Featured Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism?

Interesting. My initial statement was...

Next…

With which I followed up…

Your retort?

So on the one hand you state explicitly of my statement: “The Roman Catholic Church CREATED the university system, and the scientific method” to be the “…absolute ludicrousness of what you are feebly attempting to maintain.” While on the other hand, you now state:

Wow – you are one conflicted individual.

WM

 

When the Apostle John passed away, the canon of the Bible closed at that very moment! NO more forthcoming doctrines"traditions" from God, as ALL that God had to reveal to us for all times was done with Apostle John!

And "traditions" in the Bible meant either OT scriptures, or else the prophetic words or writtings from the Apostles themselves! ALL under the inspiration of God!

 

Just because no other book was writen after Revelation doesn't mean canon was decided at that point. Show me the document that shows canon was decided at the completion of the book of revelation. Canon wasn't established at that point! Dr. Baker puts it this way

Note that

Also note

Also note

Therefore

because

Study some christian history and find out for yourself.

I must be talking to a wall because didn't I say

I must then be speaking to someone who doesn't listen at all.

It is clear that traditions were also those things verbally spoken by the apostles themselves as can be seen in writen scripture.

 

From Gods point of view, both ALL doctrines/practices AND the canon were BOTH finished as completed when John wrote revelation and passed away!

 

You cannot add to the scriptures in the Bible that should show you it is closed.

 

If that's the way you see it, God bless you.

 

Well, can you clarify the dichotomy? I find you to be intellectually honest... A rare quality around here. I 'm not trying to insult you... Only get at your position. I have enjoyed our discussions. Please do not take offense.

WM

 

Thank you for the compliment. I also have enjoyed our discussions. I didn't take offense at what you said; I just didn't want to continue to sound so strident. I recognize that sometimes I say more than I intended.

Now to the point at hand. I was agreeing that the RCC had a tremendous influence on Western civilization (good and bad, btw); I disagreed that they created the scientific method.

I'll be the first to admit that I have been conflicted about some things --mostly infant baptism, years ago. I also had a struggle trying to determine which denomination I might fit into. It has been the case that I have agreed with a lot of what a particular denomination taught -- except the one thing which was the reason for that denomination's existence, such as the Church of the Nazarene's doctrine of entire sanctification, or the Pentecostals' definition of the Holy Spirit baptism and tongues. That's why years ago I realized I needed a denomination with the widest possible variety of beliefs, which led me to the Episcopal Church, at the time.

Well, you got me to rambling; it's entirely your fault.

Let's keep conversing. I'll try to keep the sarcasm to a minimum. I'm sure you can see that I could not be a Nazarene, as I have a long way to go toward entire sanctification.

I get passionate about things because I am convinced about some doctrines, and I had a difficult time getting there, but I also realize that we all see through a glass, darkly. That's why I am slow to use some words that many here don't seem to mind using. Plus, it's not pleasant to be called some of these things for having an opinion. Further, the definition of a particular word often depends on who is using it.

I look forward to our continued discussions, and disagreements. :laugh:

 

The Jews had already canonized the Old Testament. They rejected the Old Testament apocrapha. The Scriptures were committed to the Jews as the custodian.

The New Testament canon was completed as Tertullian clearly and explicitly calls it "the whole volume" and says that they received it "from the beginning" and explicitly states that "we" cannot add or subtract from it. Indeed, this is the precise charge he brings against Marcion who both added and subtracted from "the whole volume."

Furthermore, it is intellectually dishonest to claim "the whole volume" was not "whole" simply because Tertullian himself does not quote from every single New Testament book and then assume on the basis of silence what he says is "the WHOLE volume" could not have been "whole."

What New Testament books he does not quote other writers previous to him do refer to (Iraeneus, Apotolic Fathers, Justin Martyr) and Tertullian when speaking of "the whole volume" received "from the beginning" uses the first person plural "we" speaking of what he considered the Christian community in contrast to heretics as Marcion.

Furthermore, Isaiah 8:16-20 is a very precise prediction that the whole canon of scripture would be completed among the apostles. Isaiah 8:16 is the precise prediction of the canon being finished and Isaiah 8:16,18 has for its ultimate fulfillment Jesus Christ and his apostles as can clearly seen by its quotation in Hebrews 2:3-4,12. Christ's prediction that the Holy Spirit would lead his apostles (contextual subjects directly addressed in John 14-17) into "all truth" and it is through their words future generations would be brought to the truth (Jn. 17:21). The Apostles themselves were aware of this very mission and regarded their own writings and of other apostles as "scriptures" (2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-17; 2 Thes. 2:15; etc.). John uses the very term "testimony" as Isaiah 8:16 in the concluding letter (Rev. 1:2) and then closes his letter by sealing it as Isaiah 8:16 predicts (Rev. 22:17-18).

