortcomings and never see the broader picture of forgiveness as long as one is growing in Faith.

I disagree. Jacob was a liar and schemer through and through.

1. Made a deal with his brother under duress to obtain his brother's birthright.
2. With the help of his mother, Jacob lied in his Father's face *twice* to cheat his brother out of the blessing.
3. Took Uncle Laban's good livestock, and left him with crappy livestock.
4. Cut out on Uncle Laban (with two of Laban's daughters and a handful of grandkids) without so much as a goodbye.
5. Stole Uncle Laban's stuff on the way out.
6. Jacob's wife Rachel then lied to *her* father's face (Uncle Laban) to avoid giving the stuff back.
7. side note: what's the deal with "wrestling" with another man all night long? shouldn't that raise some eyebrows?
8. The reconciliation in the desert was Jacob doing anything and everything he could think of to avoid getting slaughtered.
9. After his brother FORGAVE him, they made plans to journey together to Seir, but once again Jacob despised his brother and went to Succoth instead. That was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.

"Anyone that wants to understand the Middle East must understand that it is a blood feud between two brothers that goes back 5000 years." --Billy Graham

[Sola_Fide]

People make up governments. Saying there's no blueprint for government is like saying there's no blueprint for family. Family, of course, has much more latittude than State, though even then the instructions God gave still apply...

No its not like that. The Bible DOES have a blueprint for the family. Where is the blueprint for government?

[Christian Liberty]

No its not like that. The Bible DOES have a blueprint for the family. Where is the blueprint for government?

Exodus-Deuteronomy.

You keep ignoring that that's there. I tell you that these are basic concepts of justice, and ask you where they've been changed, and you can't tell me. You just assert that they don't apply without any evidence that the NT has changed them in any way.