Getting your theology from the Bible is worthless

[matt wade]

According to Luke2427, getting your theology from the Bible is a "worthless claim". Not only that, you are either a heretic, or you will produce heretics within one generation:

You mark this down- when somebody answers that way- heresy is not far behind. They themselves may not be heretics but they will produce it within a generation.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1746019&postcount=14

Do you still wonder why people consider Calvinists arrogant?

 

[preacher4truth]

According to Luke2427, getting your theology from the Bible is a "worthless claim". Not only that, you are either a heretic, or you will produce heretics within one generation:



http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1746019&postcount=14

Do you still wonder why people consider Calvinists arrogant?

Talk about taking someone out of context and adding to what they've said.

I am not looking to argue, but this is truly misrepresenting what Luke2427 said. He is not saying we do not get our theology from the Bible, he never made that statement, nor is it even implied. He is simply stating via implication that the "Bible only" mentality leads to error, and that many who claim this teach much error, as a result of not possessing a solid hermeneutic.

 

[Amy.G]

Talk about taking someone out of context and adding to what they've said.

I am not looking to argue, but this is truly misrepresenting what Luke2427 said. He is not saying we do not get our theology from the Bible, he never made that statement, nor is it even implied. He is simply stating via implication that the "Bible only" mentality leads to error, and that many who claim this teach much error, as a result of not possessing a solid hermeneutic.

So where did the prominent teachers like Calvin and others that you have so much respect for get their theology?

 

[matt wade]

Talk about taking someone out of context and adding to what they've said.

I am not looking to argue, but this is truly misrepresenting what Luke2427 said. He is not saying we do not get our theology from the Bible, he never made that statement, nor is it even implied. He is simply stating via implication that the "Bible only" mentality leads to error, and that many who claim this teach much error, as a result of not possessing a solid hermeneutic.

So what you are saying then is that the Bible is not sufficient?

 

[preacher4truth]

So what you are saying then is that the Bible is not sufficient?

The Bible is sufficient absolutely, but subjective interpretations are not. It is objective truth that matters, not subjective a la "What it says to me." That is what Luke2427 is getting at.

 

[preacher4truth]

So where did the prominent teachers like Calvin and others that you have so much respect for get their theology?

From the Bible, other theologians, historical facts that give understanding to context and intent, proper preaching, and interpreting through these avenues. The same places you've gotten yours from.

And yes, I do respect other theologians, it is Scriptural to do so, (1 Timothy 5:17) even towards some I do not agree with, but yet still learn very good things from them at the same time.

Others have helped them along. As much as people want to pretend, no one has gotten all of their understanding and proper objective interpretations of Scripture from the Bible only. To state such is arrogance and simply not true.

 

[DHK]

So what you are saying then is that the Bible is not sufficient?

This is quite ironic as there is presently a thread in the Other Christian Denom. Forum called Sola/Prima Scriptura. But that thread deals with is the Scripture are only authority or is Oral Tradition also needful? There are as many as three "Catholics" defending Oral Tradition. Of course Calvin and Luther were former Catholics too. How much of that did they carry with them when they came out of the RCC?

 

[jbh28]

Others have helped them along. As much as people want to pretend, no one has gotten all of their understanding and proper objective interpretations of Scripture from the Bible only. To state such is arrogance and simply not true.

I believe everyone here has a pastor in their church. Everyone has had someone help them understand the Bible. The Bible is the final authority. So if my pastor says something that's contrary to the Bible, then I choose my Bible over the Pastor. Everyone has help in understanding the Bible.

Bolded was a good point. Liked the wording of "helped them along." They(teachers) are not the source but the help.

 

[matt wade]

So in summary, Luke has told us that using the Bible only is a "worthless claim" and that it will lead to heretics within one generation. Preacher4truth has told us that using the Bible only "leads to error".

 

[Dr. Walter]

So in summary, Luke has told us that using the Bible only is a "worthless claim" and that it will lead to heretics within one generation. Preacher4truth has told us that using the Bible only "leads to error".

Are you referring to Luke 24:27?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

If not then what? If so, then you are shooting yourself in your own foot.

 

[DHK]

So in summary, Luke has told us that using the Bible only is a "worthless claim" and that it will lead to heretics within one generation. Preacher4truth has told us that using the Bible only "leads to error".

Here is a statement made in the Other Christian Den. Forum:

I personally do not deny any of those [Christ's Ascension and Resurrection], but they are no more provable than the Assumption for all that.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1745714&postcount=64


I have a library of over 2,000 books. But I am a "Bible only" person. I don't have to consult Calvin, or anyone else to know that both the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus had witnesses. In fact the Resurrection had over 500 witnesses plus the witness of all the apostles. It is one of the most verifiable facts of history. Thus to say it is "no more provable than the Assumption (of Mary)" is ludicrous.

I do not need a second authority as Oral Tradition to verify any of that either.

