Sola Scriptura

[BobRyan]

You are changing the argument to one of Sola Scriptura which the argument is not really about.

1. The Title of the thread "Sola Scriptura"

2. The OP - looks like "Sola Scriptura" part-I "What is scripture"

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Tim. 3:16

Would not the words "all scripture" have to mean the whole body of Scripture or all that is claimed to be scripture since verse 17 says that such is what "thoroughly furnished" the man of God "unto all good works"?

How could one book or epistle be sufficent to provide thoroughness "unto ALL good works"?

The Greek "pasa" translated "all" is anathous construction which may genuinely reflect characterization as in "all that characterizes" scripture, thus emcompassing the WHOLE BODY of scriptures or all that falls under the classification of "scripture."

Would you agree?

But certainly we agree that Scripture is the canon by which dogma is tested against. You have no disagreement with me there.

Which is Walter's point (at least it is the one he started with).

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?

No - that is why I keep bringing up the fact of Acts 17:11 where sola scriptura testing is going on even while we all agree that NT texts were being added.

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?

Yes they did have the OT. But they did not have all of the NT nor did all have even part of the NT - since those letters were making the rounds slowly and were completed over decades of time bits and pieces.

(As I keep pointing out with my Acts 17:11 example).

Not sure why you think this is off the thread's topic.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Of course! The only credible historian to a catholic are catholics. Notice how you thoroughly practice Roman's policy of destroying the character of the historians or persons who oppose your position. You would make a perfect Roman historian. Such are the tactics of Jesuit Preists who infiltrate other institutions and denominations and pose as what they are not.

BTW I don't know of any Scripture that is not inspired history as it was all written in the past before our current era. Much of it when written was "history" of Israel (Gen-Job history of the churches (Acts):laugh:

Why don't you read Thomas Armitage and read him thoroughly about the very people we are talking about! Yes, I know Dr. Armitage was an opponent of Landmark Baptist but look at his historical admissions about the very groups in question.

I quoted baptist. BTW not catholic.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Truth only is changeless, and only as any people have held to the truth in its purity and primitive simplicity has the world had an unchanging religion. The truth has been held by individual men and scattered companies, but never in unbroken continuity by any sect as such. Sect after sect has appeared and held it for a time, then has destroyed itself by mixing error with the truth; again, the truth has evinced its divinity by rising afresh in the hands of a newly organized people, to perpetuate its diffusion in the earth.

This seems to actually back up Dr. Walter in the matter of Truth. Once truth is mixed with error the church becomes apostate an ceases to be a NT Church.

Actualy it doesn't if you read it again. It supports the evolution of the church theory.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1. The Title of the thread "Sola Scriptura"

2. The OP - looks like "Sola Scriptura" part-I "What is scripture"





Which is Walter's point (at least it is the one he started with).




No - that is why I keep bringing up the fact of Acts 17:11 where sola scriptura testing is going on even while we all agree that NT texts were being added.



Yes they did have the OT. But they did not have all of the NT nor did all have even part of the NT - since those letters were making the rounds slowly and were completed over decades of time bits and pieces.

(As I keep pointing out with my Acts 17:11 example).

Not sure why you think this is off the thread's topic.

in Christ,

Bob

I don't have a problem using scripture as canon. He got into the landmarkist belief system of there always being a proto baptist. History just doesn't play it out. As far as the rest of your post you and I are in agreement.

 

[Grace&Truth]

Truth only is changeless, and only as any people have held to the truth in its purity and primitive simplicity has the world had an unchanging religion. The truth has been held by individual men and scattered companies, but never in unbroken continuity by any sect as such. Sect after sect has appeared and held it for a time, then has destroyed itself by mixing error with the truth; again, the truth has evinced its divinity by rising afresh in the hands of a newly organized people, to perpetuate its diffusion in the earth.

This seems to actually back up Dr. Walter in the matter of Truth. Once truth is mixed with error the church becomes apostate an ceases to be a NT Church.

Actualy it doesn't if you read it again. It supports the evolution of the church theory.

How is Truth evolving if it is Changeless?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Actualy it doesn't if you read it again. It supports the evolution of the church theory.

Come on! If you had read Armitage you would never come to that conclusion in a million years. Armitage did not believe the Catholic Church was the "true" church in transformation. He believed it was a false church and he believed those Anabaptists groups were misrepresented for the most part and they were baptistic in his opinion. The only thing he disagrees with Landmarkers is that there is any organic historic succession between each group.

Why don't you try reading Armitage? That would be a change wouldn't it?

