A Jehovah's Witness is at my Door!

[Wittenberger]

Bill, here is the issue in a nutshell. Roman Catholics carefullly selected and preserved the historical documentation they wanted to preserve for the first 1000 years. However, in that documentation their are glimpses that their historical motivations were not that honorable or trustworthy when it comes to rightly portraying their opponents or dealing with historical facts.

For example, do you remember the "false decretals"? If it were not for that historical falsification the papal doctrine would doubtless have not succeeded.

There are non-religious historians such as Richard Leaky and Gibbons that point out such problems in their historical honesty.

Second, any historical authority that challenges the Romanistic perpsective of history is immediately denounced as "discredited" sources and so the fix is always in.

Third, there are abundance of historians and history books that interpret the sources materials differently. Many like to mock Dr. John T. Christian but the fact of the matter is, his history book, and work still stands as a model of the "free church" perspective. There are other Baptists historians who are no Landmarkers who share the same perspective.

Of course, those who take the Romanist view point pour out scorn and ridicule.

However, the best history book the world has ever known proves the Roman perpsective of history is that of apostate Christianity and that is the inspired prophetic history of the New Testament.

The New Testament prophetically characterizes the distinctions between the rise of apostate Christianity and continued apostolic Christianity between the apostolic age and the second coming of Christ. The whole romanistic veiw of history falls exactly under the characteristics that the scriptures predict of apostate Christianity.

Let's concede for the sake of argument that you are correct. All historical records in the lands of the Roman Empire were "doctored" by the Church of Rome. But what about Persia, India, Ethiopia, and many other lands, full of Christians in the early centuries after Christ, that were not under the authority of Rome? Why isn't there any historical evidence of "Baptist-like" Christians in these countries?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let's concede for the sake of argument that you are correct. All historical records in the lands of the Roman Empire were "doctored" by the Church of Rome. But what about Persia, India, Ethiopia, and many other lands, full of Christians in the early centuries after Christ, that were not under the authority of Rome? Why isn't there any historical evidence of "Baptist-like" Christians in these countries?

You don't get it do you? In India there is evidence of William Carey in the 1700's.(sarcasm is intentional) Despite the fact that the Oldest Church in India is Catholic (Dating back to Thomas himself in their Tradition) and the next oldest is Orthodox is only proof to Biblicist that India didn't have real Christianity until William Carey. Persia follows the mystery religions, Ethiopia are heretics, and all the rest are false. Actual Documented history is irrelevant and so are any archeological finds. Because how Biblicist interpretation of Scripture also molds his view of world history. He holds that scripture acurately defines the "model of history" therefore any history not based in biblical "prophetic principles" of what he thinks the scripture tells him the early church should be is false. Its really a circular argument. I believe the infant church should look like how I interpret scripture to have described it, therefore any evidence to the contrary is false evidence because it doesn't support my presupposition. Circular.

 

[Wittenberger]

You don't get it do you? In India there is evidence of William Carey in the 1700's.(sarcasm is intentional) Despite the fact that the Oldest Church in India is Catholic (Dating back to Thomas himself in their Tradition) and the next oldest is Orthodox is only proof to Biblicist that India didn't have real Christianity until William Carey. Persia follows the mystery religions, Ethiopia are heretics, and all the rest are false. Actual Documented history is irrelevant and so are any archeological finds. Because how Biblicist interpretation of Scripture also molds his view of world history. He holds that scripture acurately defines the "model of history" therefore any history not based in biblical "prophetic principles" of what he thinks the scripture tells him the early church should be is false. Its really a circular argument. I believe the infant church should look like how I interpret scripture to have described it, therefore any evidence to the contrary is false evidence because it doesn't support my presupposition. Circular.

Amen, brother!

 

[Wittenberger]

Not so! Just like Rome they are SEPARATED from the Word of God by an uninspired ORGANIZATIONAL PROPHET or INTERPRETER who depend upon UNINSPIRED men.

Baptist repudiate uninspired ORGANZATIONAL PROPHETS and INTERPRETERS as MEDIATORS between God's Word and believers. We teach the priesthood of the individual believer who has direct access to God through Jesus Christ alone by the Spirit of God alone because that is precisely what the scriptures clearly teach.

Baptists go directly to God's Word without going through uninspired interpreters. No Uninspired middle men.

Baptists believe the Bible is sufficient for all doctrine, correction, instruction and God is sufficient to teach and lead all His children without HUMAN MEDIATORS - 1 Jn. 2:27.


Baptists believe the Word of God provides an inspired self defining contextual pattern. Baptists believe the Bible provides simple Biblical principles of interpretation that can be objectively verified by the Scriptural context.

Dear Brother Biblicist,

Your interpretation of Scripture and your principles for Scriptural interpretation are very reasonable and plausible. Growing up Baptist I believed the same interpretation and used the same interpretation principles. But here is why I began to question the validity of these views in my mid-twenties: Why are there so many Baptists with so many different beliefs?

