Sola Scriptura

You ever hear of the kingdom of Heaven? The entire body of Christ are members of this nation both here and in the resurrection. You logic is still flawed. God would have preserved the works of the Landmarkist just like he did the Jews.

 

The truth is always is evident. As you read through history and historical documents opponents always give evidence of what the opposition held if by an off comment like Pliny the lessor. He disdanes Christians yet in his letter to the emperor we find a lot about what Christians actually believed. This is how it always is throughout history. yet there still is not suggestion of landmark baptist.

 

One can tell by your very language that a flawed theology leads to a flawed history. What universal body of Christ? What universal church? The term "kingdom of heaven" was largely reserved for the Jews, as it is found largely in Matthews gospel (though sometimes used interchangeably with the "kingdom of God." With all these theological differences how on earth do you expect to have a proper view of "church" history.

First it is a history of "churches" properly speaking; not the history of any one denomination, organization, or more appropriate "business" which the RCC is.
The Apostle Paul started churches not a "church". I defy you to demonstrate in the Bible where there is any such thing as a denomination. The word ekkesia means "assembly" and if you read Darby's translation of the NT, you will find a more accurate understanding of what a church is. Thus in the apostolic age it was a history of churches.

In a so-called universal church, where does it meet; who is the pastor; who are the deacons; who takes up the collection (tithes and offerings); etc. The word means assembly. Have you ever heard of an unassembled assembly--a contradiction of terms?

No wonder your views of history are flawed. You don't know what "church" history is, because you don't know what to look for. Look for churches, independent churches; not denominations.

 

Amen. For those who might wish a history of this I commend J.A. Wylie's "The History of Protestantism" Sometimes the beliefs of the early churches are only recorded in the charges laid against them by their enemies because their persecutors so laid waste to them and destroyed their writings.

And even those crimes which they were accused of are enough, though not complete sufficient, to shoe their apostolic fidelity.

 

Do these hold to a landmarkist perspective? Because that would be reading a biased observation. Not that I wouldn't but their spin would be decidedly one view. I wouldn't mind compare and contrast to see what they would say.

 

If your intent is to drill down to the foundation of the "Sola Scriptura" argument it is pointless to review whether Monks like Martin Luther or Tertullian were pious or not. It is a side trail that has little to do with validating the issue of sola scriptura testing of all doctrine.

The questions to be answered are -
1. Does the Bible demand sola scriptura testing of doctrine.
2. How does that fit with the historic fact that scripture was still being added at the time?
3. Do those who claim to respect sola scriptura testing of doctrine - resort to tradition over the Bible - "anyway" whenever it suits them?

These facts seem to be beyond question - yet it is difficult for this group to see the point.

Not sure why -

in Christ,

Bob

 

You don't understand the argument. The argument is that IF there were Landmarkist Baptist in the first century there would surely be evidence. Yet, the opposition maintains that the Montanist, Paulicans, Donatist were actually anabaptist. In once sence they are in that there is re-baptism. However, apart from that there are none of the trade mark distinctives that would bring in mind a proto baptist. The fact is each of these groups were sacramental in belief and practice. The opposition also maintains that this is "record" of them is only maintained because their Roman enemies wrote untruths about their beliefs and practices. I've shown that Tertullian is a pro Montanist convert thus the information about their beliefs and practices were well known despite the fact certain other monks made caracatures of them. Also note that caracatures can easily be done away with by the monks own writings. The simple truth is that there is no evidence for these "proto-baptist". My suggestion is and always has been the church developed and changed (evolved) over time and the Holy Spirit continued to reveal more of what was meant in scriptures. In otherwords. The apostles didn't teach against every eventuality. But the base truths have not changed. As eventualities arose which were not addressed the Holy Spirit lead the church into a fuller and better understanding of scriptures to be applied to that specific eventuality thought it doesn't happen without effort or argument.

 

The argument about whether modern Baptists are reflective of the pure doctrine of the first century church is moot because denominations today who hold to sola scriptura testing of all doctrine - include many non-Baptist groups who would ALL say that Baptists are in doctrinal error today on some point - and thus are not the pure reflection (in terms of doctrine) of the first century church.

yet all these groups - including baptists would agree on the Bible principle for testing all doctrine sola scriptura.

It is like observing that all Christians accept the Bible as the "Word of God" even though not all christians agree on doctrine. You cannot refute that point by entering into an argument about whether this or that Christian church traces its history to the first century in an unchanged line of belief.

