-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Sola Scripture—What does it mean?
- Thread starter Craigbythesea
- Start date
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Pastor Larry wrote,
Please do NOT post that I am incorrect when I am NOT! If you wish to post some oddball definition, that is your privilege, but don’t say that my mainstream definition is wrong.
Fact: The doctrine of canonicity is a part of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because without a defined Canon, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is meaningless.
) We both agree that the final authority is the Holy Scriptures. The issue here is the interpretation of those Scriptures. OSAS is a new and novel doctrine that was developed in the 16th century based upon and derived from a careless and inaccurate interpretation of Scriptures having to do with the sovereignty of God. This new and novel interpretation ticked the ears of men who called themselves Christians but who were in reality hedonists. Hence the doctrine of “you can have your cake and eat it to” (otherwise known as the doctrine of eternal security) spread like wildfire.
Fact: If the doctrine of eternal security is REALLY taught in the Holy Scriptures, someone, somewhere, would have noticed that to be the case—but between the close of the New Testament Canon and the 16th century there is absolutely no evidence that any would did, and there are tens of thousands of Christian documents from this period in which the doctrine of conditional security is either explicitly taught (as it is in very many of the documents) or assumed to be true with no mention or refutation of any conflicting doctrine.
Larry,
Please do NOT post that I am incorrect when I am NOT! If you wish to post some oddball definition, that is your privilege, but don’t say that my mainstream definition is wrong.
Fact: The doctrine of canonicity is a part of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because without a defined Canon, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is meaningless.
Again, please do NOT post that I am incorrect when I am NOT! If you wish to post some oddball definition, that is your privilege, but don’t say that my mainstream definition is wrong. Hermeneutics is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation of literature, and one of the primary principles of interpretation is that a new and novel interpretation that contradicts the well-established and historical interpretation is almost for certain an incorrect interpretation. When the Holy Scriptures were first interpreted to teach eternal security, that interpretation was a new and novel doctrine that contradicted the well-established and historical interpretation of the very same Scriptures. And indeed, not only was the historical interpretation well-established, it was the unanimous interpretation of the Church from the close of the New Testament Canon till the 16th century.
This is nothing but a worn-out scarecrow! (Or is the right word “straw man”?
) We both agree that the final authority is the Holy Scriptures. The issue here is the interpretation of those Scriptures. OSAS is a new and novel doctrine that was developed in the 16th century based upon and derived from a careless and inaccurate interpretation of Scriptures having to do with the sovereignty of God. This new and novel interpretation ticked the ears of men who called themselves Christians but who were in reality hedonists. Hence the doctrine of “you can have your cake and eat it to” (otherwise known as the doctrine of eternal security) spread like wildfire. Fact: If the doctrine of eternal security is REALLY taught in the Holy Scriptures, someone, somewhere, would have noticed that to be the case—but between the close of the New Testament Canon and the 16th century there is absolutely no evidence that any would did, and there are tens of thousands of Christian documents from this period in which the doctrine of conditional security is either explicitly taught (as it is in very many of the documents) or assumed to be true with no mention or refutation of any conflicting doctrine.
Craig,
I did not post your were incorrect when you weren't. You were incorrect and basic knowledge of any theology text will show that. Your definitions, at the very best, were inadequate. This is a no-brainer. Your estimation of your posting is too high, to say the least.
To the theological point, if you think OSAS is "having your cake and eating it too" (to correct your statement), then you don't understand OSAS either. Some have certainly raped the biblical teaching to teach that, such as Zane Hodges and others, but that is not what the doctrine iteslf teaches. OSAS teaches that salvation is all of God, not of man, and its is based firmly in the writings of SCripture. If you deny OSAS, then you deny Scripture's plain reading in its historical context. OSAS goes hand in hand with the doctrine of perseverance, which teaches that a truly saved person will continue in their faith and obedience to God because of God's good work in their life.
You continue to err by esteeming the writings of historical theology as higher than the writings of Scripture. You demand that the plain reading of Scripture be subjected to the historical theology of your choice. That is faulty theological method. You say that you believe Scripture is the final authority, but your method belies your claim. In a true analysis, historical theology is your final authority. While you harp on the possibility of modern theology being wrong, you apparently fail to not the obvious ... that some in history have been wrong. Only Scripture is sure to be right, and conditional security is not found there. Conditional assurance certainly is ... but that is a different animal.
I did not post your were incorrect when you weren't. You were incorrect and basic knowledge of any theology text will show that. Your definitions, at the very best, were inadequate. This is a no-brainer. Your estimation of your posting is too high, to say the least.
