-
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!
Arguing full circle.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
Not sure I would completely agree. When we engage in debate (and try to avoid arguments) we can plant seeds that may not be watered for years. Just because we do not see a change here doesn't mean it never happens. Over the greater expanse of time, we may see positions "evolve."
Secondly, repeating an argument helps us to refine the arguments we presently have. I myself go to forums, not so much to challenge the views of others, but to challenge my own views. It is often the objections raised that force further study, and this usually helps refine the position held to, or helps us to acknowledge we may be in error on something.
I owe a debt of gratitude to every antagonist I have ever had in my time on the forums, and my advice to all is keep it up. As long as your debating, there's a good chance your in the Word of God, and that is the best use of time we can have, in my view.
God bless.
I agree and as the old saying goes you can't catch a fly with vinegar... But I found this and it might be of some benefit... The Apostle Paul engage in a technique called Dialectical Argumentation or Dialectical Reasoning is to be so accurate, thorough and fair in dealing with that person's ideas that he/she would congratulate you for your insight into their ideas... The objective in Dialectical Argumentation, is to win the person, not the argument. Once the dialectical writer so identified his hypothetical conversant's ideas he would analyze them, compare them with is own ideas, and attempt to prove his ideas were superior... The writer then says that Paul frequently used this literary devise... To observe this read Romans 10: 4-11... Just a heads up... Since I'm not that adept... I just say:
2 Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
Brother Glen
Well, first you try and reason with the guy from Scripture, and pray about it.
Then you go to the plain face value reading of scripture.
Failing that.
You go to the ancient traditional understanding of scripture. What has Christianity always interpreted the verses to mean from the beginning.
Hope this helps.
I agree.
When I come to a conclusion I do a few things. One is to make sure it isn't unique to me. But another is to argue that conclusion, often in hopes a legitimate argument will arise to the challenge.
This arguing full circle comes from having Scripture as your sole rule of faith.
Many claim Scripture is their sole rule of faith, but they disagree with each other as to what it means. It’s a never ending cycle of each man referring to Scripture to justify his own doctrines.
This is why Jesus established an authoritive Apostolic Church to settle interpretation of Scripture definitively and keep true doctrine.
37818
Well-Known Member
The New testament Scriptures are the sole Apostolic authority.
And the Holy Bible [our 66 books] being the close of the written Holy Scriptures to be the sole final authority in all matters of the faith and practice.
Church statements of faith present what is professed.
I mostly agree.
The problem is that there is no ancient traditional understandings that settle several issues because either the issue was not one of that day (and not discussed) or there are ancient disagreements. Also, how far back do you go.
The ancient view is not necessarily the correct view.
Here is an example - the ancient view of Christ's atoning work is one I agree with. But Catholics and most Baptists disagree with that view. My appeal has to be to Scripture because Catholics and Baptists discount the Early Church Fathers (my appeal to them, on that issue, would likewise be dismissed).
Catholics disagree with many of the Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist. For example, Justin Martyr claimed that the elements were of a symbolic type rather than literally blood and flesh (Dialogue with Trypho). Origen called the wine in Communion a "symbol" (Against Celsus) of Christ's blood. Athanasius said that Jesus was not talking about physical blood and flesh but was speaking spiritually (Festal Letter). Cyprian wrote about wine being the proper representation of Christ's blood (Epistle). Eusebius write that wine symbolizes Christ's blood and bread symbolizes Christ's body (Demonstratia Evangelica).
My point is people reinterpret their words in accordance to their theology and by necessity ignore explations they themselves gave.
So what we have in common is Scripture, even with disagreements.
BUT - we have to remember what Paul said about churches having different interpretations and doctrines, with the same gospel. He said not to judge them because they are not your servant but Jesus', and He will make them stand.
Paul's ultimate plea wold be, I would think, this:
1 Corinthians 1:10
King James Version
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Wishful thinking? I don't think so. I think this places a burden on us, or at least, should, to come into agreement. I like to think that if we were all sincere in our quest for truth, we could actually work through the issues that divide us. And I mean our Catholic brethren as well.
Would you mind posting the Scripture you refer to?
God bless.
God bless.
I would just have to point out that such a system inevitably invites corruption. It's a "Who polices the Police" scenario.
