3月25日远志明牧师北卡三角研究园区华人基督教联合布道会

北卡三角研究園區華人基督教會聯合佈道會

地點：Forest Hills Baptist Church；201 Dixie Trail Raleigh NC 27607.

大會主題：不一樣的人生。      講員：遠志明牧師，舒展姐妹音樂事奉。

大會分題及時間表：週五(March 23rd, 2012) ：第一堂主題-恩典，7:30 PM。

   週六(March 24th, 2012)  ：第二堂主題-信心，4:00 PM，晚餐，5:30 PM。

    第三堂主題-生命，7:00 PM。

Evangelistic Crusade organized by the greater Triangle Chinese Churches

Location: Forest Hills Baptist Church；201 Dixie Trail Raleigh NC 27607.

Main Theme: Not the Same Life.    

Speakers: Rev. Chi-Ming Yuan and Sister Suzanne Shu

Theme for each session:

     (1)  Grace, 7:30PM on 3/23/2012.

     (2)  Faith, 4:00PM on 3/24/2012; Dinner at 5:30PM.

     (3)  Life, 7:00PM on 3/23/2012.

http://www.raleighccc.org/

完全崭新设计的YouVersion.com正式启动啦！

全新的YouVersion.com！如果您最近访问过本站，您可能看到那个顶部的“预览”链接。如果您有一个Youversion账号，您可能已经在二月份收到了一封电邮告诉您可以对网站的新设计先睹为快。不管那种方法，很多用户已经浏览了新的页面并且给我们提供了一些非常有益的反馈。今天，我们很高兴地宣布：完全崭新设计的Youversion.com正式启动了！

您很快会发现改版后的Youversion.com除了拥有更简洁的界面外，还提供了很多您在移动版的圣经软件中已经习惯的很多功能。

书签。不论是分享、背诵还是用神的应许来提醒自己，书签都是用来跟踪和组织您要不断回顾一些圣经段落的极棒的方法。当然了，Youversion.com之前就经提供了书签，不过现在它们却和移动版的圣经软件更相似。

高亮显示。书签可以非常可行地帮助您去做记录和组织的工作，而高亮显示的超赞之处则在于它通过可视化的方式将您的注意力带回到圣经段落。就像在移动版的圣经软件一样，高亮显示让您根据您的心情或目标去选择各种缤纷绚丽的色彩。

语音圣经。您也许一直喜欢通过移动版的圣经软件去聆听不同版本的语音圣经并期望有一天网站上也有类似功能？现在我们高兴的宣布：新的网站也可以快速地将语音版圣经送到您的桌面了。您在工作的时候，请让神的话语成为您的随身听。您也可以在您阅读的同时它帮助您更好吸收。只要找到您需要的版本并点击播放即可。

一切只是刚刚开始。明天我们会向您更多地分享全新改版的YouVersion.com的其他一些吸引人的功能。不过时不我待，现在就去YouVersion.com浏览其中的页面吧！我们希望听到您的反馈。在未来几周里，我们将带给您更多新的更新和令人激动的功能介绍！非常期待您能够通过Facebook和Twitter分享和我们您的想法。

这篇文章又可见于: 繁体中文, 英语, 德语, 俄语, 韩语

http://blog.youversion.com/zh-hans/2012/03/new-website/

将你最好的献给主Give of your Best to the Master

1.將你最好的獻於主，
獻你年輕的力量；
將你純潔熱情心靈，
忠心為真理打仗。

主耶穌已做你榜樣，
勇敢堅定不懼怕；
你要忠心敬虔愛主，
將最好奉獻與祂。

*將你最好的獻於主
獻你年青的力量
穿上救恩全副軍裝
忠心為真理打仗

2.將你最好的獻於主
主在你心居首位
主在事業上居首位
完全奉獻不收回

樂意施捨必得賞賜
因神將愛子賜下
你要向主感恩事奉
將最好奉獻與祂

*將你最好的獻於主
獻你年青的力量
穿上救恩全副軍裝
忠心為真理打仗

3.將你最好的獻於主 
主愛偉大無可比
祂將自己做你贖價 
天上榮耀賞賜你

祂捨生命毫無怨言 
救你脫罪把血洒
你要熱心敬虔愛主
將最好奉獻與祂

*將你最好的獻於主
獻你年青的力量
穿上救恩全副軍裝
忠心為真理打仗

這首詩的作者古路司（Howard B. Grose, 1851-1939）出生在美國紐約州。 他畢業于羅契斯特大學，曾在紐約州和賓州的第一浸信會牧會多年。 嗣後，他出任南達科塔大學校長，及在芝加哥大學教歷史，1910年被聘為浸信會雜誌「使命」（Missions）的編輯。 古路司是基督徒熱心愛主運動（Christian Endeavor Movement）的領導者之一。 

