Originally Posted by Reformation Monk
Greetings, Reformation Monk.

[quote=Reformation Monk]
I am a Cessationist when It coms to further Special Revelation. I believe by Scripture that God's final special revelation ceased with Christ and His apostles.
On that we definitely disagree. The Council of Jerusalem itself set the template for further revelations in regard to doctrine and administration. To say that special revelation ceased with Christ and the Apostles is to make the eggregious error of saying that the Bible itself is not a product of revelation.

Originally Posted by Reformation Monk
The reason I say that, is because It doesn't make sense to me to have a God who "changes" His mind.

Therefore; I can't accept any truth that contradicts the plain truth of scripture.
God never changes his mind. Not ever. And none of God's revelations contradicts another, but rather all of God's revelation is pluperfect in continuity. What we may disagree on is what constitutes God's revelation as I don't believe it begins and ends with the Bible notely because the Bible, particularly the New Testament, was never designed as an exhaustive account of all that Christ OR the apostles taught. For this reason, we are exhorted to "hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2Thess 2:15)

More on the theme that God does not give conflicting revelations, what appears as a conflict at first glance is not a conflict when examined in detail. Even within the Bible, there is a perception by the ignorant that the Bible "contradicts itself." But those who know the Bible well can easily clear up that mistake. In a broader sense, what teachings and traditions you think conflict with the Bible I can readily explain in the context of early church tradition, a far more credible indicator of true doctrine than our feeble guesses 2000 years later. For instance, to refer to presbyters, elders, and other mature Christians in leadership as "father" was common in the early church, indicating that those Christians had quite a different take on what Jesus meant when he said to call no man your father. This is an example of how a glancing view of scripture can lead to incorrect conclusions about which doctrines and practices are correct or incorrect and why a thorough exegesis of scripture must include the context of the beliefs of the early church.

Originally Posted by Reformation Monk
My only recommendation to you at this point is for you to read the Bible.
I have read the Bible since I was a wee lad and have a deep love and reverence for it. The Bible has helped to lead me to the holy Catholic faith. But I thank you all the same for your exhortation as we should always be reminding each other to do this more.

Originally Posted by Reformation Monk
For myself personally, the gospel is faith in Christ's atoning work on the Cross imputed to us through this faith alone without any personal work of justification of our own. To deviate this, to add any work righteousness is to preach another gospel.

Which can lead to any belief.

The reason we could arrive at a Joint Declaration of Justification is because our beliefs are not really that far apart and are often just expressed in a different way. That we are saved by grace, through faith given to us from God is a unifying belief. I'm fond of using Christ's "unprofitable servant" teaching to underscore that though we do those works which are our duty to do, in the end, nobody can outgive or outdo the Lord and we rest on the fact that we are saved by grace, unmerited favor given to us out of love, not remuneration.


Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.