Fundamental Baptist View of Scripture

God. No man needs to "say" they are Scripture.
</font>[/QUOTE]You know what I mean. Man still needs to recognize it. How do you recognize James or Rev or Jude are scripture?

Actually, that is sort of the answer I want. God continues to work with and guiding the church. Christ promised to always be with his church. The Holy Spirit was promised to guide the church. Under these conditions, that gives the church *authority*. If scripture is the "sola" authority, God would not need to guide the church, they'd already have all they need, in the scriptures. When the church decided on the canon, under God's guidance, they exercised their authority. By accepting a canon instead of by yourself trying to figure out which writings are scripture, you accept that authority.

Without a second authority (the Church, under God's direction), there'd be no canon to say "sola scriptura" about in the first place.

 

That's the Roman Catholic argument anyway.

Jason

 

Look at it this way: "sola scriptura" is a 'doctrine', right? Yet we can't find "sola scriptura" taught in the Bible - no passage says or implies that *only* the Bible is the authority for faith and practice, the only authority of doctrine. So since "sola scriptura" is a doctrine itself, yet this doctrine does not come from scripture, does not the very existence of sola scriptura disprove it? Is it not inherently self-contradicting?

Often in the other forum, someone will promote the doctrine that the KJV is the only word of God, their "final authority". We ask them where in their final authority it says the KJV is the final authority. They are never able to show us. "sola scriptura" suffers from the *exact* same logically paradox, just on a more general level (not specific to a particular translation).

 

Yes, and I have been trying for months to refute it, even if only for myself. I am unable to. Are you able to?

 

Brian,

Very interesting. The position you find yourself drawn toward is not that of historic baptists. The determination of scripture was not based on what books a committee thought should be included in the canon. They merely "discovered" that which was scripture already. It was easy to weed out other books than the ones that were canonized.

There were several tests that were applied to the books that were circulating to determine if they were truly scripture or not. This is from a book that I have, but I can't remember which one. Oh, I found it, it's The Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God?
2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God (miracles, etc.)?
3. Did the message tell the truth about God?
4. Does it come with the power of God? "The presence of God's transforming power was a strong indication that a given book had His stamp of approval."
5. Was it accepted by the people of God?

The chief test specific to the New Testament was if the writer was an apostle, but more specifically the apostolic approval of a book. John Murray states, "The only one who speaks in the New Testament with an authority that is underived and self-authenticating is the Lord." A book that is scripture in New Testament times shows consistent recognition that the Lord is the absolute authority in the church such as Paul writes in Galatians 1 and 2.

This is in a chart in the book:

The Incorrect View

1. The Church is determiner of Canon.
2. The Church is Mother of Canon.
3. The Church is Magistrate of Canon.
4. The Church is Regulator of Canon.
5. The Church is Judge of Canon.
6. The Church is Master of Canon.

The Correct View

1. The Church is discoverer of canon.
2. The Church is child of canon.
3. The Church is minister of canon.
4. The Church is recognizer of canon.
5. The Church is witness of canon.
6. The Church is servant of canon.

I borrowed heavily from the Josh McDowell book above, but am fairly satisfied with his answers on things.

I do have to tell you, as you know I'm sure, that it takes faith to believe that the Bible is the word of God though it is far from a blind faith. The Catholics take more on blind faith from men of all people (as opposed to scripture) than we take on faith that is supported by fact.

The spurious books, it seems, can be weeded from the "living" ones quite easily when everything is taken into consideration.

I sure hope this helped, at least a little.

Jason

 

Traditions could be handed down orally if God so designed it. In fact, in the early church, prior to the completion of the NT canon, the truth WAS handed down orally. In the early church there was certainly a danger (and the danger was more than hypothetical) that stories about Jesus might become fanciful or exagerated. That is why, in the biblical record we find great emphasis on "eyewitness" accounts. John, and Peter all refer to the things they personally saw or the things others witnessed. Paul and the writer of Hebrews make reference to factual events and claim eyewitnesses for them. Also the writers of the gospels were either eyewitnesses (i.e. John) of the things about which they wrote, or they relied upon eyewitness accounts (Mark received his information from Peter and Luke researched his information among eyewitnesses). Given the fact that we have written records either preserved for us by eyewitnesses or written with reliance on eyewitnesses, why would you want to rely on oral tradition? Do you even have an oral tradition that has been passed down? What is it? How would you prove that your oral tradition was passed down faithfully and without change over a period of 2,000 years? Does your oral tradition differ from what we have written? If so, how and how do you know it is accurate? If not, what difference does it make? My point is, that oral tradition, even if we had it (and we don't) would be more problematic than the written revelation that we have.