The sola scriptura argument does not depend on "proto baptist" arguments. If the subject title were "who is the one true church of today" or "what church has the pure doctrine of the NT saints" then I can see arguing over whether the proto-baptists existed in the first century or the RCC actually had Peter ruling from Rome in the first century, but given the subject of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine - it does not fit here IMHO.

In John 16 Christ said "I have many more things to teach you but you cannot bear them now -- the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth".

The understanding of truth is progressive over time.

But that does not delete or abolish the concept of testing all teaching against the Bible to see if it is contradicted by the Word of God.

no doubt - but again this does not refute the principle of sola scriptura testing.

Acts 17:11 is a perfect example of sola scriptura testing of teaching at the SAME time that more scripture was being added.

in Christ,

Bob

 

You are changing the argument to one of Sola Scriptura which the argument is not really about. But certainly we agree that Scripture is the canon by which dogma is tested against. You have no disagreement with me there.

However, as far as the early Christians I have a question for you. Do you believe that every Christian had a Gideons bible in their back pocket? The NT was written over a period of 40-50 years. How was the average lay christian to be informed of Scripture? Did everyone have a OT in their back pocket? Considering that 95% of the world population was illiterate in that day? How was the Gospel passed?

 

You are entirely wrong. My material is not soley catholic source material. So you err on that behalf. There are many non christian writers of the day that we can also access people who ridiculed christians such as Ammianus Marcellinus etc. What you fail to understand is that my view is the majority view and also it is based on FACT. Rather than speculation which ultimately your view falls under. We can discuss the finds at Dura Europa, Megiddo prison, resent finds in Italy, Romania, Turkey, Egypt, etc... We can discuss the actual documents discovered and promulgated. And they all point to the same history. A few men with an axe to grind for their belief system who want to speculate on your side of the debate and the far left of the debate like Crossan are in error.

 

The argument usually does boil down to sola scriptura.

In this you greatly err. Let me emphasis to you again. It was Alexander the Great, the Greeks, that gave the world the Greek language. It was a universal language--thus the Bible was written in Koine Greek--the Greek of the common person. It is more like 95% of the population were literate, not illiterate. Even the slaves could read. When the slave Onesimus went to Paul, and Paul advised him to go back to his master, Philemon, we have every evidence that Oneismus could read the Scriptures. He was a runaway slave. The world at that time was a very literate society and we have no evidence to believe the contrary.

The Gospel was passed on the very same way it is today--by evangelism, by the preaching of the word of God. Paul went into the market places and preached the Word of God. Sometimes he went into the synagogues and preached there. He preached wherever he had access: where the women gathered (with Lydia), in jail in Philippi to the Philippian jailor; Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch in a chariot, etc. It didn't matter. They went every where and in every place preaching the word of God. Almost all were literate.

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
--Paul asks for his coat (it was cold in Rome), the books (probably the OT), and the parchments (no doubt NT MSS that had already been written and were in his possession).

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter recognizes NT Scripture already in existence, especially the Scripture of Paul.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
--The faith refers here to a body of doctrine that has been written down.
Jude was written in 70 A.D., when all but the writings of John had been written. He was referring to that which had been written by "the saints," the NT saints. They were to contend for that written NT doctrine that was written in NT MSS.

What many fail to believe is that through apostolic instruction the early church knew which books were inspired and which were not. The Canon was decided much earlier than the RCC would have you believe. Why are you and so many others deceived by the RCC that they were the ones that gave us the Bible. That is "bunk"!

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Inspired history! Thats a good one! History just is. Fact just is. There is no need of the Holy Spirit to inspire a prophet to determine what history or fact is. That is the problem the KJO people get into. There is no need for the autographs to be inspired since the translators were!!! Inspired history? No need for fact then huh because history is not a matter of observable data tested and proved but one of faith. LOL.

It is perplexing have you read JND Kelly?

Ok go ahead.

I

Who also delved in Alchemy, was a Socinian sympathiser not believing in the Trinity. Keynes became disallusioned with Newton because of his private manuscripts Keynes discovered

, who also threatened to burn the down the house around his mother and Stepfather. So I'm glad you stand with the man.

A biased look no doubt by Jarrell being baptist and all however not all baptist agree with him.

You can side with an unrealiable Dane if you wish who was commisioned by the King to find answers that suited the king. Strange how only the Landmarkist baptist, primative baptist and certain, IFB mention this Dutch Dr. as viable reference. Certainly questions credibility. Where as many other baptist hold to a different view.

Rather listen to Thomas Armitage