Dezbatere teologică dintre ortodocşi şi creştinii baptişti Part 2 / 3

Vezi Part 1 aici

Va urma Part 3 miine

Se dezbate-

  • datinile omenesti
  • cuvintul „anatema”
  • indemnul lui Pavel de a tine ceia ce el i-a invatat
  • exista sau nu diferenta intre cartile Bibliei si scrierile extra canonice
  • icoanele
  • cina Domnului
  • fecioara Maria/maica Domnului ca mintuitoare/izbavitoare
  • sarbatoarea secerisului (zi a multumirii) sarbatorita de Baptisti
  • Canonul Bibliei

Preservation of New Testament text and the New Testament canon

Ce au in comun Ortodocsii si Baptistii (Protestantii): Traditie-este credinta vie a celor morti si Traditionalismul-este credinta moarta a celor vii.

Deosebirile:

(1) Ortodocsi– are relatie atit traditia si interpretarea de traditii. Traditia si Scriptura sunt distinse, dar nu pot fi despartite. Biblia, scrierile,icoanele difera dar sunt inspirate de acelasi Duh Sfint si autoritatea lor este aceiasi pentru ca sunt probate si corespund cu Sfinta Scriptura si atunci au aceeasi autoritate. Cind probam ca corespunde scripturii ea devine autoritate pentru Biserica.

Nu Scriptura este peste biserica, ci scriptura este in biserica si biserica este ceia care a dat nastere scripturii.

Canonul Bibliei nu s-a fixat pentru ca era clar si distins dintr-o data. Exista multe alte scrieri. Cartea Evrei, Apocalipsa,etc nu au fost acceptate la inceput. Abia in secolul 6 nu mai exista schimbari la Canon. Anumite biserici au avut acces la acele carti care nu erau acceptate (ex. Apocalipsa). In anumite comunitati unele carti nici nu au fost cunoscute. Canoanele nu se contrazic; canoanele noi nu au anulat canoanele vechi. Toate sinoadele sunt o sinergie a lui Dumnezeu si bazindu-se pe tot ce au invatat pina atunci ca sa invete Biserica (mai departe).

Protestanti– sustin ca individul interpreteaza Scriptura iar Biserica Ortodocsa considera ca Biblia este un punct comunicar care apartine Bisericii si este in cadrul Bisericii. Daca dispare distinctia intre trup si cap (Hristos si Biserica) este destul de periculos pentru ca se pierde unicitatea lui Hristos.

In primul rind, scriptura este pe primul loc. Facem diferenta intre principii care sunt universal valabile, avem principii in Sfinta Scriptura care nu pot fi schimbate si avem si forme in Sfinta Scriptura, care nu pot fi schimbate si avem si forme in Sfinta Scriptura care slujesc realizarii maxime acestui principiu. Scripturi care slujesc realizari maxime acestui principiu. Nu Biserica determina adevarul ci sta pe adevarul dat de Isus.

Formele si traditiile pot sa slujeasca Bisericii pentru o aplicare si o traire mai profunda a Sfintei Scripturi. Traditiile sau formele acestea pot fi inflexibile sau schimbate doar ca sa slujeasca implinirii principiilor Sfintei Scripturi care sunt mai presus ca orice traditie si datina omeneasca.

In canoane se gasesc contraziceri impotriva canonului apostolilor. Ultimul (cel mai recent) canon are intotdeauna mai mare autoritate. A gresit atunci Duhul Sfint ca nu le-a adaugat de la inceput? Daca nu, atunci cum poate sa aiba canoanele mai noi o autoritatemai mare?

Traditia o acceptam si ne-o insusim si noi (patristicele) dar nu ca norma. Doar Scriptura este o norma pentru noi. Scriptura nu a devenit Scriptura pentru ca asa a vrut Biserica. Scriptura a devenit Scriptura pentru ca a fost scrisa  de Dumnezeu, a inspirat-o Dumnezeu in autoritatea Sa. Autoritatea Scripturii nu deriva de la biserica, sau de la apostoli. Lucrurile de care are nevoie orice pacatos (si toti suntem pacatosi) nu vine din afirmatiile oamenilor; conteaza pentru noi ce zice Dumnezeu. Dumnezeu prin insusi natura Sa s-a revelat.

Avem cu noi Dumnezeu intrupat in Domnul Isus, Cuvintul intrupat-revelatia lui Dumnezeu. Hristos a fost propovaduit- Cuvintul acesta a nascut Biserica, nu Biserica a nascut Scriptura. Cine are autoritate? Cel ce naste sau cel ce s-a nascut? Biserica a fost nascuta, se sfinteste si se supune Cuvintului si are autoritate dupa cum se supune Cuvintului lui Dumnezeu. Asta este SOLA SCRIPTURA!