 

[Dr. Walter]

"History has not yet relieved the Montanists of the distortion and oblogquy which long held them as enemies of Christ, while, in fact, they honestly, but in some respects erroneously, labored to restore that Christ likeness to the Churches which had so largely departed. Roman ideas of aggrandizement had corrupted their ideal, and now they greatly varied from the model which Christ left." - Thomas Armitage, The History of the Baptists. Vol. I, pp. 175-176.

Armitage took the view that the Romanists distorted them and accused them falsely. Moreover, in spite of admitted errors, he assessed them more apostolic than the Catholic churches which he claims where in need of such reform as they were digressing into more worldliness and unholiness. Indeed, he looks at the Novationists and Donatists and Paulicians as reformers of apostate Rome. Admitting they had errors but their errors were minor in comparison to Roman Catholic churches.

 

[DHK]

I don't have a problem using scripture as canon. He got into the landmarkist belief system of there always being a proto baptist. History just doesn't play it out. As far as the rest of your post you and I are in agreement.

Some straightforward questions:
1. Do you know what a Landmarkist position is, or what most Baptists believe to be a Landmarkist position is?
2. Do you believe that Dr. Walters holds a Landmarkist position with respect to Baptist History?
3. If so, where has he admitted this?
4. If not, why the accusation?

 

[BobRyan]

I don't have a problem using scripture as canon. He got into the landmarkist belief system of there always being a proto baptist. History just doesn't play it out. As far as the rest of your post you and I are in agreement.

Is it possible you agree with the sola-scriptura testing POV and since all are in agreement on that point, simply choose to debate the issue of prot-baptists in the first century on this thread, for something to do? I agree with you that it would be hard to find a first century example of a Baptist if you take all the doctrines that are currently held by Baptists as your "definition" of the term. But I just don't see how having that discussion here advances this topic.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Truth only is changeless, and only as any people have held to the truth in its purity and primitive simplicity has the world had an unchanging religion. The truth has been held by individual men and scattered companies, but never in unbroken continuity by any sect as such. Sect after sect has appeared and held it for a time, then has destroyed itself by mixing error with the truth; again, the truth has evinced its divinity by rising afresh in the hands of a newly organized people, to perpetuate its diffusion in the earth.

This seems to actually back up Dr. Walter in the matter of Truth. Once truth is mixed with error the church becomes apostate an ceases to be a NT Church.



How is Truth evolving if it is Changeless?

There are the non-changable aspects of our faith such as 1) attoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. 2) death and resurrection of our lord Jesus Christ. 3) the virgin birth of our Lord Jesus Christ 4) repentance for the remission of our sins 5) baptism 6) the promise of our ressurection 7) membership in the kingdom of heaven or church body. These things don't change ever. However, other thing do change and evolve. which has always been my point. Armitage supports this view. And in fact there is an accusation against landmarkist that they fall into the same error as Rome trying to show apostolic succession. Instead of holding to the progressive nature of our faith.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Some straightforward questions:
1. Do you know what a Landmarkist position is, or what most Baptists believe to be a Landmarkist position is?
2. Do you believe that Dr. Walters holds a Landmarkist position with respect to Baptist History?
3. If so, where has he admitted this?
4. If not, why the accusation?

1. Yes it points to baptist successionism.
2. either Landmarkist or successionism of some sort. Doesn't hold to evolving church.
3. All through out this thread.
4. He has. And continues to argue it contrary to history.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Is it possible you agree with the sola-scriptura testing POV and since all are in agreement on that point, simply choose to debate the issue of prot-baptists in the first century on this thread, for something to do? I agree with you that it would be hard to find a first century example of a Baptist if you take all the doctrines that are currently held by Baptists as your "definition" of the term. But I just don't see how having that discussion here advances this topic.

in Christ,

Bob

I argue it because I point out what I believe to be errors with regard to history by Dr. Walters. Who argues in favor of baptist successionism.

 

[DHK]

1. Yes it points to baptist successionism.
2. either Landmarkist or successionism of some sort. Doesn't hold to evolving church.
3. All through out this thread.
4. He has. And continues to argue it contrary to history.

I believe in what is called "the spiritual kinship theory" of Baptist History.
It is not landmarkism, and in no way related it to it. If you called me a landmarkist, I would say that either you are an ignorant fool that doesn't know tweet about Baptist history, or you are deliberately slandering me.
Which is it?
I am not a successionist either.
So why not dig into your books and find out what landmarkism is and what they believe.
Why not find out what Baptist successionism is, and how they differ from landmarkism.
Why not find out what I (and probably Dr. Walter) really believe concerning Baptist history, and would never associate ourselves with Landmarkism.