I take them as scripture because they have been taken as scripture from earliest times. I take them as scripture because each of them is apostolic. I realize that some, early on rejected these books for various reasons. However, I think that the objections to these book's inclusion can be overcome and it is obvious that the church rejected the objections early on since the books have been preserved as a part of the canon.

 

Yes, and I have been trying for months to refute it, even if only for myself. I am unable to. Are you able to? </font>[/QUOTE]Brian I feel no need to refute, I feel God's word is quite capable. All scripture is given by inspiration and how do I know that to be true? I accept it by faith, and I hope that you will also. I can appreciate your need to question issues but I must agree with Refreshed that you seem to be clinging to catholic doctrine and this is not the forum for that. I clipped this from the thread about fundamental forum guidelines:

Many have asked who should post here and the answer is, “Anyone who will not deny the truths of the Word of God.” For example, we may disagree on the various interpretations of Scripture; but we will not be allowed to deny or question a clearly revealed truth. (Creation, virgin birth, salvation by grace, Old & New Testament miracles, etc…)

I feel that the statement about not denying the truths of the Word would include not questioning if the Bible is the Word.
Murph

 

Wow, A whole page of responses, but no one tried to tackle my question.

I wonder why, you either have no idea what I'm talking about, or find it to volitile to discuss.

Okay then, Back to independent study it is.

 

I honestly didn't see your post.

In what way did Constantine tweak the scriptures?

 

I have no problem admitting the church has authority, Brian. I have said as much in other places as well. However, that authority does not surpass or is even on par with the authority of God's Word. Read through the entire Bible and see how many times "God's Word" (or any similar variant) is referred to as being authoritative. Any authority the church has can only be understood through Scripture. And yes, I completely see God actively involved in His Church today. That would make absolutely zero sense if He was only involved in the first century and not now. God is completely sovereign and depends on no man. I have no problem believing this and not believing the RCC's claims. God is far bigger than the RCC. I feel the RCC has made some claims and assumed power that is not rightfully theirs. I do not see the RCC as THE church in Scripture. Again, God is far bigger and needs no organization to accomplish His purpose. Rather, it is only by His grace that we can be obedient to Him and be a part of His work.

This Is the Day the Lord Has Made! Let Us Rejoice and Be Glad in it!

Neal

 

I take them as scripture because they have been taken as scripture from earliest times.</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry to revive this aging thread, but I was out of town for a few days.

Your answer gets at my original point (which got sidetracked somewhere along the way): you accept books like Revelation, Jude and Hebrews, etc., as scripture not because scripture itself tells us these books are scripture, but because of tradition. The simple point is this: you're accepting an authority other than scripture on this matter. "sola scriptura" is about scripture *only* (sola), and thus you illustrate that anyone that accepts the canon cannot be sola scriptura (for purely logical reasons), despite their claims otherwise.

 

Yes, and I have been trying for months to refute it, even if only for myself. I am unable to. Are you able to?</font>[/QUOTE]Brian I feel no need to refute, I feel God's word is quite capable.
</font>[/QUOTE]You feel God's word is quite capable to refute my comments? Which ones? The context of Refreshed's comments were when I said "Christ promised to always be with his church. The Holy Spirit was promised to guide the church. Under these conditions, that gives the church *authority*. If scripture is the "sola" authority, God would not need to guide the church, they'd already have all they need, in the scriptures. When the church decided on the canon, under God's guidance, they exercised their authority. By accepting a canon instead of by yourself trying to figure out which writings are scripture, you accept that authority." How does God's word refute that?

I have repeatedly affirmed this.

Murph, whenever I post something in this forum that makes you think, you harp about the rules and try to make it look like I'm breaking them or that I believe something I don't. I've lost track of how many times you've done this to me. I am not questioning if the Bible is the word (it is!), I'm simply discussing how "sola scriptura" doesn't work.

 

BrianT, I accept the authority of 2 Cor., James, and Revelation for several reasons:

1. Revelation

a. John claims to have been the author of Revelation.

b. John claims that he was writting what Christ and the Spirit said.

c. John extensively quotes and alludes to the O.T.

d. Matthew 24-25 is very similar to Rev. 6-19.

2. 2 Corinthians

a. Paul claims to have been the author.

b. He spends much of the letter proving/defending his apostleship.

c. Nothing is contradictory to the rest of Scripture.

d. He elaborates on the New Covenant, which began at the cross (that being a central thought).

3. James

a. James claims to have been the author.

b. If it is James, the Lord's brother as most feel it is, then it was written by someone with a prominent position in the church.

c. His book very closely follows the sermon on the mount (the similarities are striking).