If the true meaning of the Bible is so obvious and the Holy Spirit is guiding all these Baptists to the truth, then why do they have so many disagreements among them? Some Baptists will say that the differences between Baptists are minor and therefore inconsequential, but if the Holy Spirit is guiding their interpretation of Scripture shouldn’t there be 100% agreement?

Here are some differences in doctrine I have seen among Baptists:

1. Some Baptists (Free-will/Arminian) believe that man has a free will to choose God.
Other Baptists (Calvinists) do not believe that man has a free will to choose God. They believe that God predestines the Elect. God chooses who he will save. Man has no choice in the matter.

Now, I don’t see how anyone can say that this is a minor disagreement. Man chooses God, or God chooses man. That’s a pretty big doctrinal difference!

2. Some Baptists (Calvinists) believe that Christ is “spiritually present” in the Lords’ Supper, similar to the Presbyterians’ position. Other Baptists scoff at this idea as they believe that the Lord’s Supper is purely symbolic.

3. Some Baptists (hyper-Calvinists) believe that God decides who is going to hell. If you were not chosen by God to be one of the elect at the beginning of time, you have no hope. You will burn in hell no matter what. They believe even infants, who are not the elect, are burning in hell. Other Baptists deny the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination and believe that all infants who die will go to heaven.

That too does not seem like an insignificant difference to me.

4. Some Baptists (Free-will/Arminians) believe that a Christian MUST know the day and hour that he prayed to Christ, repented, and asked Christ to come into his heart to be his Lord and Savior. If someone claims to be a Christian but cannot remember exactly when he converted, he is deceived and is not a Christian.

Other Baptists (Calvinists) do not believe that everyone must know the hour and day of their conversion/salvation. These Baptists believe that persons who grow up in a Christian home, and are the elect, will declare their faith in Christ at some point in their life, but it is not necessary for these people to have specific conversion experience since they have always loved and believed in Christ. This is similar to the Presbyterians’ position on this issue.

5. Some Baptists believe in a pre-millenial, secret Rapture. Other Baptists do not.


The only thing ALL Baptists seem to agree on is: that THEY alone have the true interpretation of the Bible and that the Holy Spirit confirms that they are right in their hearts. Looking at all the differences in Baptist beliefs above, what each Baptist group and even what each individual Baptist is in essence saying is this: “God tells me in my heart that I am interpreting the Bible correctly, therefore I am right and everyone else is wrong.”

This is a circular argument that is impossible to debate: “I am right, because I know I’m right.”

Just as with the clause “all men are created equal” in the Bill of Rights, you can’t really understand what a document really means unless you compare it with historical evidence and documents that confirm what the authors really meant to say.

The authors of the Bill of Rights certainly did not believe that “all” men are created equal, because if they did, they would have freed their slaves.

So too with the Bible, no individual can just sit down and read the Bible and be 100% sure that the manner in which he interprets a passage of Scripture is really what the author meant. Look to the early Christians, who were disciples of the Apostles, and see how they interpreted these verses. The Apostles taught them how to understand the Bible and its meaning. The writings of the early Church Fathers are a treasure for every Christian to measure the beliefs of his or her church with those of the early Christians, who received the teachings and traditions of the Apostles. If there is a conflict in interpretation, who is more likely to be correct: someone who learned the Bible from the Apostles or from a disciple of an Apostle, or you, 2,000 years later using your 21st century intellect and reasoning?

 

[DHK]

Dear Brother Biblicist,

Your interpretation of Scripture and your principles for Scriptural interpretation are very reasonable and plausible. Growing up Baptist I believed the same interpretation and used the same interpretation principles. But here is why I began to question the validity of these views in my mid-twenties: Why are there so many Baptists with so many different beliefs?

Why are there so many Lutherans with differing beliefs?
Why are there so many Catholics with differing beliefs?

Don't kid yourself. There are many factions or sects within the Catholic Church with wide and varying beliefs, so divergent in their beliefs that Catholics like TS would not like to consider them as Catholics even though they still take the name as Catholics.

Also Luther, who believed in sola scriptura would be ashamed of you, turning in his grave even now, to hear you say the things you are saying.

In short, your argument holds no water.
Paul had to correct Peter.
Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement over John Mark.
Peter told his readers that some of Paul's epistles were hard to understand.
Jesus said of his own disciples that they were "slow of learning."

The Sanhedrin looked upon Peter and John, considered that they were "ignorant men," but noted "that they had been with Jesus."
I don't follow the church fathers. But I do know who I do follow.

 

[Wittenberger]

Why are there so many Lutherans with differing beliefs?
Why are there so many Catholics with differing beliefs?

Don't kid yourself. There are many factions or sects within the Catholic Church with wide and varying beliefs, so divergent in their beliefs that Catholics like TS would not like to consider them as Catholics even though they still take the name as Catholics.

Also Luther, who believed in sola scriptura would be ashamed of you, turning in his grave even now, to hear you say the things you are saying.

In short, your argument holds no water.
Paul had to correct Peter.
Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement over John Mark.
Peter told his readers that some of Paul's epistles were hard to understand.
Jesus said of his own disciples that they were "slow of learning."