Why slander people out of ignorance??

 

[Grace&Truth]

There are the non-changable aspects of our faith such as 1) attoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. 2) death and resurrection of our lord Jesus Christ. 3) the virgin birth of our Lord Jesus Christ 4) repentance for the remission of our sins 5) baptism 6) the promise of our ressurection 7) membership in the kingdom of heaven or church body. These things don't change ever. However, other thing do change and evolve. which has always been my point. Armitage supports this view. And in fact there is an accusation against landmarkist that they fall into the same error as Rome trying to show apostolic succession. Instead of holding to the progressive nature of our faith.

Thank you for explaining your position for me. I can see the point you are making toward Landmarkism, I do not believe in succession as in there is an unbroken history to prove the first church started a church which started a church etc. However, I do believe that there is enough history to prove that there were always NT churches (Local Assemblies) that upheald the scriptures and would not agree with those who were changing Biblical teaching, even quotes from Catholics prove this.

I believe that The Bible is Truth and that is what is meant by "The Faith once delivered" so to say that our faith (belief) is progressive is foolish. I don't believe that is what Armitage believed either. I also don't believe you can compare Landmarkism to the Catholic veiw of succession. It is obvious that even in the ECF writings they were already evolving(changing) Truth (Salvation, Baptism, Church polity & practice etc.). These churches (& writings) are not Inspired nor trustworthy. To say or make claims that they show our faith evolved is just plain unscriptural. Only those churches that heald to and governed themselves after the Scriptures (specificly the NT) are, were, or remained NT Churches.

Baptist Churches do not have the authority to make new Doctrines or Laws (and neither did the ECF). Our authority is the Word of God. And even our practice and policies cannot be anti-scriptural, even if they are not Black and White,"thus saith the Lord." Examples of this would be having Sunday School which is never mentioned in scripture, yet is a way to teach God's word. It is not anti-scripture it helps us to teach scripture. Other areas would be teaching principles and applying them in everyday situations. Such as being separated from worldiness, which can apply to many different ares.

So when you say our faith evolves what are you saying? Certainly no True Bible believing Christian can hold to a veiw that would include the RCC view and belief of evolving truth and traditions. Do you? That view would mean that God's Word is not our authority and it is obvious that the RCC has changed Truth which they back up by their Traditions as well as from the changed teachings of the ECF. They have also changed History. One example of this is Patrick. The RCC claim him as being one of them. They even made him the patron Saint if Ireland. This is False and has been proven by Patricks own writings, and yet they still make these claims, and people still believe them, and I believe that even our Encyclopedias still give this false history. Makes me wonder hoe much other RCC history is true? For me I will base me Beliefs, & Salvation strickly on God's Word it is True from beginning to end and it is "The Unchanging Authority."

 

[DHK]

1. Yes it points to baptist successionism.
2. either Landmarkist or successionism of some sort. Doesn't hold to evolving church.
3. All through out this thread.
4. He has. And continues to argue it contrary to history.

Your "evolving church" theory makes no sense.
I don't believe Dr. Walters believes in Landmarkism.
I certainly don't, as I have already said.

Read about it here:
http://www.gotquestions.org/landmarkism-Baptist-bride.html

As a missionary I speak in many churches. Many years ago a Baptist church would not allow me to speak in his church. I asked why. He knew some of my background. Although I came from an IFB church, and was baptized in an IFB church, this is what he said:

"You were not baptized by a baptist who was baptized by a baptist who was baptized by a baptist, and therefore you are not a baptist."
That is only one example of Landmarkism.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

There are the non-changable aspects of our faith such as 1) attoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. 2) death and resurrection of our lord Jesus Christ. 3) the virgin birth of our Lord Jesus Christ 4) repentance for the remission of our sins 5) baptism 6) the promise of our ressurection 7) membership in the kingdom of heaven or church body. These things don't change ever.

sounds like the Creed that we confess every Divine Liturgy...

In XC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I believe that The Bible is Truth and that is what is meant by "The Faith once delivered"

G&T, Christ didn't leave a written manual to help guide His Church, nor did Christ even instruct His Apostles to even write a book...It is Christ Himself through His Holy Spirit that guides and protects His Church from error. The Bible we hold in our hands every Sunday is what evolved over time, btw.

It is obvious that even in the ECF writings they were already evolving(changing) Truth (Salvation, Baptism, Church polity & practice etc.).

You shouldn't mix Tradition (Big "T") with tradition (small "t")...there is a difference...small "t" tradition can change and or evolve...