Most interesting is that after Isaiah predicts the completion of the Biblical canon by the apostles ("my disciples") the next revelation from God he anticipates is the revelation of the Incarnate Word from heaven (Isa. 8:17-18) precisely as does John after sealing the final apostolic letter (Rev. 22:19-20).

Finally, even Rome does not pretend to believe that after the last living apostle wrote the book of Revelation that any other book has been added to the canon of scripture. There is a good reason for this and that is the fact that the scriptures provide several tests of a prophet and none since the last apostle John have been able to pass those tests and it has been over 1900 years.

Now, I am not so delusional to believe that you or any other Catholic will accept these Biblical or historical evidences. However, for Bible believers these evidences are more than sufficient to deny Rome's claims.

 

The Quakers had a good point that the Holy Spirit is the primary authority -- the Holy Spirit which inspired the scriptures and influences tradition, reason, and experience. However, the orthodox Quakers soon saw how that position could be dangerous. So, they were quick to add that if any leading or purported revelation of the Spirit did not line up with scripture, such leading or revelation was to be considered false.

If people don't accept the scriptures as the final written authority, what do they propose to put in its place? The Catholics put tradition there and run into many errors, false doctrines, and man-made additions to the Gospel of the NT; the Socinians enthrone reason and are thereby led to discard the supernatural aspects of the Gospel, such as the miracles and healings and are influenced to undervalue who Jesus was; those who enthrone experience are led into multiple errors and additions to scripture, often elevating themselves to the status of near-apostles in what they claim!

No, to stay anchored in the Gospel of the NT, the scriptures must be considered the final authority. Due to the human condition, there are bound to be differing and competing interpretations, but this is much more preferable than the alternatives that I mentioned above, as these lead to manifold errors, corruptions, and additions to the NT Gospel. Sure, study the fathers; I value especially the early Greek fathers, but don't get your doctrine from them -- unless it is confirmed by the NT.

Also, as I have shown and some have denied, there are only about eight denominational families, so there is not nearly as much fragmentation in the Body of Christ as some would have you believe. If you do swallow that gross exaggeration of the facts, you are playing right into the hands of the ecumenists and Roman Catholics. For instance, there are a great variety of Baptists, but they all share some basic core beliefs, doctrines, polity, and practice -- even those as divergent as the Calvinist and Arminian Baptists.

Bottom line: Scripture is and must be the final authority; these are the words of the apostles, the ones closest to the Source of our faith -- Jesus Christ. If not the scriptures, then what? The alternatives are disastrous for those seeking to find and follow apostolic, NT Christianity.

 

So you fall back to ignore actual facts and in "God's point of view". Which strangely enough equates to your point of view. If we are going on such a premise why not say "In God's point of view the NT canon was decided before the earth began." ? No because that wouldn't align with what you want to believe and also its a dangerous premise to equate God's design with your own thinking.

 

Moriah, let me have a little fun with you. Where in the bible does it say you can't add to the current selected texts or books of scripture? How about no where. Everyone quotes the book of revelation to say you can't add to the any more books to scripture but thats due to a misreading of that passage. Look at what it actually says.

which was a comon verbage for apocalyptic literature. But note it doesn't say for the current books of the bible but specifically to the words of the prophesy of the book of revelation. How about Deut 12:32?

which speaks specifically to the law. Which was long before the other OT books and certainly from the NT books and it doesn't give a list of which books its speaking about because it is directed to the law of God. How about proverbs 30:35-36?

Note is says God's word every one should be followed however note how it doesn't list which books are the word of God. Which brings me to my next question to you Moriah, How do you know you have all the words of God? There is no scripture that list the table of contents for all the words of God. So who do you now you have the right set? Certainly the bible alone doesn't tell you it. No you come by that knowledge by faith in your tradition that these are the set of books and no more are scritpure. And the Catholic Church has long since established canon.

 

Can you find ANYONE after the apostle John died who is capable of passing all the Biblical tests for a prophet?