Video – Alegeri, productie Romana. Ce face Biserica? Matei 25:40

In Romania compania United Way e activa ‘rescuing children and teens’ in salvarea copiilor si tinerilor de strada.  Am ascultat povestirea lui Adi Gliga cu lacrimi in ochi, aflind ca si el a ajuns un copil al strazii la 18 ani cind l-a scos orfelinatul afara si trebuis sa doarma pe banci. Apreciez foarte mult misiunile din Romania pe care le cunosc si care se ocupa de copii si oamenii din strazi si parcuri, ca exemplu a fratelui Adrian Martin. Dumnezeu sa puna pe inima altor frati si surori sa lucreze la fel in acest domeniu si in Romania si pretutindeni unde ne aflam noi Romanii.

Matei 25:40 Iar Împăratul le va răspunde: „Vă spun, într-adevăr, că atunci când ați făcut așa ceva unuia dintre cei mai neînsemnați frați ai Mei, Mie Mi-ați făcut!”

Marcu 16:15 Apoi le-a zis: „Duceți-vă în toată lumea și predicați-le tuturor Evanghelia!

Videourile Vodpod nu mai sunt disponibile.

Video – Alegeri, productie Romana, posted with vodpod

Sean Eppers – Why Inerrancy Matters

 

via Woodlands Point Community Church

Question: “Why is it important to believe in Biblical inerrancy?”

Answer: We live in a day that tends to shrug its shoulders when confronted with error. Instead of asking, like Pilate, “What is truth?,” postmodern man says, “Nothing is truth” or perhaps “There is truth, but we can’t know it.” We’ve grown accustomed to being lied to, and many people seem comfortable with the notion that the Bible contains errors, too.

The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is an extremely important one because truth does matter. This issue reflects on the character of God and is foundational to our understanding of everything the Bible teaches. Here are some reasons why we should absolutely believe in Biblical inerrancy:

1. The Bible itself claims to be perfect. “The words of the Lord are pure words, As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6). “The law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). “Every word of God is pure” (Proverbs 30:5). These claims of purity are absolute statements. Note that it’s not “God’s Word is mostly pure” or “scripture is nearly perfect.” The Bible argues for complete perfection, leaving no room for “partial perfection” theories.

2. The Bible stands or falls as a whole. If a major newspaper were routinely discovered to contain errors, it would be quickly discredited. It would make no difference to say, “All the errors are confined to page 3.” For a paper to be reliable in any of its parts, it must be factual throughout. In the same way, if the Bible is inaccurate when it speaks of geology, why should its theology be trusted? It’s either a trustworthy document, or it isn’t.

3. The Bible is a reflection of its Author. All books are. The Bible was written by God Himself as He worked through human authors in a process called “inspiration.” Second Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (literally, “is God-breathed”). See also 2 Peter 1:21 and Jeremiah 1:2.

We believe that the God who created the universe is capable of writing a book. And the God who is perfect is capable of writing a perfect book. The issue is not simply “Does the Bible have a mistake?” but “Can God make a mistake?” If the Bible contains factual errors, then God is not omniscient and is capable of making errors Himself. If the Bible contains misinformation, then God is not truthful but is instead a liar. If the Bible contains contradictions, then God is the author of confusion. In other words, if Biblical inerrancy is not true, then God is not God.

4. The Bible judges us, not vice versa. “For the word of God is . . . a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Notice the relationship between “the heart” and “the Word.” The Word examines; the heart is being examined. To discount parts of the Word for any reason is to turn this verse on its head. We become the examiners, and the Word must submit to our “superior insight.” Yet God says, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” (Romans 9:20).

5. The Bible’s message must be taken as a whole. It is not a mixture of doctrine that we are free to select from. Many people like the verses that say God loves them, but they dislike the verses that say God will judge sinners. But we simply can’t pick and choose what we like about the Bible and throw the rest away. If the Bible is wrong about hell, for example, then who is to say it’s right about heaven—or about anything else? If the Bible can’t get the details right about creation, then maybe the details about salvation can’t be trusted either. If the story of Jonah is a myth, then perhaps so is the story of Jesus. On the contrary, God has said what He’s said, and the Bible presents us a full picture of who God is. “For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven” (Psalm 119:89).

