The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The Passion

Gerry


(Fred) Gerry, forgive me if I came across rather curt toward your post, but the remarks you made did appear to be saying that you think John is muddle headed because he takes a different conclusion on the 2nd commandment than you do, or the Reformed faith does. These are your concluding remarks from your initial response to me:

Thanks, in advance, for being clear on this, because I for one don't want to waste my time if John is going to steer his hearers away from the historic reformed faith as evidenced in the Confessions, and indeed in the Word of God itself as it is quoted here

Maybe it is just my wounded sensibilities, but I read that statement to be saying something like: "John is going to be leading people into theological error, so thanks for the warning so I can make a point not to watch CNN all day just in case I may accidently see him making positive comments about Gibson's movie." It is as if John has nothing valuable to say in defense of Christianity and that it might as well be James Dobson doing that interview. My thought is that such thinking is unnecessary separation akin to the attitudes displayed in the very fundamentalist church that you deride.


(Fred) John is not NCT. My convictions are my own, so let us make that clear so as to not have any further confusion. I would never think to speak for him in any official capacity, unless I knew what he believed for certain.


(Fred) I believe "boogey man" is a truly appropriate term, because like I have stated in previous posts, the convictions displayed here concerning the 2nd commandment are creedal traditions, not the application of biblical exegesis. Granted, it is a noble creedal tradition, but it is not the infallible interpreter of scripture. Everyone is good about quoting Exodus 20:4, but ignore the clarifying statement of verse 5, which says you shall not bow down to them nor serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God The issue is not the making of graven images, but the use of those graven images in worship and as a replacement for God. If it was the making of graven images that is the violation of the 2nd commandment, then, like I stated elsewhere, how does the cheribum on top of the ark fit into your understanding of the 2nd commandment? They are images of things in heaven, are they not? I don't believe God contradicted himself. What about the bronze serpent God tells Moses to make in Numbers 21? It is an image of an earthly creature, is it not? It comes down to the intent of those images: were they for worshipping God faslely or serving false gods? Later, in 2 Kings 18:4, that same bronze serpent was destroyed by Hezekiah because the Israelites had transformed it into an object of worship. It had become a relic of sorts.
I feel what you are saying when you speak of those congregations that are weak on conviction and have no theological anchor because they are not taught scripture by the pastors. All of their knowledge of the Bible comes from shallow quarterlies that rush the sunday school class through the Bible on some 3 year jet tour schedule. The depth of the sermons preached are 3 point evangelisitc presentations that are really just 30 minute torture session of a passage cruelly removed from its context. The convicition the people convey are legalistic and ascetic vice based upon a list of supposed dos and don'ts derived from misapplied verses and personal preferences elevated to the authority of scripture. Honestly, I have heard just as much negative reaction toward Gibson's film from the fundamentalist, antinomian crowd and they base that reaction on the 2nd commandment. However, just because you come across other Christians who believe you are misapplying the 2nd commandment and do not conclude the same thing as your personal convictions, does not mean they are antinomian, don't respect creeds and confessions, nor are they to be equated to those anemic congregations you escaped from. I believe Christians should have a standard to which to hold them accountable, and creeds and confessions do a fine job of that and I would readily receive them as a doctrinal statement. But, our ultimate doctrinal statement is the word of God rightly interpreted, and when any creed or confession wrongly applies a Bible verse or promotes priniciples that are misapplied due to a certain reading into the Bible, then that is where the creed and confession should be laid aside.

Fred