本詩歌的作曲者巴納德（Charlotte Allington Barnard, 1830-1869），英國人，是英國皇家音樂院的高材生。 她在婚後開始作曲，曾以Claribel的筆名出版了一百多首敘事曲，流行一時。 她譜的聖詩最有名的是本詩歌及「慈悲牧人歌」（Jesus, Tender Shepherd, Hear Me）。 她作的鋼琴曲 Come Back to Erin 流傳迄今未衰。 另外她尚有兩本詩集。

Words: How­ard B. Grose, The En­dea­vor Hymn­al, 1902.
Music: Bar­nard, Char­lotte A. Bar­nard, 1864, to ac­com­pa­ny the se­cu­lar lyr­ics “Take Back the Heart That Thou Gavest” (MI­DI,score).

神同在圣经测试版徵求意見中

神同在圣经测试版

国内互联网站个人通行证账户使用情况

OpenID（例如使用谷歌帐号的一个URL网址）看起来并没有被引起大量使用，除了使用电子邮件作为账户ID（电子邮件不像用户名会重名），OAuth（使用第三方账户认证并授权）看起来已经被广泛使用了。而目前用的很火的当属QQ的Qzone帐号和新浪微博账号，差不多都是使用OAuth技术实现的。

使用myGengo翻译Youversion圣经应用的培训教程

主内QQ群和改革宗背景的主内超级群

欢迎加入主内QQ群

• 大使命(福音慕道团契) 89857902 超级群
• 信望爱(圣经真理学习) 81591230 超级群
• 主内网络事工同工群 40240332
• 主内美工交流 48986523
• 主内媒体技术交流 202192481
• 主内翻译事工 17191164
• 主内翻译同工 207427606 组织翻译亨利马太圣经注释和亨利马太简明圣经注释
• 主内外语群 207213996 超级群
• 主内媒体资讯事工 200926729 超级群
• 主内IT技术交流 171583846 超级群
• 华人改革宗 75726826
• 中国改革宗 65038597 超级群
• 山东改革宗基督徒群 104728607 超级群
• 吕沛渊牧师课程讨论 205896834
• 回归圣经真理讨论 207426901 正统异端真伪讨论
• 基督徒真理合一群 84880302 正统异端真伪讨论
• 欢迎加入改革宗背景的主内超级群：
• 大使命(福音慕道团契) 89857902 超级群
• 信望爱(圣经真理学习) 81591230 超级群
• 中国改革宗超级群 65038597 原中国改革宗高级群
• 山东改革宗基督徒群 104728607
• 传统改革宗神学讨论群 81170708
• 访问古道(神学研讨群) 31986089 超级群 （不适合普通信徒）

What is Apostasy and Heterodoxy

Recall this:
http://rti.myfineforum.org/sutra16309.php#16309

Apostates are those that have fallen away from the truth, for example, I consider the Roman Catholic church to be an apostate church.

Heterodoxy is mixture of odd/false views with orthodoxy.

Barth’s neo-orthodoxy is probably best categorized as heterodoxy.

Buddhism and Islam are heresies, as would be any belief or system of beliefs that is not Christian.

Best to think of this particular forum as a place where discussion of any system of religious belief that is not Reformed takes place. 

http://rti.myfineforum.org/about1842.html

Solo Scriptura 唯独圣经（英文，转载）

Solo Scriptura – The Difference a Vowel Makes 
by Keith A. Mathison 
Modern Reformation Magazine 

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? 