To the theological point, if you think OSAS is "having your cake and eating it too" (to correct your statement), then you don't understand OSAS either. Some have certainly raped the biblical teaching to teach that, such as Zane Hodges and others, but that is not what the doctrine iteslf teaches. OSAS teaches that salvation is all of God, not of man, and its is based firmly in the writings of SCripture. If you deny OSAS, then you deny Scripture's plain reading in its historical context. OSAS goes hand in hand with the doctrine of perseverance, which teaches that a truly saved person will continue in their faith and obedience to God because of God's good work in their life.
You continue to err by esteeming the writings of historical theology as higher than the writings of Scripture. You demand that the plain reading of Scripture be subjected to the historical theology of your choice. That is faulty theological method. You say that you believe Scripture is the final authority, but your method belies your claim. In a true analysis, historical theology is your final authority. While you harp on the possibility of modern theology being wrong, you apparently fail to not the obvious ... that some in history have been wrong. Only Scripture is sure to be right, and conditional security is not found there. Conditional assurance certainly is ... but that is a different animal.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Pastor Larry wrote,
Hermeneutics has nothing to do with theology or any theology text.
Larry,
Rather than deal with the facts that I post, you construct an irrelevant straw man, make him out to be me, and then show how foolish he is. I am not your foolish straw man and my hermeneutics are not his nonsense, but very solid hermeneutics. And since you chose not to debate me but a straw man who does not share either my beliefs or practices, there is no point at all in debating with you.
That is exactly what you did!
I was correct about Sola Scriptura and perhaps your problem is than you are relying upon basic knowledge found in an oversimplified first semester textbook.
Hermeneutics has nothing to do with theology or any theology text.
We both know better than that! You are using a junior boys Sunday school definition; I am using the very same definition used by a multitude of scholars.
That could not be more true!
You don’t know anything about me, but when I post facts that contradict your personal theology, you post that I don’t know what I am talking about rather than deal with the facts that incontrovertibly prove that you are wrong and that I am right.
Please forgive my typographical error (“to” should read “too”). And it is ironical that you would write as you do about Zane Hodges, for it is Zane Hodges that accuses the people who hold your position of believing that they can have their cake and eat it too. Zane Hodges very forcefully argues that you cannot have your cake and eat it too, and if a Christian fails to repent of his sins, he will spend 1,000 years gnashing his teach in torment! Perhaps you should study Zane Hodges theology a little more closely! And please don’t lead anyone to believe that I agree with Zane Hodges and his doctrine of millennial exclusion, for I know from the Bible that it is nonsense even though he does teach that Christians will pay for their sins.
This could NOT by less true! If OSAS was based even remotely on the writings of Scripture, someone at least would have noticed that little detail during the almost 1500 hundred years between the Canonization of the New Testament and the 16th century—but no one did!
This is absolutely NOTHING BUT CALVINISTIC NONSENSE!
This is a totally false statement—you know it and I know it! The truth is that you esteem the false teachings of John Calvin and your theological nonsense VERY MUCH higher than you esteem the writings of Scripture. I, on the other hand, esteem the Scriptures above all else with nothing else even coming even slightly close. You write that your personal interpretation of the Bible is Scripture and ignore the very fundamentals of both hermeneutics and common sense when interpreting Scripture.
This is false statement from the very pit of hell! And you either know this statement to be a false statement, or you do NOT understand either my posts or the doctrine of conditional security and the Biblical basis for it.
This is another false statement from the very pit of hell! And you either know this statement to be a false statement, or you do NOT understand what I have written in the several threads in which you and I have been through this.
This has been my point from the very beginning!
For the 1500 year period that I have referenced over and over again, the unanimous view of the Church was conditional security and it was always SOLIDLY based upon Scripture. If the doctrine of eternal security were true, most certainly at least someone would have found it in the Bible during those 1500 years—but no one did! The only rational conclusion is that the doctrine of eternal security is not found in the Scriptures, but during the 16th century some careless readers began to imagine that it is found there, but the doctrine of conditional security if very plainly and obviously there because the church unanimously found it to be there and the large majority of the Church continues to find it there. Those who do not find it there don’t find it there because they don’t want to find it there.
Larry,
Rather than deal with the facts that I post, you construct an irrelevant straw man, make him out to be me, and then show how foolish he is. I am not your foolish straw man and my hermeneutics are not his nonsense, but very solid hermeneutics. And since you chose not to debate me but a straw man who does not share either my beliefs or practices, there is no point at all in debating with you.
"I am right, you are wrong." etc.
Craig, If you are so sure that you are correct in your statements can you verify them instead of dogmatically asserting them as facts when in reality they are simply your unverified opinions. I would say that Pastor Larry has posted more evidence for his position than you have.
DHK
Craig, If you are so sure that you are correct in your statements can you verify them instead of dogmatically asserting them as facts when in reality they are simply your unverified opinions. I would say that Pastor Larry has posted more evidence for his position than you have.
