tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post1014962385158090795..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Versions of ChristianityKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-86855347083089298132020-02-22T14:08:25.349-08:002020-02-22T14:08:25.349-08:00"Some of the former Pharisees in the Jerusale..."Some of the former Pharisees in the Jerusalem church were real believers (Acts 15:5)."<br /><br />Yes, some believers were affected by the Judaizers. They were believers in need of correction. As the apostle Paul said by inspiration in Galatians 4, "They zealously affect you, but not well." They were in need of correction.<br /><br />And the Judaizers were in need of being exposed as being against the word of God. As Paul once wrote: "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."<br /><br />So then clearly some believers are presented as negative, bad examples, which were at times corrected by the apostles, and their teachers exposed. This is one of those examples, the Judaizers, in particular, were nothing more than that. Just as we still have Judaizers around here today, still not believers, still equally not able to deal with the word of God.<br /><br />Thus, we can kill two birds with one stone. Both provide correction in Scripture into the correct position on this issue and expose the sneaking in false teachers at the same time. Those that continue to disagree must be the false prophets.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-54949110215713287052020-02-21T15:45:34.045-08:002020-02-21T15:45:34.045-08:00You paint the scenario in cardboard hues, as if th...You paint the scenario in cardboard hues, as if the issue was black and white. Some of the former Pharisees in the Jerusalem church were real believers (Acts 15:5). The situation and tensions between these different flavors of Christianity is more nuanced than you present it.Tyler Robbinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-31782909720242077872020-02-21T13:27:54.838-08:002020-02-21T13:27:54.838-08:00Tyler, in an earlier post, you mentioned that seve...Tyler, in an earlier post, you mentioned that several "hard-line" Jewish Christians criticized the apostles. But now you say that this was simply a different expression of the one truth by the same "hard-line" group. But how are these the same when clearly, as you said, they were criticizing the apostles.<br /><br />Exclusion and holding to the laws of the scribes and pharisees (see Mark 7:7-13) are not different flavors of one Gospel. However it is clear from how the epistle to Galatians describes these, namely, as false brethren unawares brought in who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. These are the same faction that desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, by circumcision and other things, and that they may glory in your flesh.<br /><br />Paul was not bound to obey nor bound to oppose them. He was free to be made all things, that he "might by all means save some." Thus we find that he refused to allow Titus to be circumcised in Galatians 2:3, but he consented for Timothy to do so in Acts 16:3. This, and that which you mention in Acts 21, was not a giving place by subjection, according to what Paul said by inspiration in Galatians 2:5. "To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour."<br /><br />Recall what Paul said regarding eating meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8:8. "But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak."<br /><br />So we see that these supposed "hard-liners" were weak, or, even worse, false brethren. And this makes sense since they don't seem to understand the doctrine spelled out for us today in the epistle to Hebrews chapter 7 and 8. They possibly still believed in the temple and Levites, despite what we hear in God's word, saying "And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." And so on. They didn't seem to believe that.<br /><br />Paul also knew in advance he was going to be set upon, according to Acts 20:23-25. He let it happen anyway.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-36541351129838390182020-02-20T21:59:03.315-08:002020-02-20T21:59:03.315-08:00Kent, my point isn't about two different versi...Kent, my point isn't about two different versions of the faith, as if the Gospel were play dough. I'm more speaking about different flavors. Look at Acts 21:20f, where James asks Paul to accommodate himself publically for the sake of the hard-line Jewish Christian's in the Jerusalem church. Even after Acts 11 and 15, the different flavor persisted. This wasn't an issue in Antoich (a largely Gentile church), but it was in Jerusalem. Same Gospel, different expressions of the truth. Tyler Robbinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90905833909324565192020-02-20T19:52:20.416-08:002020-02-20T19:52:20.416-08:00Andrew,