The twentieth century could, with some accuracy, be called a century of theological anarchy. Liberals and sectarians have long rejected outright many of the fundamental tenets of Christian orthodoxy. But more recently professing evangelical scholars have advocated revisionary versions of numerous doctrines. A revisionary doctrine of God has been advocated by proponents of “openness theology.” A revisionary doctrine of eschatology has been advocated by proponents of full-preterism. Revisionary doctrines of justification sola fide have been advocated by proponents of various “new perspectives” on Paul. Often the revisionists will claim to be restating a more classical view. Critics, however, have usually been quick to point out that the revisions are actually distortions. 

Ironically, a similarly revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has arisen within Protestantism, but unlike the revisionist doctrine of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has caused very little controversy among the heirs of the Reformation. One of the reasons there has been much less controversy over the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is that this doctrine has been gradually supplanting the Reformation doctrine for centuries. In fact, in many segments of the evangelical world, the revisionist doctrine is by far the predominant view now. Many claim that this revisionist doctrine is the Reformation doctrine. However, like the revisionist doctrines of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is actually a distortion of the Reformation doctrine. 

The adoption of the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has resulted in numerous biblical, theological, and practical problems within Protestant churches. These problems have become the center of attention in recent years as numerous Protestants have converted to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy claiming that their conversion was due in large part to their determination that the doctrine of sola Scriptura was indefensible. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have been quick to take advantage of the situation, publishing numerous books and articles devoted to critiquing the doctrine of sola Scriptura. One issue, however, that neither the converts nor the apologists seem to understand is that the doctrine they are critiquing and rejecting is the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura, not the classical Reformation doctrine. In order to understand the difference, some historical context is necessary. 

Historical Observations 

Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed simplistically in terms of “Scripture versus tradition.” Protestants are said to teach “Scripture alone,” while Roman Catholics are said to teach “Scripture plus tradition.” This, however, is not an accurate picture of the historical reality. The debate should actually be understood in terms of competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church. In order to understand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura we must understand the historical context more accurately. 

The Reformation debate over sola Scriptura did not occur in a vacuum. It was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of “tradition” itself. In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei (“rule of faith”), yet neither the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God. Heiko Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation “Tradition 1.” 

The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil and Augustine. Oberman terms this two-source concept of tradition “Tradition 2″ (Professor Oberman had many gifts. The ability to coin catchy labels was apparently not one of them). It is not absolutely certain that either Basil or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition 1, the position of the early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not begin in earnest until the twelfth century. A turning point was reached in the fourteenth century in the writings of William of Ockham. He was one of the first, if not the first, medieval theologian to embrace explicitly the two-source view of revelation. From the fourteenth century onward, then, we witness the parallel development of two opposing views: Tradition 1 and Tradition 2. It is within the context of this ongoing medieval debate that the Reformation occurred. 

When the medieval context is kept in view, the Reformation debate over sola Scriptura becomes much clearer. The reformers did not invent a new doctrine out of whole cloth. They were continuing a debate that had been going on for centuries. They were reasserting Tradition 1 within their particular historical context to combat the results of Tradition 2 within the Roman Catholic Church. The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei. They insisted on returning to the ancient doctrine, and as Tradition 1 became more and more identified with their Protestant cause, Rome reacted by moving toward Tradition 2 and eventually adopting it officially at the Council of Trent. (Rome has since developed a view that Oberman has termed “Tradition 3,” in which the “Magisterium of the moment” is understood to be the one true source of revelation, but that issue is beyond the scope of this brief essay). 

At the same time the magisterial reformers were advocating a return to Tradition 1 (sola Scriptura), several radical reformers were calling for the rejection of both Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 and the adoption of a completely new understanding of Scripture and tradition. They argued that Scripture was not merely the only infallible authority but that it was the only authority altogether. The true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei were rejected altogether. According to this view (Tradition 0), there is no real sense in which tradition has any authority. Instead, the individual believer requires nothing more than the Holy Spirit and the Bible. 

