# Mark 7:19 (NIV) (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") ??



## Ben_Ives (Mar 19, 2015)

Hello,

I'm putting this out there for some comment, because I was really shocked to read the following in the NIV today at the college I'm studying at full time:

Mark 7:19 (NIV) For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

A lecturer was using this verse to support the concept that Christ came to, "bring in a new kingdom". When to me, when Christ was talking about the kingdom, it is His means of evangelizing and describing by parables the concept of eternal life. 

I'm taking issue with this, because the section in brackets, is Jesus Christ advocating breaking God's law. This was before the crucifixion, so the law had not been fulfilled by Christ's death. The reason I think this is so wrong, is because of the positive aspect of justification. For us to be credited with the righteousness of Christ by imputation (the grounds of our justification), Christ Himself would have had to fulfill the law perfectly by the active life of perfect obedience. So Christ himself would not have eaten any food forbidden by the ceremonial law, and it ought to go without saying that in no way would he have advised or advocated anyone to have done the same.

This is a different thing entirely to Peter having a vision, and being told, "arise Peter slay and eat" etc, as at that point Christ had died and risen from the dead.

When Christ said, "repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" He was saying repent and believe in me for I am here. The way of access into heaven was on earth as a living person, telling people to repent. 

This ties into an emphasis on the physical church over / above / and in preference to the work of the Lord in the hearts of the invisible Church. Its playing into the validation of apostolic succession as a general principle without actually stating that is what is being supported. Its suggesting that as people salvation is about believing and following Jesus, and a decision that men have to make to enter into a/the kingdom. Which is described as "now but not yet", and they discuss salvation as happening when you die. They don't look at it as justification in the legal sense. Its an extremely subtle misrepresentation of Christ's message, and saying that he came to set up a belief system, that you enter into, which eventually means you have access to heaven. 

Justification is strictly a legal act of God, but its being combined with "the kingdom of God" which is being taught that Christ came to earth to start teaching and its a departure from the Christ who was a second Adam, who came to purchase an elect people of God with His blood, who on His ascent were filled with the Spirit to spread the gospel. Its being turned into a way of life. Christ is now being taught to have initiated a religion on earth as the first person to bring it to earth, as the primary focus.

The atonement and the legal nature of it, and its finality is what Christ was about. Not setting up a way of life. Christianity didn't start because Judaism didn't work, and a new religion kicked off in place of the old one which became obsolete.. The law was in place, so that Christ could actively fulfill it. Its being turned into a way of life as opposed to being final, and making salvation contingent on continuing to live and believe in Christ. I'm aware what anti-nominalism is, and I'm not advocating that of course, but works are evidence only. A false faith can carry someone all the way to the judgment seat of Christ, where they are told, "depart from me you cursed, I NEVER knew you".

Does anyone else have any strong feelings about this?


----------



## waltongreen (Mar 19, 2015)

Am I properly understanding you?

Summary: 
1) Jesus did not declare all food clean because he had to abstain from unclean foods in order to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law. No unclean foods means there were no foods for Jesus to righteously abstain from on our behalf.
2) Jesus did not come to establish a new set of laws for a new religion, but to fulfill the law on our behalf and give us his righteousness by faith.

If I have properly understood you, I guess I do see the disconnect of Jesus not fulfilling all the law by eating unclean foods (if in fact he even did). And I would love for people to discuss that some on the board if that is still on topic. But maybe you could clarify the connection this has with number two.

Also, the word I think you were looking for there at the end is "Antinomianism" meaning anti-law. And I don't think the ideas you espoused will be interpreted as antinomianism by Reformed folk.


----------



## littlepeople (Mar 19, 2015)

If I'm not mistaken there are several translation (possibly transmission) issues with that passage.


----------



## Ben_Ives (Mar 19, 2015)

waltongreen said:


> Am I properly understanding you?
> 
> Summary:
> 1) Jesus did not declare all food clean because he had to abstain from unclean foods in order to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law. No unclean foods means there were no foods for Jesus to righteously abstain from on our behalf.
> ...



Dear Walton,

You have correctly identified exactly what I’m talking about, the NIV has Jesus teaching people contrary to the law previous to the fulfillment of the law. This cannot be right for the reasons you have said. 

If you consider the woman caught in adultery, Christ didn’t say that she didn’t deserve to die, He made the point that we are all sinners and directed that any sinless people present commence the sentence of death. 