DHK
That is exactly what you did!</font>[/QUOTE][qb]No, Craig, I did not.
You were incorrect about sola Scriptura and any basic knowledge will tell you that, and the more advanced books will tell you that as well. This is not even debatable.
That is what I said.
EVerything I know about you comes from this board and it is revealing. YOU think you know a lot but posts like the one you made here show otherwise. I seriously doubt that you can find any serious scholar who will agree with your definition of sola scriptura as it stands. I bet they add more to it.
Zane Hodges teaches that if one believes at one moment in time, and never believes after that, that they are still saved because of eternal security, or once saved always saved. It had nothing to do with his position on a thousand years or anything else.
You once again are raising historical theology about Scripture and that is bad theological method.
This is absolutely NOTHING BUT CALVINISTIC NONSENSE!</font>[/QUOTE]It has nothing to do with Calvinism. It is what Scripture teaches in places such as Col 1:22-23, 2 Cor 13, Hebrews 3, and a host of other passages.
This is a totally false statement—you know it and I know it!</font>[/QUOTE]You proved it again. You said that the writings of Scripture must be determined by the 1500 years of theology. Look two paragraphs above. You got caught yet again, and deny it yet again. You said one thing there and denied it here.
Name one place I have ever quoted John Calvin. In fact, name one book by John Calvin I have ever read. If you want to talk about Calvinism, that is fine. There is a forum for that. This is not it. But I don't follow John Calvin. I have never read John Calvin. I have no need to.
So when Jesus says that he gives to his sheep eternal life and they will never perish and he will not let them go, you believe that? Then why are you arguing that once saved always saved is nonsense? Again, you just contradict yourself time after time.
Where did I ever do that?
Where did I ever do that?
Nice try, but strong language won't change the facts.
To be accurate, it is true. I understand exactly what you are saying. That is how I konw it is wrong. It does not measure up to Scripture.
This has been my point from the very beginning!</font>[/QUOTE]But you contradict it, Craig. I can't imagine you can't see that. IT is so blatant.
I dealt with the two essential "facts" you attempted to pawn off as serious contributions to the discussion. You started from a faulty foundation of two inadequate and misleading definitions. I addressed that head one.
Where did I do this?
Your hermeneutics may be solid. If so, then you should use them here. What you have done here is not really get into hermeneutics, except your faulty definition. I made nothing up that I have said. REmember, Craig, I have seen you say this kind of stuff before about other topics, and you were soundly refuted then. You should know it won't fly here.
I didn't choose not to debate you. There was nothign to debate. You were wrong on two definitions. There is nothing debatable about it. If you want to debate eternal security and conditional security, I can do that. I have not attempted it here. I don't know that I have time. My point in getting involved here was to point out the faulty foundation from which you started.
At least that way you won't have to deal with your inaccuracies.
Do an online search and start reading sites. You can see how widespread the actual definition of sola scriptura is as being the final and sufficient rule of all faith and practice.
You can being here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura It says, Sola scriptura (Latin By Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It meant that Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines.
Here is the Westminster statement of the truth involved:
Michael Harbin says,
I could quote many others who would say the same thing. When Craig says that sola scriptura teaches that "the 66 canonical books in the Bible, and only the 66 canonical books in the Bible, are the Word of God," he is, quite simply, incorrect. That issue was established long before sola scriptura. The issue of SS dealt with authority. The Reformation was about the authority of the RCC and tradition vs. the authority of Scripture. The RCC taught that Scripture and Church/tradition were held as equal authority. The Reformers believed and taught "sola Scriptura," meaning Scripture alone has authority for faith and practice.
Don't be fooled by Craig's sometimes intelligent sounding and forcefully stated arguments. Look at the facts. For all of his appeal to historical theology, he is ignoring it on this point. He doesn't have to agree with SS (though he claims to). THat is irrelevant to this discussion. Whatever he might believe, he should not redefine sola scriptura to fit his own idea.
You can being here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura It says, Sola scriptura (Latin By Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It meant that Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines.
Here is the Westminster statement of the truth involved:
In a discussion about authority and inerrancy, John Witmer says,
He properly defines SS as "external objective authority of the Bible that needs no other principles for its authority.
Michael Harbin says,
Joi Christians says,
Wayne Johnson says,
Eugene F. Klug says,
(Here, it would be absurd to think that LUther was arguing for the 66 books of the canon. He was arguing for the authority and sufficiency of Scripture apart from the Church.)
I could quote many others who would say the same thing. When Craig says that sola scriptura teaches that "the 66 canonical books in the Bible, and only the 66 canonical books in the Bible, are the Word of God," he is, quite simply, incorrect. That issue was established long before sola scriptura. The issue of SS dealt with authority. The Reformation was about the authority of the RCC and tradition vs. the authority of Scripture. The RCC taught that Scripture and Church/tradition were held as equal authority. The Reformers believed and taught "sola Scriptura," meaning Scripture alone has authority for faith and practice.