In America during the eighteenth century, this individualistic view of the radical Reformation was combined with the rationalism of the Enlightenment and the populism of the new democracy to create a radical version of Tradition 0 that has all but supplanted the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura (Tradition 1). This new doctrine, which may be termed “solo” Scriptura instead of sola Scriptura, attacks the rightful subordinate authority of the church and of the ecumenical creeds of the church. Unfortunately, many of its adherents mistakenly believe and teach others that it is the doctrine of Luther and Calvin. 
The Reformation Doctrine of Sola Scriptura 

To summarize the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith. As Richard Muller observes, the Reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura did not ever mean, “all of theology ought to be constructed anew, without reference to the church’s tradition of interpretation, by the lonely exegete confronting the naked text.” That this is the Reformation doctrine of Scripture, tradition, and authority may be demonstrated by an examination of the reformers’ writings, only a sampling of which may be mentioned here. 

Martin Luther is well known for his declaration at the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other-my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” Many point to this statement as evidence that Luther rejected Tradition 1, the teaching of the early church, but other factors must be considered before coming to such a conclusion, namely, the historical context of this statement and the fact that Luther said and wrote much more on the subject. As simply one example, in a 1532 letter to Duke Albert of Prussia about the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, Luther wrote the following: 

The second-generation Lutheran scholar Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), writes along similar lines in his Examination of the Council of Trent: 

Another of the magisterial reformers who addressed this issue was John Calvin. In the 1559 edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, for example, he writes: 

And further: 

To sum up the traditional Protestant view, the words of the nineteenth-century Reformed theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878) are appropriate: 

The Revisionist Doctrine of “solo” Scriptura 

In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, the revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura is marked by radical individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds. If we compare the statements made by advocates of “solo” Scriptura with the statements of Reformational Christians above, the difference is immediately evident. It is also important to observe the source of this doctrine in early America. As Nathan O. Hatch notes, the first Americans to push the right of private judgment over against the church and the creeds were unorthodox ministers. 

The liberal minister Simeon Howard (1733-1804), for example, advised pastors to “lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to names, councils and churches, and honestly inquire, ‘what saith the Scriptures?’” In his own effort to overturn orthodox Christianity, Charles Beecher (1815-1900) denounced “creed power” and argued for “the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.” The universalist minister A. B. Grosh (d. 1884) declared in a similar way, “In religious faith we have but one Father and one Master, and the Bible, the Bible, is our only acknowledged creed book.” 

The radical American version of “solo” Scriptura reached its fullest expression in the writings of the Restorationists as they applied the principles of Democratic populism to Enlightenment Christianity. In 1809, the Restorationist Elias Smith (1769-1846) proclaimed, “Venture to be as independent in things of religion, as those which respect the government in which you live.” Barton Stone (1772-1844) declared that the past should be “consigned to the rubbish heap upon which Christ was crucified.” Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) made his individualistic view of Scripture very clear, declaring, “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.” As the Reformed Princeton theologian Samuel Miller (1769-1850) rightly observed, “the most zealous opposers [of creeds] have generally been latitudinarians and heretics.” 

Why “Solo” Scriptura Must Be Rejected 

The revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura has become so entrenched in the modern church that many Protestant Christians today will sympathize more with the sentiments of the liberal and sectarian clergymen quoted above than they will with the teaching of the reformers. The doctrine of “solo” Scriptura, however, is as problematic and dangerous today as it was in previous centuries. It remains unbiblical, illogical, and unworkable. Here I will address some of the more obvious problems. 

The fundamental problem with “solo” Scriptura is that it results in autonomy. It results in final authority being placed somewhere other than the Word of God. It shares this problem with the Roman Catholic doctrine. The only difference is that the Roman Catholic doctrine places final authority in the church while “solo” Scriptura places final authority in each individual believer. Every doctrine and practice is measured against a final standard, and that final standard is the individual’s personal judgment of what is and is not biblical. The result is subjectivism and relativism. The reformers’ appeal to “Scripture alone,” however, was never intended to mean “me alone.” 

The Bible itself simply does not teach “solo” Scriptura Christ established his church with a structure of authority and gives to his church those who are specially appointed to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2-4). When disputes arose, the apostles did not instruct each individual believer to go home and decide by himself and for himself who was right. They met in a council (Acts 15:6-29). Even the well-known example of the Bereans does not support “solo” Scriptura (cf. Acts 17:10-11; cf. vv. 1-9). Paul did not instruct each individual Berean to go home and decide by himself and for himself whether what he was teaching was true. Instead, the Bereans read and studied the Scriptures of the Old Testament day by day with Paul present in order to see whether his teaching about the Messiah was true. 

In terms of hermeneutics, the doctrine of “solo” Scriptura is hopeless. With “solo” Scriptura, the interpretation of Scripture becomes subjective and relative, and there is no possibility for the resolution of differences. It is a matter of fact that there are numerous different interpretations of various parts of Scripture. Adherents of “solo” Scriptura are told that these different interpretations can be resolved simply by an appeal to Scripture. But how is the problem of differing interpretations to be resolved by an appeal to another interpretation? All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to “solo” Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there are human interpreters. This is subjectivism and relativism run amuck. The proponents of “solo” Scriptura rightly condemn the hermeneutical tyranny of Rome, but the solution to hermeneutical tyranny is not hermeneutical anarchy. 

The doctrine of “solo” Scriptura also faces historical problems due to the fact that it cannot be reconciled with the reality that existed in the first decades and centuries of the church. If “solo” Scriptura were true, much of the church had no standard of truth for many years. In the first century, one could not walk down to his local Christian bookstore and buy a copy of the Bible. Manuscripts had to be hand-copied and were not found in every believer’s home. The first books of the New Testament did not even begin to be written until at least ten years after the death of Christ, and some were not written until several decades after Christ. Gradually some churches obtained copies of some books, while other churches had copies of others. It took many years before the New Testament as we know it was gathered and available as a whole. Even then, it too was hand-copied, so it was not available in the home of every individual Christian. If the lone individual is to judge and evaluate everything by himself and for himself by measuring it against Scripture, as proponents of “solo” Scriptura would have it, how would this have possibly worked in the first decades of the church before the New Testament was completed? 

One of the most self-evident problems related to the doctrine of “solo” Scriptura is the question of the canon. If one is going to claim that Scripture is the only authority whatsoever, it is legitimate to ask how we then define what is and is not “Scripture.” Proponents of “solo” Scriptura claim that Scripture is authoritative but cannot say with any authority what Scripture is. The table of contents in the front of the Bible is not itself an inspired text written by a prophet or an apostle. It is, in a very real sense, a creed of the church declaring what the church believes to be the content of Scripture. One way to illustrate the problem “solo” Scriptura faces in connection with the canon is simply to ask the following: How would “solo” Scriptura deal with a modern day Marcion? How, for example, would a proponent of “solo” Scriptura argue with a person who claimed that the real New Testament includes only the books of Luke, Acts, Romans, and Revelation? He can’t appeal to the church, to history, or to tradition. A self-consistent adherent of “solo Scriptura” would have no way to respond to such a view because, as one such consistent adherent informed me in personal correspondence, it is the right and duty of each individual Christian to determine the canonicity of each biblical book by and for himself. This is the only consistent position for a proponent of “solo” Scriptura to take, but it is self-defeating because it destroys any objective notion of Scripture. One cannot appeal to the biblical authority of Romans, for example, if each believer determines for himself whether Romans is in fact to be considered a canonical and authoritative biblical book. 

The question of the canon is not the only theological problem caused by “solo” Scriptura. Another serious problem is the fact that the adoption of “solo” Scriptura destroys the possibility of having any objective definition of what Christianity is and is not. “solo” Scriptura destroys the very concepts of orthodoxy and heresy. If the authority of the ecumenical creeds is rejected, and if each individual believer is to determine all questions of doctrine by and for himself, then the definitions of orthodoxy and heresy are completely relative and subjective. One man judges the doctrine of the Trinity to be biblical. Another deems it unbiblical. One judges open theism biblical. Another deems it unbiblical. The same is true with respect to every other doctrine. Each man defines Christianity as it seems right in his own eyes. 

Finally, it must be realized that “solo” Scriptura ignores reality. The Bible simply did not drop out of the sky into our laps. We would not even be able to read a Bible for ourselves were it not for the labors of many others including archaeologists, linguists, scribes, textual critics, historians, translators, and more. If “solo” Scriptura were true, it should be possible to give untranslated ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of biblical, apocryphal, and pseudepigraphal texts to some isolated tribe member somewhere on earth, and with no one’s assistance, that individual should be able to learn the Hebrew and Greek languages, read the various manuscripts, determine which of them are canonical, and then come to an orthodox understanding of the Christian faith. The reason this is not possible, however, is because “solo” Scriptura is not true. It is an unbiblical distortion of the truth. 

The revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura has been a source of great damage to the cause of Christ. The magisterial reformers were right to reject the early versions of it that appeared in the teaching of some radicals. Contemporary heirs of the reformers must follow the magisterial reformers here. The fight must be fought on two fronts. We are not only to reject the Roman Catholic doctrine (whether the two-source doctrine of Tradition 2 or the sola ecclesia doctrine of Tradition 3), which places final autonomous authority in the church. We must also reject the revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura, which places final autonomous authority in the hands of each and every individual. 

———————— 
1  For more information on Heiko Oberman’s concept of Tradition 1, see his work The Dawn of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), p. 280. For background information on Tradition 0, see Alister McGrath’s Reformation Thought, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell), p. 144. For other background information on “solo” Scriptura see Nathan O. Hatch, “Sola Scriptura and Novus Ordo Seclorum,” in The Bible in America, ed. N. Hatch and M. Noll, pp. 59-78. The quotation from Richard Muller is taken from his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), p. 51. Luther’s letter to Duke Albert of Prussia is cited in Philip Schaff’s The Principle of Protestantism (Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1964 [1845]), pp. 116-117, note). Chemnitz’s quote can be found in Examination of the Council of Trent, tr. Fred Kramer, Vol. 1, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), pp. 208-209. The quotations from Calvin are taken from his Institutes, 4.9.8 and 4.9.13. Mr. Mathison has taken his quotation of Charles Hodge from Hodge’s Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 113-114. Comments from Nathan Hatch on the revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura are taken from “Sola Scriptura and Novus Ordo Seclorum,” in The Bible in America, ed. N. Hatch and M. Noll, p. 62. The quotation from Samuel Miller is found in The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions (Greenville, SC: A Press, 1991 [1839]), p. 15. For a fuller discussion on this topic, Mr. Mathison refers readers to his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press, 2001).

什么是异端教义和异端分子？（英文，转载）

There are many definitions of heresy. As the old saying goes, “one person’s heresy is another’s gospel”. Sigh. 

The Dictionary of Theological Terms defines heresy as: 

Thus a heretic is someone who believes heresies.  

Note from the definition above, the word “orthodoxy”. The same dictionary defines the word orthodoxy as follows: 

If you look at the description for this forum, Apostasies, Cults, Heresies, Heterodoxies, you will find that I include within the forum those heresies denounced at Chalcedon, or any view that denies the five solas: Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide. This is simply my reformed perspective on the broad topic of beliefs that can be classified as Apostasies, Cults, Heresies, Heterodoxies. 

Heretical views are not confined to China. They are ever present within the visible church. Unfortunately the heretics are usually very vocal and seem to get all the attention, especially on the internet. It is also unfortunate that the church does not spend more time teaching its members sound doctrine. Instead every one thinks their own private interpretations are gospel truths. This is the error of solo scriptura versus the truth of sola scriptura. 

When we preach the Good News, we can certainly claim that there is no other means of salvation (John 14:6). The key here is understanding what the Good News means. Unfortunately, usually the sort of statements you are describing sound more like those made by cultic groups and persons. 

And when I hear a person claiming the reason they do not attend church is because they believe the church is now ruled by Satan or some such other nonsense, I usually find that this person has numerous incorrect views of the teachings of Scripture.

Next Page »

• Calendar

  May 2012

  S	M	T	W	T	F	S
  « Mar
  		1	2	3	4	5
  6	7	8	9	10	11	12
  13	14	15	16	17	18	19
  20	21	22	23	24	25	26
  27	28	29	30	31

• Categories

  • Anniversary
  • Belief
  • devel
  • eda
  • esd
  • esdcat
  • faith
  • Food and drink
  • Music
  • OurDailyBread
  • the Love Dare爱的挑战
  • Uncategorized
  • web
  • 主内翻译事工
  • 信仰
  • 单车行天下
  • 基督教知识·福音
  • 家有爱猫
  • 是就说是
  • 未分类
  • 爱的挑战
  • 真伪辨
  • 神同在网
  • 神学
  • 福音