The Sanhedrin looked upon Peter and John, considered that they were "ignorant men," but noted "that they had been with Jesus."
I don't follow the church fathers. But I do know who I do follow.

Lutherans are united in doctrine, but divided over social issues. We don't have such major differences on doctrine as do the Baptists for the reason that we compare our beliefs with the writings of the early Christians, we don't believe that each individual has the authority to interpret scripture on his own without any guidance.

I am surprised that you used the above examples of Christians correcting each other over false practices and beliefs. This goes against your theory that God reveals the true meaning of scripture to all true believers. We learn what is correct by listening to the more mature in the faith---the Church Fathers!

God did not reveal the truth of Scripture to the Ethiopian eunach in an internal revelation. God revealed the truth to him, by sending a mature Christian to tell him what scripture means. So too with Christians today, if you want to understand the true meaning of Scripture, go to the mature Christians, the disciples of the Apostles, to understand the Bible's true meaning. Don't depend on an inner voice to guide you. That voice very well may just be YOU!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why are there so many Lutherans with differing beliefs?
Why are there so many Catholics with differing beliefs?

Don't kid yourself. There are many factions or sects within the Catholic Church with wide and varying beliefs, so divergent in their beliefs that Catholics like TS would not like to consider them as Catholics even though they still take the name as Catholics.

Also Luther, who believed in sola scriptura would be ashamed of you, turning in his grave even now, to hear you say the things you are saying.

In short, your argument holds no water.
Paul had to correct Peter.
Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement over John Mark.
Peter told his readers that some of Paul's epistles were hard to understand.
Jesus said of his own disciples that they were "slow of learning."

The Sanhedrin looked upon Peter and John, considered that they were "ignorant men," but noted "that they had been with Jesus."
I don't follow the church fathers. But I do know who I do follow.

The Catholic Church is united in doctrine. The problem is those people who call themselves catholic and decent from Catholic teaching are not really Catholic. Most of this like the Lutherans are based in social issues but those who decent from doctrinal issues aren't Catholic. They have their own belief and are stubborn enough not to align themselves with Catholic Teaching.

 

[Wittenberger]

Why are there so many Lutherans with differing beliefs?
Why are there so many Catholics with differing beliefs?

Don't kid yourself. There are many factions or sects within the Catholic Church with wide and varying beliefs, so divergent in their beliefs that Catholics like TS would not like to consider them as Catholics even though they still take the name as Catholics.

Also Luther, who believed in sola scriptura would be ashamed of you, turning in his grave even now, to hear you say the things you are saying.

In short, your argument holds no water.
Paul had to correct Peter.
Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement over John Mark.
Peter told his readers that some of Paul's epistles were hard to understand.
Jesus said of his own disciples that they were "slow of learning."

The Sanhedrin looked upon Peter and John, considered that they were "ignorant men," but noted "that they had been with Jesus."
I don't follow the church fathers. But I do know who I do follow.

Baptists misinterpret Luther's "sola scriptura". What he meant is that the Bible is the ONLY final/supreme authority. He denounced the Roman Church for elevating Tradition to an equal level as the Bible. He did not mean: "ignore the Church Fathers in aiding you to understand the meaning of Scriptures".

The Baptist view that the Bible is the ONLY authority is completely contrary to what Luther taught. He would roll over in his grave to see how Protestantism has become so fragmented with thousands of different denominations, sects and cults. His one consolation would be that most of the divisions and splits in Protestantism have occurred among the Reformed and their descendants such as Baptists.

 

[DHK]

Lutherans are united in doctrine, but divided over social issues. We don't have such major differences on doctrine as do the Baptists for the reason that we compare our beliefs with the writings of the early Christians, we don't believe that each individual has the authority to interpret scripture on his own without any guidance.

I will not speak too much about Lutheran doctrine except to say that I know that some of the churches that I am acquainted with are evangelical and some are completely apostate. That tells me there is a difference in doctrine without even going into statements of faith, etc. There are major differences of doctrine between evangelical and liberal churches. It is a difference between belief vs. unbelief.

I am surprised that you used the above examples of Christians correcting each other over false practices and beliefs. This goes against your theory that God reveals the true meaning of scripture to all true believers. We learn what is correct by listening to the more mature in the faith---the Church Fathers!

Paul correcting Peter was not just practice. It had to do with doctrine as well. He had sided with "those of the circumcision," after the decision had already been settled in Acts 15. He had gone back to his old Judaic ways and been influenced by the legalistic Judaizers thus perverting the way of salvation. That is doctrinal, and doctrinal correction on the part of Paul.

God did not reveal the truth of Scripture to the Ethiopian eunach in an internal revelation. God revealed the truth to him, by sending a mature Christian to tell him what scripture means.

I never used the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch. However it is a good example, and example which we follow to this day. It is an example of sola scriptura. The Eunuch was reading out of the Book of Isaiah. Philip came to the Eunuch and asked him "Do you understand what you read?" He replied, "How can I understand except some man show me?" Then Philip began at the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus. Philip did not rely on the Church Fathers, on Oral Tradition, etc. He relied on the Scriptures. He preached from the Scriptures Jesus. The gospel can clearly be found in the Book of Isaiah. Everything one needs to know about Christ is in the Book of Isaiah. Since Philip was already enlightened of the Holy Spirit he could show the Eunuch these things that he too might understand and be saved.

So too with Christians today, if you want to understand the true meaning of Scripture, go to the mature Christians, the disciples of the Apostles, to understand the Bible's true meaning.

The disciples of Jesus are the mature Christians, not the disciples of the disciples of the disciples of the Apostles, who are the people that you are actually talking about. The inspired truths of God are written for us in the Scriptures, not in the uninspired writings of the Church Fathers, from whom much of the early heresies entered into Christianity. Thus, it would be a big mistake to go and rely on those writings that contain such error.

Don't depend on an inner voice to guide you. That voice very well just be YOU!

I depend on God's Word. Thorough study, proper hermeneutics, and study without bias along with guidance from the Holy Spirit gives one the truth. You see today the RCC takes the approach to the Scripture with the bias that the Catechism can't be wrong; the Pope can't be wrong; baptism is the new birth; etc. All of these presuppositions are already in place. Their mind is closed to the Scriptures before they even start.

Be like Adoniram Judson, a Congregationalist, and America's first foreign missionary. He was fluent in Greek. Half way across the Atlantic, while reading his Greek NT, he was so convicted of the Holy Spirit that "Baptidzo" meant "immerse" and that baptism was by immersion after faith in Christ, that he became a Baptist by conviction. He wrote back to the Congregational Church and testified of his decision, being convicted of the Holy Spirit to do the right thing and become a Baptist. Naturally he lost all of his support, and landed in India to meet Carey almost penniless. Did God provide for him? Yes, of course he did. He always provides for his own. But Judson was able to study the Word without bias, even the bias of his upbringing in the Congregational Church.

 

[The Biblicist]

Dear Brother Biblicist,

Your interpretation of Scripture and your principles for Scriptural interpretation are very reasonable and plausible. Growing up Baptist I believed the same interpretation and used the same interpretation principles. But here is why I began to question the validity of these views in my mid-twenties: Why are there so many Baptists with so many different beliefs?

From reading your other posts AND in reading this post you still do NOT UNDERSTAND our position and are still misrepresenting it. I will note that continuing distortion a little further down. So you have NEVER approached scriptures the way I stated and it is obvious as you cannot even articulate it properly.

There are various beliefs among different Lutheran congregations. Within Lutheran congregations there are differences of views between individual members. The same can be said of Catholics. Eastern Orthodox Catholics versus Roman Catholics and then there are myrids of break away "Catholic" splits.

if the Holy Spirit is guiding their interpretation of Scripture shouldn’t there be 100% agreement?

I do not know of any denomination on planet earth where there is 100% agreement in all interpretations or where there has never been a split over doctrine. Even among those who share the same confession of faith there are minor differences. I do not know of two individuals in the world who are 100% in agreement over every Bible statement, doctrine or teaching.

The only thing ALL Baptists seem to agree on is:

Baptists by the very name almost universally embrace believers immersion. Other commonalities are liberty of conscience, preisthood of the believer, sola scriptura as final authority in faith and practice, the triune God, incarnation, virign birth, full humanity and deity of Christ, separation of church and state and the list goes on. You are simply not very knowlegable of Baptists or Baptist History.

that THEY alone have the true interpretation of the Bible and that the Holy Spirit confirms that they are right in their hearts.

Again, you totally distort our approach to scripture by your circular reasoning analogy which is flawed and yet this your supposed "gotcha" proof.

Let me spell out clear for you where you can stop distorting our position.

1. We believe that the scriptures are SUFFICIENT and do PROVIDE all that is necessary for the believer to ascertain, doctrine, correction, reproof, instruction in ALL righteousness.

2. Part of that provision includes ESSENTIAL Biblical tests to discern between the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

3. Part of that provision includes essential rules of hermeutics

4. We believe the Scriptures are God's inspired Word provided in a contextual patternthat cannot be broken and is providentially preseved by God for all generations.


5. We believe that convictions of doctrine and practice are derived from studying the data provided by the self-defining contextual pattern of scripture and thus convictions are data driven and additionally confirmed by the Holy Spirit through harmonization of overall scripture.

In short, doctrine and practice are derived through an objective and rational study of the contextual data provided by Scriptures confirmed by comparing spiritual things with spiritual in keeping within the guidelines of Biblical guidelines and tests and as the conclusions are thus tested and tried and found solid, convictions are then the formed and inward confirmation of the Holy Spirit is the product of tried and tested truth.

Just as with the clause “all men are created equal” in the Bill of Rights, you can’t really understand what a document really means unless you compare it with historical evidence and documents that confirm what the authors really meant to say.

Here is the difference. YOU go and sit at the feet and mouth of uninspired SECONDAR sources while WE go sit at the feet of PRIMARY INSPIRED sources. When John says "The Word was God" we go to Jesus, Paul, Isaiah, Peter,etc. and Let God's Word define God's Word - comparing spiritual things with spiritual things why you put your trust in fallible men as MEDIATORS between you and God's Word.

 

[Wittenberger]

I will not speak too much about Lutheran doctrine except to say that I know that some of the churches that I am acquainted with are evangelical and some are completely apostate. That tells me there is a difference in doctrine without even going into statements of faith, etc. There are major differences of doctrine between evangelical and liberal churches. It is a difference between belief vs. unbelief.

Paul correcting Peter was not just practice. It had to do with doctrine as well. He had sided with "those of the circumcision," after the decision had already been settled in Acts 15. He had gone back to his old Judaic ways and been influenced by the legalistic Judaizers thus perverting the way of salvation. That is doctrinal, and doctrinal correction on the part of Paul.

I never used the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch. However it is a good example, and example which we follow to this day. It is an example of sola scriptura. The Eunuch was reading out of the Book of Isaiah. Philip came to the Eunuch and asked him "Do you understand what you read?" He replied, "How can I understand except some man show me?" Then Philip began at the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus. Philip did not rely on the Church Fathers, on Oral Tradition, etc. He relied on the Scriptures. He preached from the Scriptures Jesus. The gospel can clearly be found in the Book of Isaiah. Everything one needs to know about Christ is in the Book of Isaiah. Since Philip was already enlightened of the Holy Spirit he could show the Eunuch these things that he too might understand and be saved.

The disciples of Jesus are the mature Christians, not the disciples of the disciples of the disciples of the Apostles, who are the people that you are actually talking about. The inspired truths of God are written for us in the Scriptures, not in the uninspired writings of the Church Fathers, from whom much of the early heresies entered into Christianity. Thus, it would be a big mistake to go and rely on those writings that contain such error.

I depend on God's Word. Thorough study, proper hermeneutics, and study without bias along with guidance from the Holy Spirit gives one the truth. You see today the RCC takes the approach to the Scripture with the bias that the Catechism can't be wrong; the Pope can't be wrong; baptism is the new birth; etc. All of these presuppositions are already in place. Their mind is closed to the Scriptures before they even start.

Be like Adoniram Judson, a Congregationalist, and America's first foreign missionary. He was fluent in Greek. Half way across the Atlantic, while reading his Greek NT, he was so convicted of the Holy Spirit that "Baptidzo" meant "immerse" and that baptism was by immersion after faith in Christ, that he became a Baptist by conviction. He wrote back to the Congregational Church and testified of his decision, being convicted of the Holy Spirit to do the right thing and become a Baptist. Naturally he lost all of his support, and landed in India to meet Carey almost penniless. Did God provide for him? Yes, of course he did. He always provides for his own. But Judson was able to study the Word without bias, even the bias of his upbringing in the Congregational Church.

You are correct that the RCC does not believe in "sola scriptura". The RCC teaches that Church Traditions are on an equal level of authority with Scripture.

Luther denounced this treaching. He taught "sola scriptura": the Bible is the only FINAL/SUPREME authority. Baptists unfortunately mix that sentence up to say: "the Bible is not only the final/supreme authority, it is the only authority. Any writings by early Christians are of no use in helping to understand the meaning of the Scriptures. One can only look inward, and listen to an inner voice (the Holy Spirit) to guide him or her to the truth."

This concept is not scriptural. God does not reveal doctrinal truths in private revelations to individuals. God reveals his truth through his Word. To understand what the Word means, you need a "Phillip" to help you understand as did the Ethopian Eunach. Do you really believe that the Eunach would have figured out that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the Messiah he was reading about in the Book of Isaiah?? No, a Christian who had seen and heard Christ himself told him the meaning of what he was reading.

According to your viewpoint, any pagan living in the jungle who can read should be able to pick up a copy of the Bible and understand all the doctrines of the Church. If any pagan reads the Bible without any outside knowledge of history, etc, he would think that Christians are cannibals who eat human flesh and drink human blood during their "supper".

I'm sorry, but your position requires a real stretch of credibility.

 

[Wittenberger]

Why are there so many Lutherans with differing beliefs?
Why are there so many Catholics with differing beliefs?

Don't kid yourself. There are many factions or sects within the Catholic Church with wide and varying beliefs, so divergent in their beliefs that Catholics like TS would not like to consider them as Catholics even though they still take the name as Catholics.

Also Luther, who believed in sola scriptura would be ashamed of you, turning in his grave even now, to hear you say the things you are saying.

In short, your argument holds no water.
Paul had to correct Peter.
Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement over John Mark.
Peter told his readers that some of Paul's epistles were hard to understand.
Jesus said of his own disciples that they were "slow of learning."

The Sanhedrin looked upon Peter and John, considered that they were "ignorant men," but noted "that they had been with Jesus."
I don't follow the church fathers. But I do know who I do follow.

You are incorrect on your statement regarding Lutheran unity.

All Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration.
All Lutherans believe in the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper.
All Lutherans believe that the Bible is the only FINAL authority for doctrine and practice.
All Lutherans believe in predestination of the Elect.
All Lutherans believe in the Trinity, Virgin birth, etc.

We are divided over social issues. I don't consider homosexuality and female ordination as doctrines, they are important issues, but not doctrines.

Liberal Lutherans are in favor of these issues, we conservatives condemn them.

 

[Wittenberger]

From reading your other posts AND in reading this post you still do NOT UNDERSTAND our position and are still misrepresenting it. I will note that continuing distortion a little further down. So you have NEVER approached scriptures the way I stated and it is obvious as you cannot even articulate it properly.

There are various beliefs among different Lutheran congregations. Within Lutheran congregations there are differences of views between individual members. The same can be said of Catholics. Eastern Orthodox Catholics versus Roman Catholics and then there are myrids of break away "Catholic" splits.



I do not know of any denomination on planet earth where there is 100% agreement in all interpretations or where there has never been a split over doctrine. Even among those who share the same confession of faith there are minor differences. I do not know of two individuals in the world who are 100% in agreement over every Bible statement, doctrine or teaching.



Baptists by the very name almost universally embrace believers immersion. Other commonalities are liberty of conscience, preisthood of the believer, sola scriptura as final authority in faith and practice, the triune God, incarnation, virign birth, full humanity and deity of Christ, separation of church and state and the list goes on. You are simply not very knowlegable of Baptists or Baptist History.





Again, you totally distort our approach to scripture by your circular reasoning analogy which is flawed and yet this your supposed "gotcha" proof.

Let me spell out clear for you where you can stop distorting our position.

1. We believe that the scriptures are SUFFICIENT and do PROVIDE all that is necessary for the believer to ascertain, doctrine, correction, reproof, instruction in ALL righteousness.

2. Part of that provision includes ESSENTIAL Biblical tests to discern between the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

3. Part of that provision includes essential rules of hermeutics

4. We believe the Scriptures are God's inspired Word provided in a contextual patternthat cannot be broken and is providentially preseved by God for all generations.


5. We believe that convictions of doctrine and practice are derived from studying the data provided by the self-defining contextual pattern of scripture and thus convictions are data driven and additionally confirmed by the Holy Spirit through harmonization of overall scripture.

In short, doctrine and practice are derived through an objective and rational study of the contextual data provided by Scriptures confirmed by comparing spiritual things with spiritual in keeping within the guidelines of Biblical guidelines and tests and as the conclusions are thus tested and tried and found solid, convictions are then the formed and inward confirmation of the Holy Spirit is the product of tried and tested truth.




Here is the difference. YOU go and sit at the feet and mouth of uninspired SECONDAR sources while WE go sit at the feet of PRIMARY INSPIRED sources. When John says "The Word was God" we go to Jesus, Paul, Isaiah, Peter,etc. and Let God's Word define God's Word - comparing spiritual things with spiritual things why you put your trust in fallible men as MEDIATORS between you and God's Word.

Your interpretation is just your interpretation, my friend.

If you were using rules of hermeneutics that are acceptable to all Christian theologians, we would all be Baptists by now! The reason we are not, is that you have convinced yourself that your "rules" of interpretation are the only acceptable rules and everyone else is wrong because they don't listen to the Holy Spirit like you do. ie: circular argument.

 

[DHK]

You are correct that the RCC does not believe in "sola scriptura". The RCC teaches that Church Traditions are on an equal level of authority with Scripture.

Luther denounced this treaching. He taught "sola scriptura": the Bible is the only FINAL/SUPREME authority. Baptists unfortunately mix that sentence up to say: "the Bible is not only the final/supreme authority, it is the only authority.

I think you are mistaken there. The Bible is our final authority in all things. I use other material. I would be foolish if I didn't. I consult commentaries, dictionaries, Greek and Hebrew reference works (have a library of over 2,000 books). But the Bible is my "final authority." Some would make Calvin or even Spurgeon their final authority. Perhaps they would be showing their spiritual immaturity in doing so. Most Baptists believe that the Bible is their final authority in all matters of faith and practice. I can't use it for a Math text or for Physics.

Any writings by early Christians are of no use in helping to understand the meaning of the Scriptures. One can only look inward, and listen to an inner voice (the Holy Spirit) to guide him or her to the truth."

Where are you getting this stuff from? Who is telling you this? It sounds like gnosticism. I don't teach that. I do teach that the ECF are of little value, but I don't teach listening to an "inner voice" and I don't equate that to the Holy Spirit. Get your facts straight before you wrongly accuse.

This concept is not scriptural. God does not reveal doctrinal truths in private revelations to individuals. God reveals his truth through his Word.

I agree. Nowhere did I ever say otherwise.

To understand what the Word means, you need a "Phillip" to help you understand as did the Ethopian Eunach. Do you really believe that the Eunach would have figured out that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the Messiah he was reading about in the Book of Isaiah?? No, a Christian who had seen and heard Christ himself told him the meaning of what he was reading.

It doesn't seem like you read my posts very often.
The unsaved cannot understand the word of God. They need enlightenment from others--those that are saved, those who have already been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. That is not the ECF. That is the function of the local church today. God has put in place local churches who preach and teach the Bible. These local churches have pastors, teachers, evangelists, that they may teach the people.

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
--A believer has the Spirit of God that he understands the Word of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
--The Ethiopian Eunuch (and all unsaved men) cannot understand the Bible and other spiritual things because he does not have the Spirit of God.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
--We don't have the apostles and prophets today. But we do have evangelists, pastors and teachers. They function in local churches.

Here is the reason why:
Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

According to your viewpoint, any pagan living in the jungle who can read should be able to pick up a copy of the Bible and understand all the doctrines of the Church. If any pagan reads the Bible without any outside knowledge of history, etc, he would think that Christians are cannibals who eat human flesh and drink human blood during their "supper".

Your answer is explained above. I definitely don't believe that.

I'm sorry, but your position requires a real stretch of credibility.

No it doesn't. You need to understand my position.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your interpretation is just your interpretation, my friend.

Then at least represent it correctly instead of consistently perverting it!

We have already put my Biblical based principle of interpretation to the test and seen the outcome. This is what happens when you as a Lutheran came at me with your infant baptism doctrine and I come at you with my Biblical based principles of interpetation.

Do you remember the consequence? YOU HAD TO FLEE THE BIBLE AS FINAL AUTHORITY to sustain your non-biblical doctrine of infant baptism. You fled to uninspired sources and that is why we are now in this very discussion!

JUST LIKE THE MORMON's doctrine of "burning in the bosom" FORCED them to FLEE the Bible to confirm their non-Biblical doctrine. False doctrine is always the consequence of one of two failures. Failure to abide by the basic rules of interpretation. Failure to recognize Scripture as final authority for doctrine and practice.

If you were using rules of hermeneutics that are acceptable to all Christian theologians, we would all be Baptists by now!

Not true! The basic rules are the same. The problem is that those with false doctrine ALWAYS DO NOT FOLLOW THOSE RULES when it comes to their particular false doctrine. False doctrine is ALWAYS the failure to follow basic rules of hermeneutics and/or the failure to recognize scripture as final authority.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is YOUR view of history but it is not HIS view is it? He would argue that Rome was the heretical sect.



They do it as a consequence of interpertation of scriptures by their prophet Russell. Russell their prophet identified the Watch Tower as the "mouth peice" for God. Rome by their Prophet (Pope) and other uninspired men interpret the magisterium the very same way.




YOu have stated YOUR PROBLEM very well in your choice of "allow." There is no LIBERTY of conscience before God in your view but only what some denomination will ALLOW.

You may not like it but the Scriptures very clearly teaches PERSONAL indwelling and leadership by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14,16; 1 Jn. 2:27; etc.). The Scriptures also provide the guidelines to determine the difference between Holy Spirit leadership and demonic leadership (1 Jn. 4:1; Isa. 8:20; etc).




I realize you want some uninspired organization or tradition to provide you personal SECURITY other than a personal relationship with the Spirit of Christ but the Scriptures repudiate your security blanket. The scriptures clearly predict the utter confusion within the kingdom of God (Mt. 13; 2 Tim. 3:1-12; etc.) and repeatedly speak about being LED of the Spirit PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY with specific guidelines and characteritics to discern between the spirit of confusion and the Holy Spriit's leadership.



Jesus repudiated dependency upon "the traditions of the elders" but leaned wholly upon the scriptuers as final authority and so did the apostles and they spoke and wrote under INSPIRATION.

God Himself providential preserves His Word and sometimes through UNBELEIVERS. Believe it or not, God does not need human confirmation that His Word is truth. I know that may come as a shock.

God perpetuates his Word through believers but no man, no organization, no prophet, no tradition can reach inside of the human mind and heart and remove the obstacles to perceive, understand and receive truth - that is the sole job of the Holy Spirit and he can do it without anything but the Word of God.

Apostle john said INDIVIDUAL Chrsitians ALL have the unction/annoiting from the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them into truth...

Paul says the Spirit intercedes for us, that He has the mind of God, reveals the deep things of God to us...

When did He stop the work of Illuminating the Bible to each one of us, and turn it overto an organzational set up, to a church body/group?

 

[Wittenberger]

From reading your other posts AND in reading this post you still do NOT UNDERSTAND our position and are still misrepresenting it. I will note that continuing distortion a little further down. So you have NEVER approached scriptures the way I stated and it is obvious as you cannot even articulate it properly.

There are various beliefs among different Lutheran congregations. Within Lutheran congregations there are differences of views between individual members. The same can be said of Catholics. Eastern Orthodox Catholics versus Roman Catholics and then there are myrids of break away "Catholic" splits.



I do not know of any denomination on planet earth where there is 100% agreement in all interpretations or where there has never been a split over doctrine. Even among those who share the same confession of faith there are minor differences. I do not know of two individuals in the world who are 100% in agreement over every Bible statement, doctrine or teaching.