Where the error is going (I assume), is *the law of evangelical obedience *. Salvation is not being taught as judicial. These are first year units and meant to be just Bible survey, but they are actually teaching fairly weighty theology. 

Another lecturer taught the parable of Christ washing the disciples feet ought to apply to our attitude towards the world, and refused to make a distinction between our love for Christian brothers and care for everyone in general. This same lecturer taught that 1 Corinthians 3: 10-17 referred to the church of God, and not individuals. And that the judgment at the end of the world would refine the Church by fire, if someone had sought to add to the foundations. When I raised the issue, taking the matter as individuals in their lives towards God was basically refuted as an interpretation of these verses. 

In church History we were instructed to analyze penance but were taught it was anachronistic to apply the truth of God’s word as revealed to us today, to the teachings of Cyprian and early “church leaders”, on the basis that applying knowledge gained in the reformation would be anachronistic. Yet Truth is not subjective, and God’s word is absolute truth. We were told that there was no evidence that the gospel spread at first due to speaking and tongues and miracles!

The systematic theology lecturer who I have only spoken to, and have not been in his class yet, said that the Jesuits were the best at evangelizing at the time of the reformation. Has said that we should be speaking in Latin (can’t be sure if he is joking, but didn’t seem like it) .

Another lecturer taught that since the atonement, that “the regenerated man” could, “choose not to sin”, which is conflict with the essential nature of sin and is in line with the pelagian view of regeneration. They completely confuse sanctification and justification, by refusing to make regeneration instantaneous and justification purely judicial. They think that being filled with the spirit means justification of their hearts. That their hearts become righteous. I am the only person out of about 100 who see this as wrong including many ministers here. Its unbelievable.

-Sorry its late where I am so this is rushed- 

I’ll include the extracts from Berkhof below

Louis Berkhof, “Systematic Theology” - http://goo.gl/GBgFyq
[page 237]
IV. Man in the Covenant of Works
D. THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE COVENANT OF WORKS. With respect to the question, whether the covenant of works is still in force or was abrogated at the time of Adam’s fall, there is considerable difference of opinion between Arminian and Reformed theologians. 1. THE ARMINIAN VIEW. Arminians claim that this legal covenant was wholly abrogated at the fall of Adam, and argue this as follows: (a) The promise was then revoked and thus the compact annulled, and where there is no compact there can be no obligation. (b) God could not continue to exact obedience of man, when the latter was by nature unable, and was not enabled by the grace of God, to render the required service. (c) It would be derogatory to God’s wisdom, holiness, and majesty to call the depraved creature to a service of holy and undivided love. They maintain that God established a new covenant and enacted a new law, the law of faith and *evangelical obedience *, which man in spite of his impaired powers can keep when assisted by the enabling helps of common or sufﬁcient grace.

[Page 303]
III. Nature of the Covenant of Grace
B. THE CONTRACTING PARTIES.
3. Still another factor should be taken into consideration. Reformed theologians were deeply conscious of the contrast between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. They felt that in the former the reward of the covenant was dependent on the uncertain obedience of man and as a result failed to materialize, while in the covenant of grace the full realization of the promises is absolutely sure in virtue of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ. Its realization is sure through the operation of the grace of God, but, of course, sure only for those who are partakers of that grace. They felt constrained to stress this aspect of the covenant especially over against the Arminians and Neonomians, who virtually changed it into a new covenant of works, and made salvation once more dependent on the work of man, that is, on faith and *evangelical obedience *. For this reason they stressed the close connection between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, and even hesitated to speak of faith as the condition of the covenant of grace.

[Page 435]
VI. The Purpose and the Extent of the Atonement
B. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT
2. STATEMENT OF THE REFORMED POSITION. The Reformed position is that Christ died for the purpose of actually and certainly saving the elect, and the elect only. This is equivalent to saying that He died for the purpose of saving only those to whom He actually applies the beneﬁts of His redemptive work. Various attempts have been made in circles that claimed to be Reformed to modify this position. The Dutch Arminians maintained that Christ died for the purpose of making salvation possible for all men without exception, though they will not all be saved. Salvation is offered to them on lower terms than it was to Adam, namely on condition of faith and *evangelical obedience *, a condition which they can meet in virtue of God’s gift of common or sufﬁcient grace to all men.

[page 465]	
PART FOUR: THE DOCTRINE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
I. Soteriology in General
B. THE ORDO SALUTIS, (ORDER OF SALVATION)
4. THE ARMINIAN VIEW. The Arminian order of salvation, while ostensibly ascribing the work of salvation to God, really makes it contingent on the attitude and the work of man. God opens up the possibility of salvation for man, but it is up to man to improve the opportunity. The Arminian regards the atonement of Christ “as an oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world” (Pope), that is, for the sins of every individual of the human race. He denies that the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all his descendants, and that man is by nature totally depraved, and therefore unable to do 

any spiritual good; and believes that, while human nature is undoubtedly injured and deteriorated as the result of the fall, man is still able, by nature, to do that which is spiritually good and to turn to God. But because of the evil bias, the perverseness, and the sluggishness of sinful human nature, God imparts to it gracious assistance. He bestows sufﬁcient grace upon all men to enable them, if they choose, to attain to the full possession of spiritual blessings, and ultimately to salvation. The gospel offer comes to all men indiscriminately and exerts a merely moral inﬂuence on them, while they have it in their power to resist it or to yield to it. If they yield to it, they will turn to Christ in repentance and faith. These movements of the soul are not (as in Calvinism) the results of regeneration, but are merely introductory to the state of grace properly so called. When their faith really terminates in Christ, this faith is, for the sake of the merits of Christ, imputed to them for righteousness. This does not mean that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them as their very own, but that, in view of what Christ did for sinners, their faith, which involves the principle of obedience, honesty of heart, and good dispositions, is accepted in lieu of a perfect obedience and is reckoned to them for righteousness. On this basis, then, they are justiﬁed, which in the Arminian scheme generally simply means that their sins are pardoned, and not that they are accepted as righteous. Arminians often put it in this form: The forgiveness of sins is based on the merits of Christ, but acceptance with God rests on man’s obedience to the *the law of evangelical obedience *. Faith not only serves to justify, but also to regenerate sinners. It insures to man the grace of evangelical obedience and this, if allowed to function through life, issues in the grace of perseverance. However, the grace of God is always resistible and amissible.


[page 571]
IX. Justiﬁcation
D. THE ELEMENTS OF JUSTIFICATION.
2. THE POSITIVE ELEMENT. There is also a positive element in justiﬁcation which is based more particularly on the active obedience of Christ. Naturally they who, like Piscator and the Arminians, deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to the sinner, thereby also deny the positive element in justiﬁcation. According to them justiﬁcation leaves man without any claim on life eternal, simply places him in the position of Adam before the fall, though according to the Arminians under a different law, *the law of evangelical obedience *, and leaves it to man to merit acceptance with God and eternal life by faith and obedience. But it is quite evident from Scripture that justiﬁcation is more than mere pardon. Unto Joshua, the high priest, who stood, as the representative of Israel, with ﬁlthy garments before the Lord, Jehovah said: “Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee (negative element), and I will clothe thee with rich apparel” (positive element), Zech. 3:4. According to Acts 26:18 we obtain by faith “remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctiﬁed.” Romans 5:1,2 teaches us that justiﬁcation by faith brings not only peace with God, but also access to God and joy in the hope of glory. And according to Gal. 4:5 Christ was born under the law also “that we might receive the adoption of sons.” In this positive element two parts may be distinguished:

[Page 598]
X. Sanctiﬁcation
H. THE IMPERFECT CHARACTER OF SANCTIFICATION IN THIS LIFE. 
1. SANCTIFICATION IMPERFECT IN DEGREE. When we speak of sanctiﬁcation as being imperfect in this life, we do not mean to say that it is imperfect in parts, as if only a part of the holy man that originates in regeneration were affected. It is the whole, but yet undeveloped new man, that must grow into full stature. A new-born child is, barring exceptions, perfect in parts, but not vet in the degree of development for which it is intended. Just so the new man is perfect in parts, but remains in the present life imperfect in the degree of spiritual development. Believers must contend with sin as long as they live, I Kings 8:46; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20; Jas. 3:2; I John 1:8. 
2. DENIAL OF THIS IMPERFECTION BY THE PERFECTIONISTS. a. The doctrine of perfectionism. Speaking generally, this doctrine is to the effect that religious perfection is attainable in the present life. It is taught in various forms by Pelagians, Roman Catholics or Semi-Pelagians, Arminians, Wesleyans, such mystical sects as the Labadists, the Quietists, the Quakers, and others, some of the Oberlin theologians, such as Mahan and Finney, and Ritschl. These all agree in maintaining that it is possible for believers in this life to attain to a state in which they comply with the requirements of the law under which they now live, or under that law as it was adjusted to their present ability and needs, and, consequently, to be free from sin. They differ, however: (1) In their view of sin, the Pelagians, in distinction from all the rest, denying the inherent corruption of man. They all agree, however, in externalizing sin. (2) In their conception of the law which believers are now obliged to fulﬁll, the Arminians, including the Wesleyans, differing from all the rest in holding that this is not the original moral law, but the gospel requirements or the * new law of faith and evangelical obedience* . The Roman Catholics and the Oberlin theologians maintain that it is the original law, but admit that the demands of this law are adjusted to man’s deteriorated powers and to his present ability. And Ritschl discards the whole idea that man is subject to an externally imposed law. He defends the autonomy of moral conduct, and holds that we are under no law but such as is evolved out of our own moral disposition in the course of activities for the fulﬁlment of our vocation. (3) In their idea of the sinner’s dependence on the renewing grace of God for the ability to fulﬁll the law. All, except the Pelagians, admit that he is in some sense dependent on divine grace, in order to the attainment of perfection.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 19, 2015)

I think you may be encountering a version of N.T.Wright's theology. But I have some further questions I think are needful, both to clarify what you are thinking, as well as trying to understand the connections you are hearing or making, and what your lecturer may believe.



Ben_Ives said:


> A lecturer was using this verse [Mk.7:19] to support the concept that Christ came to, "bring in a new kingdom". When to me, when Christ was talking about the kingdom, it is His means of evangelizing and describing by parables the concept of eternal life.


As you understand it, what is the connection between the kingdom that was (we might call it the Davidic kingdom), and the kingdom announced by the Son of David, i.e. Jesus?




Ben_Ives said:


> I'm taking issue with this, because the section in brackets [(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")], is Jesus Christ advocating breaking God's law. This was before the crucifixion, so the law had not been fulfilled by Christ's death. The reason I think this is so wrong, is because of the positive aspect of justification. For us to be credited with the righteousness of Christ by imputation (the grounds of our justification), Christ Himself would have had to fulfill the law perfectly by the active life of perfect obedience. So Christ himself would not have eaten any food forbidden by the ceremonial law, and it ought to go without saying that in no way would he have advised or advocated anyone to have done the same.


How do you think Mk.7:19 should be translated, or punctuated? What do you think the verse means?

Additional questions: Is Jesus a king? Is a king a lawgiver? Are there differences between laws by type? Could this verse include a "proleptic" statement: something stated early on from the mouth of he who claims the throne by right, which has an "effective date" at the appropriate time, say, once the king has ascended his throne, a proper place from which to promulgate his decrees?




Ben_Ives said:


> This ties into an emphasis on the physical church over / above / and in preference to the work of the Lord in the hearts of the invisible Church. Its playing into the validation of apostolic succession as a general principle without actually stating that is what is being supported. Its suggesting that as people salvation is about believing and following Jesus, and a decision that men have to make to enter into a/the kingdom. Which is described as "now but not yet", and they discuss salvation as happening when you die. They don't look at it as justification in the legal sense. Its an extremely subtle misrepresentation of Christ's message, and saying that he came to set up a belief system, that you enter into, which eventually means you have access to heaven.


I don't know if you are quite understanding what is being taught, or if you are giving the lecturer enough credit--clearly, you are detecting (accurately or inaccurately) lots of *subtlety* in what is presented. That's pretty harsh criticism from someone who is not far into his formal theological education.

It seems to me, you already know (are convinced of) certain rock-hard points of theology, little diamonds on a plain. And you expect your instructors to reinforce those particular convictions by means of their presentations, thus making your "mature" theology mainly just a bigger, thicker version of that with which you started. I'm guessing they have a more ambitious goal: of helping you possess a complete theological system, which is both theoretical and practical. Now, whether they have a good program going or not, I can't say at this point.

Why should there be "emphasis" on _invisible Church_ OVER _physical church,_ as you seem to advocate? This preference seems to be your starting point. I don't know what the lecturer actually sounded like, but what if he doesn't "emphasize" either (in his mind), but simply presents them together as a "package?" Is he really putting the visible AHEAD of the spiritual? Or is he just bringing the church in which we actually spend our earthly lives interacting with other believers and engaging with God through worship UP TO the level of awareness that it deserves?

I haven't listened to your instructor, and I don't know what sort of church background you come from. So I can't actually judge where he is coming from, or what sort of assumptions you may be bringing into the class with you. But you do jump all the way to accusations of the teaching of "apostolic succession" right quick, it seems to me. What is your understanding of "apostolic succession" anyway? Are you inferring a logically necessary consequence from that idea, or a proper recursion to that doctrine from the teaching you encountered? I think you need to argue the connection, rather than asserting it.




Ben_Ives said:


> Justification is strictly a legal act of God, but its being combined with "the kingdom of God" which is being taught that Christ came to earth to start teaching and its a departure from the Christ who was a second Adam, who came to purchase an elect people of God with His blood, who on His ascent were filled with the Spirit to spread the gospel. Its being turned into a way of life. Christ is now being taught to have initiated a religion on earth as the first person to bring it to earth, as the primary focus.


Perhaps you are correct that in your class justification is somehow being tied into the kingdom of God, but it isn't clear from what you have supplied the nature of the connection that you hear being suggested.

I am aware of the claims of Anglican N.T.Wright, that "justification has more to do with ecclesiology than soteriology," (quote from "What St.Paul Really Said"); that is, more to do with the doctrine of the church than with the doctrine of salvation. This is, of course, *nonsense* to theology of the Reformation. If you are hearing this assertion in class, then I think you have some serious filtering to do, sorry to say. I can't tell from the limited description if in fact this is what you are actually encountering. Maybe so; I hear elements of it in what you say, including secure salvation only found in eschatology and a final evaluation of faith+works.

I can only guess, but I think there may be a _complex_ situation here; maybe some non-doctrinal evangelicalism behind you, a "soft-beginning" if you will, perhaps with some dispensational readings of the relationship between the OT & NT. Then, there may be an ill-defined relationship to begin with, in your mind, between the church in its imperfect earthly expression, and its Spiritual ideal being formed for all eternity. There truly is an "already and not-yet," but NTW's vision is not an accurate one. And yet, there is also an unfortunate slighting of the church-on-earth by many believers of this age, an anti-institutional bias, an anti-ministerial bias; and then all support for strengthening the church institute--whether sober or extreme--sounds the same.

I also can't tell whether your understanding of Jesus' arrival, the NT fulfillment motif, and believers' connection to Christ in either age (OT/NT) is properly nuanced in a Reformed manner, particularly as it relates to the law. Your view should be more strongly weighted to the _Personal,_ rather than a strictly _chronological_ relation.

Definitely, if you hear Christianity described principally as a "way of life" that we choose; rather than as reconciliation to God that must come about through God's claim on me, as an individual elected and sought by him--you have a problem. If you hear that Christ is the first Christian, or has come to bring Gentiles a kind of "alternative" to Judaism--you have a problem.


----------



## Ben_Ives (Mar 20, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think you may be encountering a version of N.T.Wright's theology. But I have some further questions I think are needful, both to clarify what you are thinking, as well as trying to understand the connections you are hearing or making, and what your lecturer may believe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dear Bruce,

Certainly, just to give you an idea of my background, I’ve attended a Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster in my home state of Western Australia, for over 10 years. So that’s been my solid grounding to start with. I earned this certificate through their Bible College, being told by the lecturer that they very rarely give out distinctions. http://1drv.ms/1I3chbQ
If I had of completed this last year it would have been signed by Dr. Ian RK Paisley MP MEP.

It says a three year course, but I started it in the late 1990’s and did 2.5 years under one lecturer, and put it on hold. And when I asked if I could complete the course I was told the lecturer had changed and dig basically another 2 years work which was almost purely Soteriology. 

It was heavily based in Hodge’s Commentary on the WCF, Berkhof, I drew Justification by Buchannen, and a stack of books and sermons referred to by my lecturer. I still have a theology journal I could send you a link to of what we covered. So whilst I may communicate in an unprofessional manner mostly, I have been exposed to what I consider excellent teaching. What I’m sharing with you of my impression is contrasting my previous learning with what is being taught, and in discussions with graduates from this college, one of whom I live with. They complain about Presbyterians because they think we are legalistic. I’m sure I don’t have to qualify why I think that is a ridiculous statement. Whilst we recognise that sin is defined by the law, we do not seek to be justified by the law (obviously). 

I no longer attend a free Presbyterian church, because my ex-wife attends the only one within 3000km. So I sit under preaching and teaching from the NIV and gnash my teeth.
Now in relation to your questions, my learning has been essentially purely reformed theology and not much else. What I know I think I know very well, but it would certainly not be as broad a scope (anywhere near) what is required of a minister. However in terms of knowing what a, “strait stick” looks like, I think I have a precise understanding, but I can’t express it very well. 
My understanding of the Davidic Covenant, was that God promised to David to always have a son on the throne of Israel. I would assume at the moment that applies to Christ who is seated at the right hand of the Father, who rules the invisible Church on earth through his people, and office bearers who have their authority given to them by Christ. So while there are Christians on earth, there will be leadership in the authority of Christ, but the people will be making declarative judgements only. They are not binding in heaven as the pope would think. Although it is Christ’s appointed system, as it is run by fallible men, we can’t view their decisions as infallible. This is the system I believe Christ set in order to establish. 

I know Christ said things to his disciples that they did not understand at first (predicting his death and resurrection) but teaching about living outside of the ceremonial law, by declaring all foods fit to be eaten, sounds like Jesus came to correct the Pharisees for their obedience to the ceremonial law, not simply educating that a man’s heart is evil and defiles a man, and food in itself is unable to defile a man. Eating illegal food would make a person a transgressor of the law, but having bacon in your stomach could not actually infect your nature to make it more sinful. – By the law is the knowledge of sin.

As far as I know the full moral law of God still applies to Christians; the aspect of the law of God which has been fulfilled is the system of sacrifice and justification being through the Levitical Priesthood. It is by the law that we know that we shouldn’t lie, steal or murder, and we should honour our parents etc. 
I believe that as Christians, we are regenerate believers who are obliged to follow the moral law, yet we understand that acceptance with God cannot be improved on through the works of the law, as we are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ. The justification is legal and final. 

My issue is that we are being taught that the kingdom of God is a lifestyle choice, yet no one has been taught about election or perseverance. I’m finding it offensive, because there is no distinction between a person in the physical church and a person in the invisible church. Especially since what has been taught in Church History regarding penance in the 2nd and 3rd Century. We are instructed that any Christian at that time would have been in that church, simply on the basis of the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary. Yet in assessments we have not been permitted to comment at all that it is heresy to believe what they did, because that would be anachronistic! 

It’s as if the shift from the church being filled with born again believers, toward a situation where your salvation is dependent on being in the kingdom which is emphasised NOT to be due to regeneration, but rather – believing and continuing in your life as a Christian. There is no talk of the completeness of the work of redemption, and assurance of salvation, it’s completely left out. It’s as if the early visible church model, where division is schismatic sin; and salvation is in the church alone as the mother (as discussed by Cyprian) is being passed off as the earliest origins of Christianity (because there is no evidence to the contrary), and hence at one point in history completely legitimate. In the same sense that the truth (reflection against God’s word as the only guide) is excluded from studies of the early church; that pattern is being reinforced in teaching what the Kingdom of God is like for believers now. All this is being taught to people with no previous history in theology at all. Its not as if correct reformed theology is being taught side by side.

I was warned by the systematic theology lecturer (who takes reformation history) in a discussion in orientation week, 6 weeks ago, that if I wrote an essay which said anything other than an early church person was a Roman Catholic I would fail the essay. So essentially I have to state that whatever the writings of Cyprian were in regards to salvation (which they say is wrong), is what everyone in the church believed back then. So in spite of the fact it might be completely unscriptural, I have to state that all Christians at that point believed the same thing.
The same attitude permeates every subject, the Kingdom of God, is what you enter into when you become a Christian – which is essentially the physical church. You believe what you are taught and salvation depends on if you live a life like a Christian. This is the impression I am getting. Maybe it’s because of my strong doctrinal background, that when I hear stuff being taught this way, I am acutely aware of what I think is being left out. It just seems so off. The lecturers are mostly all Anglican.


----------