Written scripture is given ONLY through such prophets. Since for the past 1900 years none have been able to pass those tests (and there are at least five Bibical tests) then from God's point of view (He is the One who set forth such tests) the scriptural canon was concluded with John.

Moreover, John does something no other writer of scriptures does. He seals his book (and his book covers the time period from his present moment until the new heavens and earth) and then predicts the next revelation that we can expect from heaven to be the revelation of Christ (Rev. 22:19-20). This not only perfectly agrees with Isaiah 8:16 prediction of the completion of the Biblical canon among the disciples of Christ (Isa. 8:16-18) but agrees with Isaiahs prophecy that the next revelation AFTER sealing the canon is Christ coming from heaven (Isa. 8:17-18).

 

LOL. Are you denying what scripture say:

Is your contention that God wouldn't give us prophets after John? Until we reach the unity of faith it says and we see there currently is no unity of faith. Everybody has their pet doctrine.

Prophetness doesn't determine scripture because not one prophet has given us a table of contents. How do we know the writer of Hebrews meets all the test of a prophet since it may not have been Paul who wrote the book?

This isn't true other writers have sealed Apocalyptic literature with similar refrain to "seal their books". All you have to do is look at Jewish apocalyptic literature.

 

I am denying YOUR interpretation of scripture.

You are misinterpreting that scripture. He is speaking of a PRESENT DESIGN reality with a PRESENT consequence not of some future state of perfection. The stated purpose is that PRESENTLY they will not be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine not they will reach the state of sinless perfection at some distant future date.

 

At least thats an honest answer. I deny yours. Now where does that leave us? Nowhere because you have no authority to apeal to to say your interpretation is superior to mine. All you can do is to attempt to make a case for it as I can attempt to make a case for mine. I have no authority that you recognize to appeal to and thus here we are we disagree. No unity. Which proves my point.

Yes he's speaking of a present design and a continual design as well and finally a continuing design lasting for all the ages of the Church. I wasn't indicating just a future mode. However, even from the first days there was hardly unity as many grumblers grumbled and attempted to change Apostolic Doctrine which is why the apostolic letters were written.

Yes thank you for clearing that up.

I wonder if Judges 1&2nd Kings or 1&2nd Chronicles were written by prophets or the book of Esther. They are undoubtedly inspired text but is inspiration your only test of being a prophet? You gave 5 test. How do you know that these writers meet all these tests?

This is interesting because note Isaiah when speaking of the testimony is speaking about the oral proclimation of God's disciples. Not the written word. I find that telling.

Lets look at your test each point at a time.

Both deal with Oral proclimations not written word. And Deut specifically deals with determining whether a foretelling of an event of a Prophet can be trusted by whether or not it comes to pass.

Yes but once again an oral proclimation not the written word.

again an oral proclimation not about the written word. Yes the oral teachings given by the Spirit glorify Jesus and make Jesus teaching available to the hearer.

Just a note so not only prophets write the word but proffessing people of God as well. So the whole question to the "prophetness" is laid to rest.

Yes he did and he said it was hard to understand and easy to pervert which people did and continue to do btw.

what can we tell about them apart from their association with Paul certainly that didn't necissarily have to be prophets. What other test can we run on them? They could have been full of Bunk since we really don't know about them how do you run your tests on them. Not that a single verse has said anything about the written word of God but only the spoken word of God which supports my analysis that in the ancient world Oral tradition was the normal way of passing on information and the written text was evaluated for accuracy from the oral teachings not the other way around.

First of all Isaiah 8:16 isn't what you think it is because it mentions the oral proclimation. Next no one is particularily sure who wrote Revelation John the Apostle or John the Revelator? Next John isn't speaking to other text but soley his own. And the fact that he speaking about Jesus' 2nd Advent is not a good point for your position because you hold that Daniel does that as well? Should Daniel be the final book?

 

I tell you what. You present some of your evidence, and I'll shoot it down some time later. I am fairly busy most of today.

 

Honestly DHK I want to see you shoot it down. This should be fun. After all Aristotle started the process by observation of the natural world, muslims continued to develop it that observation, and Roger Bacon (a Catholic) started its promotion in the west (ie Europe) having been influenced by the scholastic tradition of the Roman Catholic University system which was started by Charlemagne. The men of The Rennisance based all their methods on Roger Bacon who was taught Aristotle and other thinkers because the Catholic Church and Monestaries maintained those documents for him to Study. Many consider him to be the for runner of the modern Scientific method. By Dr. Thomas Woods