Baptists by the very name almost universally embrace believers immersion. Other commonalities are liberty of conscience, preisthood of the believer, sola scriptura as final authority in faith and practice, the triune God, incarnation, virign birth, full humanity and deity of Christ, separation of church and state and the list goes on. You are simply not very knowlegable of Baptists or Baptist History.





Again, you totally distort our approach to scripture by your circular reasoning analogy which is flawed and yet this your supposed "gotcha" proof.

Let me spell out clear for you where you can stop distorting our position.

1. We believe that the scriptures are SUFFICIENT and do PROVIDE all that is necessary for the believer to ascertain, doctrine, correction, reproof, instruction in ALL righteousness.

2. Part of that provision includes ESSENTIAL Biblical tests to discern between the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

3. Part of that provision includes essential rules of hermeutics

4. We believe the Scriptures are God's inspired Word provided in a contextual patternthat cannot be broken and is providentially preseved by God for all generations.


5. We believe that convictions of doctrine and practice are derived from studying the data provided by the self-defining contextual pattern of scripture and thus convictions are data driven and additionally confirmed by the Holy Spirit through harmonization of overall scripture.

In short, doctrine and practice are derived through an objective and rational study of the contextual data provided by Scriptures confirmed by comparing spiritual things with spiritual in keeping within the guidelines of Biblical guidelines and tests and as the conclusions are thus tested and tried and found solid, convictions are then the formed and inward confirmation of the Holy Spirit is the product of tried and tested truth.




Here is the difference. YOU go and sit at the feet and mouth of uninspired SECONDAR sources while WE go sit at the feet of PRIMARY INSPIRED sources. When John says "The Word was God" we go to Jesus, Paul, Isaiah, Peter,etc. and Let God's Word define God's Word - comparing spiritual things with spiritual things why you put your trust in fallible men as MEDIATORS between you and God's Word.

I have a question, brother: Are your rules of Scriptural interpretation man-made rules and therefore potentially fallible or do you believe (I doubt you do) that your rules are infallible/equal in authority to Scripture?

 

[Wittenberger]

Then at least represent it correctly instead of consistently perverting it!

We have already put my Biblical based principle of interpretation to the test and seen the outcome. This is what happens when you as a Lutheran came at me with your infant baptism doctrine and I come at you with my Biblical based principles of interpetation.

Do you remember the consequence? YOU HAD TO FLEE THE BIBLE AS FINAL AUTHORITY to sustain your non-biblical doctrine of infant baptism. You fled to uninspired sources and that is why we are now in this very discussion!

JUST LIKE THE MORMON's doctrine of "burning in the bosom" FORCED them to FLEE the Bible to confirm their non-Biblical doctrine. False doctrine is always the consequence of one of two failures. Failure to abide by the basic rules of interpretation. Failure to recognize Scripture as final authority for doctrine and practice.





Not true! The basic rules are the same. The problem is that those with false doctrine ALWAYS DO NOT FOLLOW THOSE RULES when it comes to their particular false doctrine. False doctrine is ALWAYS the failure to follow basic rules of hermeneutics and/or the failure to recognize scripture as final authority.

So again, everyone else is wrong and I am right. I know I am right because I follow my man-made rules of interpretation which I believe to be right.

Circular argument, brother.

 

[Wittenberger]

Then at least represent it correctly instead of consistently perverting it!

We have already put my Biblical based principle of interpretation to the test and seen the outcome. This is what happens when you as a Lutheran came at me with your infant baptism doctrine and I come at you with my Biblical based principles of interpetation.

Do you remember the consequence? YOU HAD TO FLEE THE BIBLE AS FINAL AUTHORITY to sustain your non-biblical doctrine of infant baptism. You fled to uninspired sources and that is why we are now in this very discussion!

JUST LIKE THE MORMON's doctrine of "burning in the bosom" FORCED them to FLEE the Bible to confirm their non-Biblical doctrine. False doctrine is always the consequence of one of two failures. Failure to abide by the basic rules of interpretation. Failure to recognize Scripture as final authority for doctrine and practice.






Not true! The basic rules are the same. The problem is that those with false doctrine ALWAYS DO NOT FOLLOW THOSE RULES when it comes to their particular false doctrine. False doctrine is ALWAYS the failure to follow basic rules of hermeneutics and/or the failure to recognize scripture as final authority.

I "fled" not because I thought you had me in a corner, but because you would not stick to one verse or passage of Scripture at one time. You insisted on bringing in multiple other verses to re-interpret the plain, simple, literal meaning of the verse in question.

This is exactly what the cults do and why I refuse to debate Scripture with them.

 

[The Biblicist]

So again, everyone else is wrong and I am right. I know I am right because I follow my man-made rules of interpretation which I believe to be right.

Circular argument, brother.

There are literally THOUSANDS that approach this issue the same way I do. Hence, this is not an INDIVIDUALIZED approach to scripture. There are THOUSANDS in our past history that approached it by the same hermeneutics. They are found among Baptistic types or anti-sacramental types of Bible interpreters and they are in agreement.