And one thing to keep in mind is that the Church established by Christ relied on revelation of knowledge previously veiled from man. Next, we consider a particular division in the Church that was allowable, namely, a division between Jewish and Gentile believers in regards to custom and tradition (and I am not implying Jews and Gentiles are not both the One Man of the same Body, they are). I mean this only with reference to the distinctive heritage of the Jew as opposed to the Gentile, and that neither could force their heritage on the other.
I have often heard this argument, but, as a plough boy myself, I would suggest that God does not limit His understanding to a particular leadership. Further, I don't believe He limits it to leadership in general. If that were the case, Catholics could dictate to Jews in regards to Heritage (and this is just an example).
Going back to corruption, and its potential, do you feel you are not intended to actually read Scripture (and if you are a priest, or someone in the Catholic Church who can interpret, just let me know), or, if you do, do you feel you must reject the interpretation/s you draw? Can you read a passage and grasp the general thrust of any given passage? And I'm not trying to be offensive, just asking you if you so discount anything you feel God's Word teaches because you think (initially) that something might mean one thing?
God's Word, in general, was given to men that they might understand His will.
Who is in view in the following statement?
John 20:30-31
King James Version
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Who is this statement directed to? And it isn't a matter of debating interpretations, it's just a simple question.
God bless.
Both pleas go together.
Speaking the same thing, being united, does not mean arriving at the same interpretation.
Here os the verse.....when you read it think of our SDA brothers:
Romans 14
4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;
8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.
9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall give praise to God.”
12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
A brother in Christ is a brother in Christ.
I think the distinction must be made between Christian doctrine and Christians.
Catholicism is "Christian paganism". But that does not mean that there are no Christians among Catholics. The gospel is there, it is just not what is distinctly Catholic.
The "proof is in the pudding".
How does Christ manifest Himself in the one prodessing Christ? Do they judge another for the music they use, for the type of sermon they prefer, for the English translation they use, for errors in their doctrine, for their clothes, their nationality or race, their wealth or lack thereof, their political views?
If so then there is an indication these may not be saved....."for so once we're some of you". They may be saved, but we cannot act as if they are because they are disobedient children.
On the other hand, doctrine does matter and doctrine should be judged and tested against Scripture.
When we say that Scripture is the sole and final authority, we are saying in the same breath that we are the sole and final authority of its interpretation.
Luther came up with this novel doctrine, that not even scripture teaches. It’s a pure tradition of man. “ I Luther, guided by God “
Enter the Hegoats.
“Behold I judge between small cattle and small cattle, between the rams and the he-goats. Is it a small thing to you that ye eat up the good pasture, and trample with your feet the residue of your pastures? ye drink the settling of the waters, the remains ye disturb with your feet; ye strike with your horns all the infirm till ye have scattered them abroad.” (Ezek. 34:17, 18, 21);
What do the Hegoats do when they enter the pristine pastures of scripture, they trample it with their private opinions, so that when scripture is made to mean anything, then it means little to nothing.
Nullifying the scriptures by conflicting human interpretations of Scripture they muddy the waters for those that follow after, even generationally.
Scripture goes from its pristine objective absolute meaning to the subjective residual meaning, of what it means to you.
They strike others with force of their own egos, that they alone are the sole arbiters of Scriptures meaning, till they scatter into many denominations each with a Hegoat human founder. Each saying he is the sole arbiter of scripture alone, everyone else is either stupid, or less inspired.
I call Luther the Hegoat in Chief, His Sola scriptura heresy has caused all the division.
Well may men ask how Christians can argue Scripture in circles, many today will never see the snare, this snare is circular.
That’s why say to people not to become Hegoats who think they know the lay of the pastures/ scriptures, trampling them by private opinion and muddying the waters for others with conflicting interpretations and doctrines, thus nullifying the true understanding of Scripture.
Do not become a Hegoat, nor follow the interpretations and doctrines of Hegoats past in the last 500 years.
If your interpretive tradition of scripture began in the last 500 years, founded by a rebellious human founder, then it is a tradition of men, not the Apostolic tradition of Apostolic Shepherds.
There is great ego in Hegoats.
All Bible alone traditions say they judge and test their doctrines against Scripture.
Yet look at all the division, who has the truth in that mess, to which does the earnest seeker of the truth present himself.
Because of this division countless churches of the individual have sprung up, just me and my bible and my opinion, rejecting all notion of a Church at all.