Don't be fooled by Craig's sometimes intelligent sounding and forcefully stated arguments. Look at the facts. For all of his appeal to historical theology, he is ignoring it on this point. He doesn't have to agree with SS (though he claims to). THat is irrelevant to this discussion. Whatever he might believe, he should not redefine sola scriptura to fit his own idea.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Pastor Larry wrote,
But you say, “Surely this cannot be!” Oh, but it is! Check it out for yourself!
What is relevant to this discussion are two points:
1. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself as narrowly defined by Pastor Larry is NOT taught anywhere in either the Old or New Testaments but is an extra-Biblical, man-made doctrine totally outside of the bounds of “Sola Scriptura!” What a farce!
2. I am not basing my arguments in this thread upon the theology of men, but the interpretation of the Scriptures during the 1500 year period between the Canonization of the New Testament and the 16th century. IF the Scriptures really can be accurately interpreted to teach eternal security, someone, somewhere, would have noticed that fact during this period, but they did not! Indeed, the Scriptures on this matter are so explicit, and so crystal clear, that unlike very many other Scriptures, these particular Scriptures were unanimously interpreted by the Church to teach conditional security. And these arguments do NOT lie outside of the bounds of Sola Scriptura any more than do the commentaries on these Scriptures by Luther and Calvin.
Absolutely! For all you know, I am a raving lunatic posting from Saint Mary’s of Bethlehem! And I have posted that the unanimous view of the Church between the canonization of the New Testament and the 16th century was that many Scriptures in the Bible teach conditional security. We all know (or certainly should know) that Tertullian and some other early Church fathers quoted Scriptures and used them to teach conditional security, but am I right that many Baptists have searched for at least one document from the 1500 year period that I referenced above in which at least one Scripture was interpreted to teach eternal security, but no such document has been found? Check this out for yourself! You would be a fool to take my word for it, just as you would be a fool to take Pastor Larry’s word for what he says! Check out his statements. Check out how he responds to my posts. Did he post examples to show that the doctrine of eternal security was believed by at least one person during those 1500 years, or is he dodging the facts against his personal theology and attempting to pick apart my use of words and terminology? And is he even right in stating that my use of my terminology is incorrect, or do other scholars use the same terminology in the same way that I used it? Check it out! Find out for yourself which one of us is posting honestly and honorably, and which one of us is trying to sell you ocean-front property on the moon!
I am NOT appealing here to historical theology; I am stating how the Scriptures dealing with the security issue were interpreted prior to the 16th century. The theology of this period is relevant, but I am making NO appeal to it, but only to the interpretation of specific Scriptures in the New Testament. You can pick any scripture that you want to dealing with this matter, that is, any of them that Larry interprets to teach eternal security or any of the Scriptures that for 1500 years were unanimously interpreted to teach conditional security, and read for yourself the writings from this 1500 year period and see what the writers wrote about them. And you will see for yourself how these writers interpreted those Scriptures. And if you read enough of the literature from this period, you will learn for yourself that the concept of eternal security was not conceptualized until the 16th century, and that it could not have been, because it is derived from other theological concepts that had not yet been conceptualized.
But you say, “Surely this cannot be!” Oh, but it is! Check it out for yourself!
What is relevant to this discussion are two points:
1. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself as narrowly defined by Pastor Larry is NOT taught anywhere in either the Old or New Testaments but is an extra-Biblical, man-made doctrine totally outside of the bounds of “Sola Scriptura!” What a farce!
2. I am not basing my arguments in this thread upon the theology of men, but the interpretation of the Scriptures during the 1500 year period between the Canonization of the New Testament and the 16th century. IF the Scriptures really can be accurately interpreted to teach eternal security, someone, somewhere, would have noticed that fact during this period, but they did not! Indeed, the Scriptures on this matter are so explicit, and so crystal clear, that unlike very many other Scriptures, these particular Scriptures were unanimously interpreted by the Church to teach conditional security. And these arguments do NOT lie outside of the bounds of Sola Scriptura any more than do the commentaries on these Scriptures by Luther and Calvin.
Your argument is simply an argument from silence. You cannot prove your case. It is illogical argument at best. What you really want is us to prove (or disprove) your case for you. That is not the way it works. Your the one that has to bring forth the evidence. You make the assertion. You provide the evidence. You say there is no evidence. That is an easy statement to make, but an impossible one to defend. That is precisely why the atheist cannot defend their assertion "There is no God." It is a universal negative." It is impossible statement to prove--an illogical fallacy. Your statement is: "There is no evidence..." You have stated an universal negative, an illogical fallacy which is impossible for you or anyone else to prove. Whatever arguments you put forth therefore, are not going to make sense in the light of defending a premise which is not even logical to start with.Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
2. I am not basing my arguments in this thread upon the theology of men, but the interpretation of the Scriptures during the 1500 year period between the Canonization of the New Testament and the 16th century. IF the Scriptures really can be accurately interpreted to teach eternal security, someone, somewhere, would have noticed that fact during this period, but they did not! Indeed, the Scriptures on this matter are so explicit, and so crystal clear, that unlike very many other Scriptures, these particular Scriptures were unanimously interpreted by the Church to teach conditional security. And these arguments do NOT lie outside of the bounds of Sola Scriptura any more than do the commentaries on these Scriptures by Luther and Calvin.
DHK
Sola Scripture simply points to the One Book, and that One Book is known as the Bible. It is the Word of God, and Jesus used scripture as the Word of God. Some that were chosen to write the New scripture by direction of The Holy Spirit also use passages from the Old scripture, and in the Holy Spirit, we have New scripture. The whole of the Book is One, and it is the Word of God.
I call Hermeneutics learning to connect the dots, and there is only one way to do this. Who, When, Where, What, Why, and How. But isn’t Hermeneutics from man, using our logic. Most authorities us the terms “science”, and/or “art” of Hermeneutics, and this is fine, as far as it goes. But for study of Sola Scriptura the most important thing is called “faith”.
To begin we must know Where to start. There is only one starting place and that is the Bible. This is the principal of Hermeneutics, standing on the foundation of “faith” that God is, and God left us His Word until He returns, and His Word will not pass away.
Do we know Who wrote the Bible? Yes, in faith we know and do not doubt.
Do we know Why the Bible was written? Yes, in faith we know and do not doubt.
Do we know When the Bible was written? Yes, in faith we know and do not doubt.
Do we know What the Bible says? Yes, in faith we know and do not doubt.
Do we know How the Bible was written? Yes, in faith we know and do not doubt.
You ask about two conflicting doctrines. When this occurs we are to accept the doctrine with no contradictions, leaving us with only one doctrine (gospel). Where can we find and verify the gospel that applies to us today? We are to be Berean, and check out everything Paul says.
There is only one correct interpretation, and it is the more perfect way – Acts 18:26
To answer your “Therefore, ALL new and novel interpretations are false interpretations. The Bible has not changed, and new interpretations are wrong interpretations.” I believe they are confused interpretations, for if not would not all those Gentiles that left the teachings of Paul then be lost? I’ll not try to answer that in this paragraph. But in the Christian Doctrine, and all not agreeing with the Christian Doctrine are of the Old Doctrine, or some of the New or Novel twists, added, changed or taken away of the Christian Doctrine.
We know where the Old Doctrine/s started, and the New Doctrine started, but when did the distortion of the New Doctrine begin. It began in the days of Paul – II Timothy 1:15.
Christianity could not come until after the event on Damascus Road – Acts 9.
Christian Doctrine One. Christ gave to Paul His Dispensational Gospel to we Gentiles – Ephesians 3:1-7.
Christian Doctrine Two. It is Paul’s Gospel. Romans 16:25.
Christian Doctrine Three. The Secrets of Men will be judged by Jesus Christ according Paul’s Gospel – Romans 2:16.
Christian Doctrine of Salvation. Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. I believe this will answer the question above, if those that depart from the gospel of Paul will be lost. I would say no, but they in “unsound Hermeneutics” have polluted the Christian message. However, we Gentiles must be careful – Galatians 1:8-9, and also the Jew – II Peter 3:15-16.
Christian Doctrine of How We are Saved. By the Grace of God, through Faith, without works – Ephesians 2.
Christian Doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved is not new, and in our salvation we are sealed. Doesn’t His Word teach we receive a “Gift”, and that Gift is salvation? This is unconditional. We never made a covenant with God, so there are no “conditions” for us to keep, for if He had asked us to make covenant with Him, which He didn’t, then our salvation would be conditional, for we could not have keep the covenant. Moses, David and the rest could not be saved as are we. They had to endure until the end. We can see that in David’s pleas. Christian faith, ituttut
By now, we may be able to state that both sides accept this affirmation: "OSAS is not found in the Fathers between the apostles and the Reformation." Craig says that that's important, Pastor Larry says that it isn't.
From Craig's response, I think both sides can accept pastor Larry's definition of sola scriptura, which is really a side argument. Craig has repeated stated that he doesn't think that the Fathers writings are authoritative.
My question to Pastor Larry is, does it make sense to think that a doctrine would lay hidden for all those centuries? How so?
My question to Craig is, wasn't baptismal regeneration uniformly affirmed by all of the Fathers between the apostles and the Reformation? And wouldn't that argue against your emphasis on the Fathers?
From Craig's response, I think both sides can accept pastor Larry's definition of sola scriptura, which is really a side argument. Craig has repeated stated that he doesn't think that the Fathers writings are authoritative.
My question to Pastor Larry is, does it make sense to think that a doctrine would lay hidden for all those centuries? How so?
My question to Craig is, wasn't baptismal regeneration uniformly affirmed by all of the Fathers between the apostles and the Reformation? And wouldn't that argue against your emphasis on the Fathers?
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Pipedude wrote,
My emphasis, however, is not upon the Church Fathers, but upon the Scriptures themselves and their correct interpretation.
If it could be established that the present day “Baptist” interpretation of the Scriptures having to do with water baptism is post 16th century and dependent upon theological concepts that were not conceptualized till the 16th century and that the entire Church was unanimous for 1500 years in its agreement on a conflicting interpretation, we would know beyond a reasonable doubt that the “Baptist” interpretation is wrong! But the Church was NOT at all unanimous in agreeing upon a conflicting interpretation of the water baptism passages in the Bible.
The Word of God in the New Testament was given without partiality to all who care to receive it, and ALL of our Biblical doctrines were known and understood by at least some persons throughout the history of the Church. This is especially true of the doctrines regarding salvation. If Larry’s interpretation of the conditional passages in the New Testament is correct, the New Testament was so very poorly worded that no one was able to understand the doctrine of salvation until it was first explained by John Calvin and his contemporaries. And if that is the case, the teaching that the Bible is the inspired Word of God is absolutely preposterous because God is more than capable of clearly expressing Himself in the New Testament Scriptures on the matter of salvation.
And this principle of hermeneutics is not limited to the Bible—it applies to all ancient literature. If you knew for a fact that a passage in Plato’s Republic was unanimously interpreted in a certain manner for the first 1500 years after it was written, what would you think of a conflicting opinion by a man who was 1500 years removed from the time, language, customs, and culture of Plato? I don’t know about you, but I would think that that man’s head was screwed on backwards and inside out!
Note: I did not get any of my theology from any of the Church Fathers; I learned it directly from the Bible.
When I was in my twenties, I began hanging out with two groups of Christians—an Assemblies of God group and a Baptist group. I was not saved, but I enjoyed the fellowship of committed Christians. After a few months of fellowship with these two groups of Christians, I came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and experienced a radical conversion. Nonetheless, by this time I had some very good friends who belonged to the Assemblies of God and other very good friends who belonged to various Baptist churches. These two groups were very much divided on the issue of eternal vs. conditional security and the issue of the Baptism in/with the Holy Spirit. Therefore I began to diligently pray everyday for God to teach me His truths and to protect me from error of all kinds. And long before I knew anything at all about the Church Fathers, God made known to me through His Word that the doctrine of eternal security was a false teaching. Indeed, He made it so very clear to me that it is a false teaching that I became curious as to why anyone would believe such a thing. Therefore I began studying the doctrine in the writings of those who teach it and learned for myself what a very shallow and fragile doctrine it is. It was not until several years later that I began to study the history of the interpretation of the New Testament and learned that the doctrine of eternal security is a relatively new doctrine that was derived from a careless and totally inadequate understanding of the sovereignty of God and that men began to re-interpret the writings of Apostle John to make them fit this new “understanding” of the Bible. And, of course, these men also had to reinterpret the many conditional passages in the New Testament to bring them into conformity to their new “understanding” of the Bible, and they could not at all agree how to do this, and even to this very day they cannot agree on how to get around some of the most clearly worded conditional passages. Some of them change the rules of Greek Grammar, others change the definition of words and phrases, and others concoct ridiculous nonsense.
For those who daily and diligently pray for God to teach them His truths and to protect them from error of all kinds, the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is very easy to understand; for the others it is a quagmire.
No, absolutely not! Throughout the history of the Church we find several different views, including the view held by the majority of Baptists today.
It most certainly would if your premise was correct, but it is not.
My emphasis, however, is not upon the Church Fathers, but upon the Scriptures themselves and their correct interpretation.
If it could be established that the present day “Baptist” interpretation of the Scriptures having to do with water baptism is post 16th century and dependent upon theological concepts that were not conceptualized till the 16th century and that the entire Church was unanimous for 1500 years in its agreement on a conflicting interpretation, we would know beyond a reasonable doubt that the “Baptist” interpretation is wrong! But the Church was NOT at all unanimous in agreeing upon a conflicting interpretation of the water baptism passages in the Bible.
The Word of God in the New Testament was given without partiality to all who care to receive it, and ALL of our Biblical doctrines were known and understood by at least some persons throughout the history of the Church. This is especially true of the doctrines regarding salvation. If Larry’s interpretation of the conditional passages in the New Testament is correct, the New Testament was so very poorly worded that no one was able to understand the doctrine of salvation until it was first explained by John Calvin and his contemporaries. And if that is the case, the teaching that the Bible is the inspired Word of God is absolutely preposterous because God is more than capable of clearly expressing Himself in the New Testament Scriptures on the matter of salvation.
And this principle of hermeneutics is not limited to the Bible—it applies to all ancient literature. If you knew for a fact that a passage in Plato’s Republic was unanimously interpreted in a certain manner for the first 1500 years after it was written, what would you think of a conflicting opinion by a man who was 1500 years removed from the time, language, customs, and culture of Plato? I don’t know about you, but I would think that that man’s head was screwed on backwards and inside out!
Note: I did not get any of my theology from any of the Church Fathers; I learned it directly from the Bible.
When I was in my twenties, I began hanging out with two groups of Christians—an Assemblies of God group and a Baptist group. I was not saved, but I enjoyed the fellowship of committed Christians. After a few months of fellowship with these two groups of Christians, I came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and experienced a radical conversion. Nonetheless, by this time I had some very good friends who belonged to the Assemblies of God and other very good friends who belonged to various Baptist churches. These two groups were very much divided on the issue of eternal vs. conditional security and the issue of the Baptism in/with the Holy Spirit. Therefore I began to diligently pray everyday for God to teach me His truths and to protect me from error of all kinds. And long before I knew anything at all about the Church Fathers, God made known to me through His Word that the doctrine of eternal security was a false teaching. Indeed, He made it so very clear to me that it is a false teaching that I became curious as to why anyone would believe such a thing. Therefore I began studying the doctrine in the writings of those who teach it and learned for myself what a very shallow and fragile doctrine it is. It was not until several years later that I began to study the history of the interpretation of the New Testament and learned that the doctrine of eternal security is a relatively new doctrine that was derived from a careless and totally inadequate understanding of the sovereignty of God and that men began to re-interpret the writings of Apostle John to make them fit this new “understanding” of the Bible. And, of course, these men also had to reinterpret the many conditional passages in the New Testament to bring them into conformity to their new “understanding” of the Bible, and they could not at all agree how to do this, and even to this very day they cannot agree on how to get around some of the most clearly worded conditional passages. Some of them change the rules of Greek Grammar, others change the definition of words and phrases, and others concoct ridiculous nonsense.
For those who daily and diligently pray for God to teach them His truths and to protect them from error of all kinds, the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is very easy to understand; for the others it is a quagmire.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
The key phrase here is "To some extent." And this is, or course, true. However, the ecclesiastical authority of which you write did not even exist until the 5th century, and even then, nor to this day, was it universal. And even where it was very strictly applied, we find very much literature by writers who refused to submit to that authority. And, of course, if anyone was teaching the doctrine of eternal security, we would find those in ecclesiastical positions teaching against the doctrine—but we don’t. The doctrine of eternal security was unknown to the ecclesiastical authorities just like it was unknown to everyone else.
And, of course, there are the many conditional passages in the Bible that were uniformly interpreted during this entire period to mean that true Christians could lose their salvation.
This all comes down to two possibilities:
1. The Bible is not an inspired work and was so very poorly worded that the doctrine of salvation could not be understood without the help of John Calvin.
2. The Bible IS the inspired Word of God and the doctrine of salvation was so VERY clearly worded that it was universally understood for 1500 years to teach conditional security, but after that period of time, the ears of many were tickled by the doctrine of eternal security and a large minority of the Church submitted to this new and false teaching.
1. Craig appears to have backed out of the debate about what sola Scriptura is. IT is good that he did, before digging himself any deeper. That was my main point in posting ... taht he misdefined this issue.
2. He I am NOT appealing here to historical theology; I am stating how the Scriptures dealing with the security issue were interpreted prior to the 16th century. This is completely nonsensical. It is like talking about a round square. His sentence before the semi-colon is directly contradict his statement after the semi-colon. You cannot say you are not appealing to historical theology and then say you are appealing to how thte Scriptures were interpreted after the apostles and prior to the 16th century. Historical theology is the study of how the "Scriptures dealing with the ______________ were interpreted prior to the 16th century" (to quote Craig). Apparently, he doesn't know what historical theology is, or doesn't understand the law of non-contradiction as applied in this case.
Let me clarify that there is nothign wrong with appealing to historical theology. It is a good discipline. It is simply not authoritative.
My comments about eternal security were only peripheral to my intent in this thread. As a side note, there can be no legitimate doubt that the Scriptures teach eternal security. Only a very selective and isolated reading could suggest otherwise.