6. The Bible is our only rule for faith and practice. If it is not reliable, then on what do we base our beliefs? Jesus asks for our trust, and that includes trust in what He says in His Word. John 6:68-69 is a beautiful passage. Jesus had just witnessed the departure of many who had claimed to follow Him. Then He turns to the twelve Apostles and asks, “Will you also go away?” At this, Peter speaks for the rest when he says, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” May we have the same trust in the Lord and in His words of life.

None of what we’ve presented here should be taken as a rejection of true scholarship. Biblical inerrancy does not mean that we are to stop using our minds or accept what the Bible says blindly. We are commanded to study the Word (2 Timothy 2:15), and those who search it out are commended (Acts 17:11). Also, we recognize that there are difficult passages in the Bible, as well as sincere disagreements over interpretation. Our goal is to approach Scripture reverently and prayerfully, and when we find something we don’t understand, we pray harder, study more, and—if the answer still eludes us—humbly acknowledge our own limitations in the face of the perfect Word of God.

John Piper – How Are the Synoptics “Without Error”?

via desiringGod.org

Article One of Bethel’s “Affirmation of Faith” reads: “The Bible is. . . without errorin the original manuscripts.” There is a wide diversity of opinions about the meaning of “error” in such an affirmation. This is especially the case when the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are being considered.

I will suggest two definitions of “error,” the first of which I consider proper for judging the reliability of any literature including the Synoptics, and the second of which I consider improper. According to the first I believe the synoptics are “without error.”

  1. A writer is in error when the basic intention in his statements and admonitions, properly understood in their nearer and wider context, is not true. (In reference to the indicative statements, “true” means that obedience of these admonitions is in harmony with reality, i.e., it accords with the will of God.)
  2. A writer is in error if any of his individual statements is not literally true.

The difference between these two definitions and my own understanding of the truth of the synoptic gospels may be clarified by several illustrations from the texts.

First Illustration

Jesus says in Mark 4:31 that the Kingdom of God “is like a grain of mustard seed which when sown upon the ground is the smallest of all the seeds of the earth. . .”

According to definition #2 above, Jesus erred here because the mustard seed is not the smallest seed on earth. But according to the first definition, he did not err because his basic intention was not in the least botanical. The point is the great contrast between the smallness of the seed and the largeness of the full-grown shrub. Jesus capitalized on the proverbial smallness of the mustard seed to make a perfect, inerrant point about the Kingdom of God.

Second Illustration

If we used definition #2 above, the Gospel writers would have to be accused of error in their chronology of the events of Jesus’ life. Just one illustration: The story of the healing of the paralytic (Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26), the call of Levi (Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32), and the question about fasting (Matthew 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39) follow back to back in all three synoptics and so refer to the same events. Again, the stilling of the storm (Matthew 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25) and the Gesarene demoniac (Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39) follow back to back in all three synoptics so that with the verbal parallels one can see that the same sequence of events is being referred to in each Gospel. But Matthew has these last two events before the three cited above, while Mark and Luke have them after these three events. It cannot be both ways.

But the synoptics are not in error here according to the first definition above, because it was not their basic intention to give a rigid chronology of Jesus’ ministry (which Papias said already in the second century, cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III, 39,14ff). Their intention was rather to give a faithful representation of the essential features of Jesus’ teaching and deeds. In this particular instance, Matthew probably felt he could best do this by including the storm stilling and Gesarene demoniac scenes in his composition of chapters 8 and 9, where he has gathered ten miracle stories. This presentation of Jesus’ miracle working is then bracketed together with the Sermon of the Mount with the identical summary statements in 4:23 and 9:35. Thus we have a literary unit which beautifully and inerrantly sets forth the essential features of our Lord’s ministry.

The Long-Proved Tradition

These two illustrations could be multiplied and other kinds of problems could be discussed (like changes in Jesus’ words from one synoptic to another). But these may suffice at least for an introduction to my understanding of how the synoptics are “without error”.

I thus gladly align myself with the long-proved tradition: perfectio respectu finis (perfection with respect to purpose). I know no better statement of my own position on this matter than that of the Second Baptist Confession of 1677: “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience. . .”

But I think just as important as agreeing with Affirmation 1 in detail is my deep commitment to the spirit of it. From history and from my own experience, I can say that it is almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of the Bible. We humans are incapable of finding out what we need so much to know: how to overcome sin, to escape the wrath of God, to become new creatures, to walk pleasing to the Lord. God must reveal this to us or we perish. This he has done and continues to do by means of a written Word, the Bible. When a man has understood the Bible he has understood the revelation of God infallibly, inerrantly and verbally.

© Desiring God

Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!


România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari