Thread: Nothing New Under the Sun?

This is one way that detractors of the Pentecostal movement refer to it, meaning that what could be new in Christianity, since the Bible had been with us for centuries.

How would you answer thus objection?

Originally Posted by Jonathan david

This is one way that detractors of the Pentecostal movement refer to it, meaning that what could be new in Christianity, since the Bible had been with us for centuries.

How would you answer thus objection?

Yeah, it was here during the first century too. What they were doing during the 2nd through 19th centuries I don't know but in the 20th and 21st centuries we are doing what they did during the first century, there's nothing new about it.

The same "argument" can be applied to the Reformation. The theology was here during the first century too and since the 16th or so we have been doing the same, there's nothing new about it.

Originally Posted by Smitty

I don't understand the question so what I post here may not relate to the OP.

2 Tim 2:15 specifically says rightly dividing the word of truth tells us that there must be a possibility of wrongly dividing the scriptures.
It is a matter of extreme importance to rightly divide the Bible because we have a devil who is behind distorting the scriptures, with the end result leading to deception.

There is no new Christianity (Christian Science, Jehovah Witnesses) or new revelation (Mormonism, The Way International).

God does not change (Mal 3:6), God does not lie (Titus 1:2) and God's word will not pass away (Lk 21:33).

God and His word remain unchanged and eternal.

If this is not the proper response to the OP, please correct me to what question you are trying to communicate.

Fair enough, Smitty.
I don't think your response is inappropriate, but has important principles regarding the Scriptures that we must always keep in mind.

To illustrate better what I am looking for as an example: A Reformed-persuasion person would typically say something like "Calvin & Co already specified the proper doctrine of the Church in his writings pretty thoroughly", so any further change in the operative practices and emphasis could easily be deemed unnecessary and "changing the Scriptures."

Philosophies associated with various epochs and cultures has often influenced the church belief system and practices, sometimes to its detriment. God can raise up people to restore imbalances and restore what God has intended his church to be. This is how I see great spiritual moves of God like Azusa street, where the Holy Spirit flowed in a greater measure to hungry hearts. Those who were opposed to Azusa street saw it as something "new" (which is not supposed to happen, as everything is already set in stone).

Originally Posted by Jonathan david

Fair enough, Smitty.
I don't think your response is inappropriate, but has important principles regarding the Scriptures that we must always keep in mind.

To illustrate better what I am looking for as an example: A Reformed-persuasion person would typically say something like "Calvin & Co already specified the proper doctrine of the Church in his writings pretty thoroughly", so any further change in the operative practices and emphasis could easily be deemed unnecessary and "changing the Scriptures."

Philosophies associated with various epochs and cultures has often influenced the church belief system and practices, sometimes to its detriment. God can raise up people to restore imbalances and restore what God has intended his church to be. This is how I see great spiritual moves of God like Azusa street, where the Holy Spirit flowed in a greater measure to hungry hearts. Those who were opposed to Azusa street saw it as something "new" (which is not supposed to happen, as everything is already set in stone).

Calvin and Luther changed the doctrine of the RCC but why would they have to represent the full restoration of what the first Christians actually believed ? The only ones who could possibly claim that without falling apart logically would be the RCC itself. But then there is the question of how RCC doctrine was formed. That took a rather long time and their claim that it represents what was in the beginning remains just a claim. And that is before we start comparing their doctrine to the Bible itself, which everyone mentioned holds as canonical to begin with.

Originally Posted by Colonel

Calvin and Luther changed the doctrine of the RCC but why would they have to represent the full restoration of what the first Christians actually believed ? ....

I think that Calvin and his followers saw themselves as the proper systematic "codifiers" of what Bible Beliefs are supposed to be. But I wouldn't regard their take as "the last word" at all - the Reformers had their own biases, framework, deficiencies and "drivers" as well.

I also like GIMJ usage of God doing something "new" as well. God has every prerogative to do a changeup on his gameplan "phase" and "move."

Originally Posted by Jonathan david

I also like GIMJ usage of God doing something "new" as well. God has every prerogative to do a changeup on his gameplan "phase" and "move."

Some might quote 'Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever', but that doesn't mean He won't do something 'new' or 'different', etc. That's not 'change' in the way that verse means not changing .

In defending the teaching of dispensationalism, cessationist Charles Ryrie stated " .... the ultimate test of the truth of any doctrine is whether it is in accord with biblical revelation. The fact that the church taught something in the first century does not make it true, and, likewise, if the church did not teach something until the twentieth century, it is not necessarily false." I use that quote in reference to the Charismatic movement and Word of Faith theology. If it works for Ryrie and dispensationalism it works for us.