• Archives

  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • February 2009
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008

• Belief

  • Chinese Christian Wiki CCWiki
  • Godwithus China
  • Godwithus Web
  • Our Daily Bread
  • Our Daily Bread (Chinese)
  • Walk with God Bible Reading

• Blogroll

  • Academic Website
  • Blog@Live Spaces
  • Blog@Sina Blog
  • NC State University
  • UC Riverside
  • Zhejiang University

• Library

  • ACM Digital Library
  • Elsevier-SDOL
  • Engineering Village
  • IEEE XPLORE IEL
  • Library@NCSU
  • Library@UCR
  • Library@ZJU

• Tools

  • Google Dictionary
  • Google Scholar
  • RVPN@ZJU

• Recent Posts

  • 3月25日远志明牧师北卡三角研究园区华人基督教联合布道会
  • 完全崭新设计的YouVersion.com正式启动啦！
  • 将你最好的献给主Give of your Best to the Master
  • 神同在圣经测试版徵求意見中
  • 国内互联网站个人通行证账户使用情况
  • 使用myGengo翻译Youversion圣经应用的培训教程
  • 主内QQ群和改革宗背景的主内超级群
  • What is Apostasy and Heterodoxy
  • Solo Scriptura 唯独圣经（英文，转载）
  • 什么是异端教义和异端分子？（英文，转载）
  • 信经信条简史 文/贺治 译/杖恩 校/煦 （转载）
  • 关于基督的人性和道成肉身的传统表述（英文）
  • 关于基督的人性和道成肉身的传统表述和正统理解
  • 李常受和地方教会的教导 摘要
  • 基督教改革宗中文资料与书目大全（2012年3月1日更新）教牧人员书目

• Tags

  acm books build courses esdcat fireproof online Our Daily Bread stc subversion svn the love dare visual studio wxmsw wxwidgets 信仰 冒险 基督教 信仰 知识 百科 婚姻 家庭 异端 情感 挑战 教会 家庭教会 三自教会 基督徒 基督教 每日灵粮 消防员 灵命日粮 灵命日粮 Our Daily Bread 爱 爱的挑战 爱的挑战 the love dare 如鹰展翅上腾 消防员 fireproof 爱情 婚姻 信仰 爱的挑战 the love dare 消防员 fireproof 爱的挑战 the love dare 消防员 fireproof 爱 挑战 冒险 家庭 婚姻 信仰 情感 牧师 诚实

• Recent Comments

  • Jonathan on 这边耶和华见证人异端很厉害啊
  • 国际圣经在线 on 田纳西印象，与加州的对比，感慨
  • 流言止于智者 : Soar on wings like eagles on 2010-04-30 诚实 灵命日粮
  • michael on Hello world!
  • Tweets that mention the Love Dare 16第十六天 爱是代祷 : Soar on wings like eagles -- Topsy.com on the Love Dare 16第十六天 爱是代祷
  • Tweets that mention the Love Dare 02第二天 爱是恩慈 : Soar on wings like eagles -- Topsy.com on the Love Dare 02第二天 爱是恩慈
  • Herbert Yu on Hello world!
  • Mr WordPress on Hello world!
  • 云淡风轻yun on 华人的赞美（歌词）
  • 小西 on 华人的赞美（歌词）
  • Yanxia on 圣经中的热线电话
  • Boubo wrote: on 88上的养猫回忆
  • Boubo wrote: on 联系方式更新
  • l z on 连续两天4：30回家，7：30起床
  • Kehan Zhu on 老了么？

• Soar on wings like eagles 如鹰展翅上腾

  • 神同在圣经增加搜索定位API接口
  • 好的圣经的英文译本版本
  • 已有的英文圣经注释资料
  • 新媒体与宣教 远东传播 An Ping弟兄 IMF2010
  • 苏文峰牧师在第二节网络宣教论坛上的报告
  • 林祥源牧师在第二届网络宣教论坛上的证道
  • 苏文峰牧师对第二届网络宣教论坛的总结
  • 王永信牧师在第二届网络宣教论坛上的劝勉
  • 8.27-29张路加牧师北卡洛丽华人基督教会福音培灵特会
  • 欢迎来到美国加州RMBC/UCR好朋友团契及主页

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org