So, I personally can maintain the Scripture alone as my authority.

 

I picked those 3 books mostly at random (I could have as easily picked Jude, Hebrews, Titus, etc.), but thanks for answering specifically.

How do you *know* this is the same John as wrote the gospel. John was a popular name, and also the practice of writing under pseudonyms was not uncommon. Is quoting and alluding to the OT proof of "scriptureness"? What about other NT books that don't? What about other non-Biblical books that do?

I could ask the same sort of questions as above.

I could ask the same sort of questions as above.

In fact, I would add that just because someone was an apostle, does that mean *everything* they write should therefore be considered "scripture"?

Your comments above, although I agree with them, are not conclusive proof of anything. They don't even let one distinguish between "scripture" and "good writings". We have these books in our NT because of the early church's canonizing them. If they didn't combine them into an official list, but instead left everything separated and open to debate, we might not even have heard of some of the NT books.

 

Murph, whenever I post something in this forum that makes you think, you harp about the rules and try to make it look like I'm breaking them or that I believe something I don't. I've lost track of how many times you've done this to me. I am not questioning if the Bible is the word (it is!), I'm simply discussing how "sola scriptura" doesn't work. </font>[/QUOTE]My dear "Wavering" friend, I am very curious about your comment above where you state you are not questioning whether the Bible is the word. Why then are you raising these doubts such as how do we know hebrews is scripture or james etc. What exactly is your point. I commented that I agree with the poster who said your argument was the same as RC. I will admit that I knw too little about them to cleary define it that way but I feel your questions here seem something other than fundamental baptist. Your profile says baptist but wavering, I wonder if you would define yourself as a fundamental baptist if you are in fact wavering on whether you are even baptist. I'm confused. As a side note please don't flatter yourself I don't sit around waiting on a wavering baptist to make me think.
Murph

 

I though my point has been perfectly clear, but I'll reiterate for you. My point is exactly this: "sola scriptura" (i.e. the topic of this thread) is about *only* ('sola') Scripture being "authoritative for matters of Christian faith and practice", yet "Scripture" does not explicitly say Philemon or Titus or Revelation is Scripture, nor does Scripture does not list what books should/shouldn't be included in the canon - yet we believe Philemon and Titus and Revelation are scripture and should be in the canon not because scripture tells us this, but because of other reason(s). We are holding on to a matter of "Christian faith and practice" that is NOT taught in scripture, thus scripture is NOT the "only" ("sola") authority we have for matters of Christian faith and practice.

My arguments about the Trinity are also the same as the RC. So are yours (hopefully). Your point?

As I've told others, if you have a question about anything in my profile, send me a private message instead of trying to change the topic of a thread. I will gladly answer any private messages about anything in my profile. This thread is not the place, as it's simply not the topic under discussion.

 

Your argument seems to be strong at first because of the way you use it. You're saying that if scripture is the only authority, then only books which claim to be scripture are scripture and those that do not claim to be scripture are not.

But what if we flip the method around and apply your principle to ALL books which claim to be scripture? If I take every book ever written that claims to be a word from God (or the Word of God) and I accept the claim at face value with no other criteria, I have to accept the Book of Mormon, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, not to mention the Koran. This leaves me with a belief system which is so demonstrably wrong and so hopelessly contradictory that it is utterly incoherent.

So, I conclude that there is more than one test and more than one factor that determines whether a book should be in the canon. Your test of "does the book claim to be God's Word?" is a valid question, but it is not the sum total of how the content of the canon is determined.

 

Briant: "Murph, whenever I post something in this forum
that makes you think, you harp about the rules
and try to make it look like I'm breaking them
or that I believe something I don't. I've lost
track of how many times you've done this to me."

Hello, Brothe BrianT
Looks like you found yourself in a hotbed of hyper-conservative
fundamentalists. They call "conservatives"
moderates and "moderates" like
yourself ****using the Lords name in vain removed*** Liberals (GDL).

I figure you have been on my daily prayer list
for eight years now. So here is yet another such
prayer: May all God's best blessings be unto
Brother BrianT, his family, and his ministry.
May this be done so that we might give all the more
honor and glory unto our blessed Lord and
Savior: Messiah Jesus.

[ July 28, 2003, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Yes, and I have been trying for months to refute it, even if only for myself. I am unable to. Are you able to? </font>[/QUOTE]A: if God were to preserve tradition, it would be in his true church

B: the only likely candidate for this church is the RCC

C: the RCC has obviously tacked on new traditions and demphasized others over time

given A, B, and C it is clear that God has not preserved an authoritative stream of tradition from the early apostolic times