All I need is my Bible as my final authority to know the true from the false, to be able to defend my faith, and to learn. Yes, I have other books and helps to learn from. But in the end it is the Bible that is my authority, not Calvin or the RCC or any other "authority."

 

[Robert Snow]

So where did the prominent teachers like Calvin and others that you have so much respect for get their theology?

They got it from the heretic Augustine.

 

[HankD]

It's not that easy.
Everyone claims the Bible as their primary source.

I heard a statement once: "The Bible never stopped anyone from promoting heresy".

And there is this scripture:

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.​

However, here is the basic issue:many doctrinal propositions are not elaborated upon in a centralized body of scripture.

e.g. Most of the detailed doctrine of the Trinity comes out of the debates of the 3rd and 4th centuries with Athanasius (an Alexandrian Christian) as the champion of Trinitarian Dogma.

Nowhere in the Scripture is the codified detailed orthodox definition of the Holy Trinity to be found.

It was developed by early church fathers over almost two centuries from a scattered collective of scripture.

Then and to this very day many arian "christian" entities proclaim trinitarianism heresy (or worse) and mock us as worshippers of a "three headed Chaldean god".

In case the question comes up... Yes, I am an orthodox Trinitarian by conviction.

HankD

 

[seekingthetruth]

Talk about taking someone out of context and adding to what they've said.

I am not looking to argue, but this is truly misrepresenting what Luke2427 said. He is not saying we do not get our theology from the Bible, he never made that statement, nor is it even implied. He is simply stating via implication that the "Bible only" mentality leads to error, and that many who claim this teach much error, as a result of not possessing a solid hermeneutic.

And I would say that ADDING to the Bible leads to error.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

I believe everyone here has a pastor in their church. Everyone has had someone help them understand the Bible. The Bible is the final authority. So if my pastor says something that's contrary to the Bible, then I choose my Bible over the Pastor. Everyone has help in understanding the Bible.

Bolded was a good point. Liked the wording of "helped them along." They(teachers) are not the source but the help.

My pastor makes errors, he is human. So was Calvin.

Bottom line is this, the Bible is the first and final word.

John

 

[jbh28]

1. Is there anyone here that reads no books and consults no people, but only reads the Bible?

2. Is there anyone that reads other books and consults other people, but the Bible is the final authority.

I would say that everyone here is number 2.

 

[preacher4truth]

It's not that easy.
Everyone claims the Bible as their primary source.

I heard a statement once: "The Bible never stopped anyone from promoting heresy".

And there is this scripture:

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.​

However, here is the basic issue:many doctrinal propositions are not elaborated upon in a centralized body of scripture.

e.g. Most of the detailed doctrine of the Trinity comes out of the debates of the 3rd and 4th centuries with Athanasius (an Alexandrian Christian) as the champion of Trinitarian Dogma.

Nowhere in the Scripture is the codified detailed orthodox definition of the Holy Trinity to be found.

It was developed by early church fathers over almost two centuries from a scattered collective of scripture.

Then and to this very day many arian "christian" entities proclaim trinitarianism heresy (or worse) and mock us as worshippers of a "three headed Chaldean god".

In case the question comes up... Yes, I am an orthodox Trinitarian by conviction.

HankD

I don't believe "heresies" in your text is "false teaching."

 

[jbh28]

My pastor makes errors, he is human. So was Calvin.

Bottom line is this, the Bible is the first and final word.

John

Exactly! No one would disagree with you on that. Of course that doesn't mean you ignore your pastor, just that he's not your final authority.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Here is a statement made in the Other Christian Den. Forum:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1745714&postcount=64


I have a library of over 2,000 books. But I am a "Bible only" person. I don't have to consult Calvin, or anyone else to know that both the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus had witnesses. In fact the Resurrection had over 500 witnesses plus the witness of all the apostles. It is one of the most verifiable facts of history. Thus to say it is "no more provable than the Assumption (of Mary)" is ludicrous.

I do not need a second authority as Oral Tradition to verify any of that either.

All I need is my Bible as my final authority to know the true from the false, to be able to defend my faith, and to learn. Yes, I have other books and helps to learn from. But in the end it is the Bible that is my authority, not Calvin or the RCC or any other "authority."

I agree with you 100%, but I would also like to add that many "Bible Scholars" use the Bible to prove their views on atheism, homosexuality, and even Calvinisim. In other words, they twist the inspired Word of God to fit their own needs.

In my opinion, the need of the Calvinist is pride. They have an irrational need to feel "special".

But yes, we need to get ALL of our theology from the Bible, but we need to rightly divide it as God intended it's purpose, and not pervert it to our own needs and agendas.

John

 

[mandym]

Getting your Theology from scripture alone never leads to heresy. Never. And it is a crazy idea to suggest. Heresy comes from reading one sided commentaries. It comes from personal agenda's. But never from reading scripture alone.