What of the evidence of historical theology? We simply do not know. As a student of the Bible, I spend less time on historical theology. However, I doubt Craig's assertion that "no one" taught it. If nothing else, Craig has no way to know what everyone taught and therefore categorical statements are usually useless.
If no one taught eternal security, what does that mean? Nothing, for our guide is the Bible, not historical theology. Historical theology (How the Scriptures were interpreted prior to the 16th century ... or whenever) is a piece of the puzzle. It is not the puzzle.
However, I did not intend to get involved in that discussion, though I certainly could. My intent here was to point out that Craig had a faulty definition of sola scriptura. That point has been amply proven, along with several other points.
Craig's two options are certainly not the only two. We could add:
3. The Bible was clear and ecclesiastical authorities persuaded people against it.
4. The Bible was clear and people taught eternal security, but their words weren't recorded for history.
Study the lack of critical thinking in #2. It is worded in such a way as to be a non sequitur. The first part (he Bible IS the inspired Word of God and the doctrine of salvation was so VERY clearly worded does not lead to the second part (that it was universally understood for 1500 years to teach conditional security,). That type of thinking has led Craig down a wrong road. It sounds sophisticated, but it is in reality among the worst types of thinking. We should all be able to see through it.
2. He I am NOT appealing here to historical theology; I am stating how the Scriptures dealing with the security issue were interpreted prior to the 16th century. This is completely nonsensical. It is like talking about a round square. His sentence before the semi-colon is directly contradict his statement after the semi-colon. You cannot say you are not appealing to historical theology and then say you are appealing to how thte Scriptures were interpreted after the apostles and prior to the 16th century. Historical theology is the study of how the "Scriptures dealing with the ______________ were interpreted prior to the 16th century" (to quote Craig). Apparently, he doesn't know what historical theology is, or doesn't understand the law of non-contradiction as applied in this case.
Let me clarify that there is nothign wrong with appealing to historical theology. It is a good discipline. It is simply not authoritative.
My comments about eternal security were only peripheral to my intent in this thread. As a side note, there can be no legitimate doubt that the Scriptures teach eternal security. Only a very selective and isolated reading could suggest otherwise.
What of the evidence of historical theology? We simply do not know. As a student of the Bible, I spend less time on historical theology. However, I doubt Craig's assertion that "no one" taught it. If nothing else, Craig has no way to know what everyone taught and therefore categorical statements are usually useless.
If no one taught eternal security, what does that mean? Nothing, for our guide is the Bible, not historical theology. Historical theology (How the Scriptures were interpreted prior to the 16th century ... or whenever) is a piece of the puzzle. It is not the puzzle.
However, I did not intend to get involved in that discussion, though I certainly could. My intent here was to point out that Craig had a faulty definition of sola scriptura. That point has been amply proven, along with several other points.
Craig's two options are certainly not the only two. We could add:
3. The Bible was clear and ecclesiastical authorities persuaded people against it.
4. The Bible was clear and people taught eternal security, but their words weren't recorded for history.
Study the lack of critical thinking in #2. It is worded in such a way as to be a non sequitur. The first part (he Bible IS the inspired Word of God and the doctrine of salvation was so VERY clearly worded does not lead to the second part (that it was universally understood for 1500 years to teach conditional security,). That type of thinking has led Craig down a wrong road. It sounds sophisticated, but it is in reality among the worst types of thinking. We should all be able to see through it.
The teachings of the churches dissenting from Rome were recorded, but Rome systematically attacked and destroyed anything and anyone that challenged its dogma. Some few scraps of those dissenter's writings have survived so we know of them and of what they believed. But remember, the writers were not called "Church Fathers" for nothing. Most of them were allied with Rome.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Pastor Larry wrote,
If Larry is familiar with the history of the development of Christian Doctrine, he knows that his option #4 is just as ridiculous. Hint: It was necessary to invent the wheel before one could invent the cart!
My summer vacation has come to an end and I no longer have the time to refute absurd and ridiculous posts. If any one would care to post the contents of a document from the 1500 year period under discussion that they believe supports the doctrine of eternal security, we can look at that together and discuss it, but I will not continue to refute empty nonsense.
If Larry is familiar with Church history, he knows that his option #3 is wildly ridiculous. As I have already posted, there was no central ecclesiastical authority before the 5th century and at no time in church history was there universal ecclesiastical authority.
If Larry is familiar with the history of the development of Christian Doctrine, he knows that his option #4 is just as ridiculous. Hint: It was necessary to invent the wheel before one could invent the cart!
My summer vacation has come to an end and I no longer have the time to refute absurd and ridiculous posts. If any one would care to post the contents of a document from the 1500 year period under discussion that they believe supports the doctrine of eternal security, we can look at that together and discuss it, but I will not continue to refute empty nonsense.