Further to that, many have rejected Christianity altogether, since any meaning can be deduced from scripture, nothing can be deduced from scripture. It nullifies the word of God and makes scripture nonsensical to millions.
Protestantism has lead to the prevalence of atheism as its major fruit.
37818
Well-Known Member
Well, whether you know it or not, you presented one of the chief causes of Biblical errancy. The reader of the translated text.
How can you prove the Catholic Church is not a primary source of Biblical error interpreting Scripture?
Last edited:
This is actually quite simple.
The Bible came from the Catholic Church. If we can trust the Catholic Church to preserve the scriptures from the Apostles and determine and declare the Canon itself, then it surely is the only one than can tell us what it means.
“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.” Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).
As Professor Peter Flint the Baptist translator of the Dead Sea scrolls said “ Without the Catholic Church, we would have no Bible “.
The Bible is the product of Catholic Apostolic Tradition, The Tradition of The Holy Spirit. So why not use the same Tradition to interpret it.
See, the Bible is not Scriptural. There is no inspired book from an apostle which lists which books belong in the Bible.
The Bible is Catholic Tradition, The Catholic Church determined which books belong in the Bible, even your Bible.
So whether you know it or not or accept it or not, you are already relying on the Authority of the Catholic Church in holding to your Bible.
37818
Well-Known Member
The authentic written word of God was Holy Scripture with their original autographs. Hand copies were made. The original recipients knew what they had received.
You are right that Christians come to different conclusions. We see this even with Catholics (look at Catholics who disagree with the official Catholic position on issues like blessing same sex unions, abortion, birth control...).
But this is to be expected per Scripture.
We know that churches in Scripture were different. So we're early churches (hence many of the Early church arguments).
The church in Jerusalem held different doctrines than the church in Ephesus. The Galatians held different doctrines than the Corinthians. The Corinthians held different doctrines than the Romans.
What did Paul say about this? Don't be divided, be united in Christ, and those different believing Chriatians serve the same Master.
The Word of God transcends interpretative disagreements and the gospel of Hesus Christ unites those with different doctrines.
That is why God tells us to be united in Christ rather than in interpretation.
Just as the Written word of God was guarded by The Holy Spirit in copying, the Spoken Word of God was guarded in the preaching of the Church through the Apostolic successors, that is, the Apostolic interpretation of the Scripture, the Divine Tradition.
“For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy.” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 7:16 (post A.D. 202).
“When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying: ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms [the word of truth] ‘ (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God.” Origen, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254).
So just a couple of samples here, of which there are thousands more. They talk constantly about the Apostolic interpretation which accompanies the scriptures.
The “ Original Tradition of the Church “ which is the Apostolic interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures.
They were pathological about maintaining the one original Apostolic interpretation and understanding of Scripture.
Why?
For the same reason we are having this conversation now, disunity caused by differing or conflicting interpretations of Scripture, and the doctrines that follow.
“And let them not flatter you themselves if they think they have Scriptures authority sinc the devil himself has quoted Scripture texts…we could all, while preserving in the letter of Scripture, read into it some novel doctrine.’ Jerome, Dialogue Luciferians 28 (c. A.D. 379).
Apostolic Tradition is the reason Catholics have unity on Scriptures interpretation, not just among ourselves today, but unity of belief with the ancient Fathers of the Church.
The Apostles police the Church in their successors, and successors simply pass on what was handed down to them by The Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit guards the Apostolic Tradition.
Real corruption takes place when private interpreters subject scripture to their fallible opinions. Thousands of denominations based on erroneous interpretations, traditions of men.
I am allowed to read Scripture all I like, but I am not allowed to privately interpret it, no Catholic has been allowed to privately interpret scripture in 2000 years.
The interpretation of Scripture I follow is not my opinion of Scripture, it is 2000 year old Apostolic Tradition. The original Apostolic understanding of Scripture.
I am a garden contractor, I’m not an intelligent or learned man, so I especially avoid subjecting Scripture to my opinion and come up with some novel doctrine from that interpretation. It’s foolhardy.
Scripture is very dangerous to those who misinterpret it, Peter warns of this.
You can not twist scripture to your destruction if you don’t privately interpret it.
Just don’t play that game, ok. If there is only one thing I want to get across to people it’s this.
Don’t privately interpret Scripture and don’t follow anyone else’s private interpretations either. It’s very important.