I think it is worth clarifying. False te...Andrew,<br /><br />I think it is worth clarifying. False teachers and the spread of false doctrine, wrestling against principalities, powers, the lust of the flesh, the lust of eyes, pride of life, vain philosophy, and evil communications are among many reasons in the NT for the divergence or versions of Christianity. Christ, of course, came in and said in Revelation 2 and 3, I have only one church, and the variations are unacceptable and they need to cease or I'll come and deal with you.<br /><br />Just because there are multipled versions of Christianity in practice doesn't mean that there are multiple versions. Scripture teaches one. If there weren't the acceptance of multiple versions, then there would be less versions as there are, but the acceptance guarantees multiple versions and a growing number of them.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-88935752173432276652020-02-20T19:47:49.109-08:002020-02-20T19:47:49.109-08:00Hi Tyler,
I taught through Ephesians again last y...Hi Tyler,<br /><br />I taught through Ephesians again last year in my Bible class for our school and I'm preaching through Acts on Sunday AM, presently in Acts 11. The division between Gentile and Jew was totally unacceptable, as seen in Ephesians, and then you see Eph 4 -- one faith. I think of 1 Cor 1:10 as definitional. The oneness is all that reads in the NT, fitting with one Lord, one Spirit, etc. In Acts 11, it's obvious that Gentile exclusion was unacceptable. The church at Jerusalem accepted it 11:18, and then as seen by sending of Barnabas there. Yes, it took awhile for them to get up to speed, but the division was unacceptable, which is why Acts 15 occurred and Peter was confronted to his face. I see the few rules in Acts 15 as related to liberties, doing what Paul talked about at the end of 1 Cor 9. Paul was there in Antioch with Barnabas, leaving Tarsus.<br /><br />I don't see that as a basis of acceptance of two versions of Christianity, but just the opposite, two versions was unacceptable, which is why Peter made the long argument from Acts 11:3 to 17, and they believed him. Not everybody in Jerusalem was up to speed, because when they were scattered due to persecution, not everyone preached to Gentiles, but those Jews from Cyrene and Cyprus did preach to Gentiles, and that was the will of God. People need time to grow, but their false doctrine isn't accepted.<br /><br />It's a good try though. I think that's the best someone can do to justify it multiple versions of Christianity.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-73890606082056991842020-02-20T18:30:30.213-08:002020-02-20T18:30:30.213-08:00That's an interesting question, Kent.
"S...That's an interesting question, Kent.<br /><br />"Scripture provides good explanations for different denominations and even for different views of Christianity,"<br /><br />Good in whose eyes, though, God's? How can there be an objectively good explanation for two separate things being true, which, by definition cannot both be true. And conversely if two things are both true at the same time, how are they still "different views"? So then two different views could not both have good explanations for why each is true. At least one must not have one.<br /><br />For this reason I question if we should agree with this opening premise.<br /><br />Someone therefore is misjudging a bad explanation as a "good explanation." Even though it's not. That's where the supposed contradiction comes from. So, the takeaway is we shouldn't believe someone just because they say they know a good explanation on anything. When the rubber meets the road, and there is that one split-second choice between good and bad, those who believe in subjective realities will be faced with one real reality. Only God's assessment of correct will matter then.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-31144496017951856382020-02-20T18:01:40.020-08:002020-02-20T18:01:40.020-08:00The early church had different flavors of Christia...The early church had different flavors of Christianity. You see this in Acts, as Peter and Paul both drew criticism from the more hard-line Jewish Christian's over the nature (and even fact of!) Gentile inclusion. Paul accommodated himself to Jerusalem preferences out of respect. Paul could totally walk away from Old Covenant ceremonial law, depending on circumstancesTyler Robbinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-17048209712100908492020-02-20T17:24:07.323-08:002020-02-20T17:24:07.323-08:00Hello Tyler,
Scripture provides good explanations...Hello Tyler,<br /><br />Scripture provides good explanations for different denominations and even for different views of Christianity, but I don't know of a scriptural explanation for accepting that there is more than one. Scripture also provides a basis for not accepting that there is more than one. Can someone do both, that is, recognize why there are several versions and yet reject all but the one, as if someone can really know what the one is?<br /><br />Thanks.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1809516553246457712020-02-19T21:45:08.510-08:002020-02-19T21:45:08.510-08:00A common question - "why are there so many di...A common question - "why are there so many different denominations?" It must be very confusing for outsiders. It's even confusing for Christians, too!Tyler Robbinsnoreply@blogger.com