Makes me wonder hoe much other RCC history is true? For me I will base me Beliefs, & Salvation strickly on God's Word it is True from beginning to end and it is "The Unchanging Authority."

I'm not defending RCC dogma, as I'm Orthodox Christian, but you really can't state honestly that you base your beliefs and salvation strictly on God's Word...why?...because there's just too many Protestant Churches out there that all claim Sola scriptura, yet have different interpretations...of course God's Word is true, but how do we know that what we are taught every Sunday from a pulpit is what is true?

When I go to Divine Liturgy every Sunday, I personally can be assured that the faith I'm confessing and participating in has been confessed and upheld by the Church for some 2,000 years.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thank you for explaining your position for me. I can see the point you are making toward Landmarkism, I do not believe in succession as in there is an unbroken history to prove the first church started a church which started a church etc. However, I do believe that there is enough history to prove that there were always NT churches (Local Assemblies) that upheald the scriptures and would not agree with those who were changing Biblical teaching, even quotes from Catholics prove this.

I believe that The Bible is Truth and that is what is meant by "The Faith once delivered" so to say that our faith (belief) is progressive is foolish. I don't believe that is what Armitage believed either. I also don't believe you can compare Landmarkism to the Catholic veiw of succession. It is obvious that even in the ECF writings they were already evolving(changing) Truth (Salvation, Baptism, Church polity & practice etc.). These churches (& writings) are not Inspired nor trustworthy. To say or make claims that they show our faith evolved is just plain unscriptural. Only those churches that heald to and governed themselves after the Scriptures (specificly the NT) are, were, or remained NT Churches.

Baptist Churches do not have the authority to make new Doctrines or Laws (and neither did the ECF). Our authority is the Word of God. And even our practice and policies cannot be anti-scriptural, even if they are not Black and White,"thus saith the Lord." Examples of this would be having Sunday School which is never mentioned in scripture, yet is a way to teach God's word. It is not anti-scripture it helps us to teach scripture. Other areas would be teaching principles and applying them in everyday situations. Such as being separated from worldiness, which can apply to many different ares.

So when you say our faith evolves what are you saying? Certainly no True Bible believing Christian can hold to a veiw that would include the RCC view and belief of evolving truth and traditions. Do you? That view would mean that God's Word is not our authority and it is obvious that the RCC has changed Truth which they back up by their Traditions as well as from the changed teachings of the ECF. They have also changed History. One example of this is Patrick. The RCC claim him as being one of them. They even made him the patron Saint if Ireland. This is False and has been proven by Patricks own writings, and yet they still make these claims, and people still believe them, and I believe that even our Encyclopedias still give this false history. Makes me wonder hoe much other RCC history is true? For me I will base me Beliefs, & Salvation strickly on God's Word it is True from beginning to end and it is "The Unchanging Authority."

It is strange. We are talking about two different things all together. 1) Scriptures 2) history.

To say scriptural history is a misnomer unless you mean from creation up to the NT. What happens after the last recorded historical event in the NT is not scriptural. So to imply there is a scriptural history after this is ridiculous.

The fact is this the basics of the faith never change. However, it is clear from early text and historical accounts the churches developed and changed over time. Some admitted errors. Since the Scriptures were not Canonized many churches used books others did not and vice versa. There is clear indication that the OT was well accepted in its Greek form and later Old Latin before the Vulgate. The Churches struggled against eventualities not dealt with by the Apostolic deposit. Even the selection of readings were fought over such as the books of Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. Some churches went totally astray and accepted works we now have a collection from the Nag Hammadi find. Which indicates what is was these people believed. I don't know if any of you have read any of the works of Nag Hammadi but you should and compare with canon. It is to the people who used these text that many quotes that "suggest" early proto-baptist have been directed to. Which when you compare their belief system with baptist distinctives you find no correlation.

BTW DHK and Dr. Walters may not be technical "Landmarkist" but they hold to Baptist successionism as a direct line. I don't suggest such directness. God progressively revealed himself to the Jews. In fact as they got to know a certain aspect of God they associated a name for him. It starts with "I am" and that is how the Jews know him. Later it became "God our provider" and later "God our Glory". Revelation was progressive. Scriptures didn't change but the understanding of the God of Scriptures became more and more complete. I suggest the History of Christianity is like this in some respect. Not that there is new revelation but that we have a better and better understanding of the scriptures and the God who gave them. Just as it is in our Personal walks with God. We start out exuberant everything is sunny and we can't stop from praising. Then we learn to trust God in our trials and suffering. The same scriptures take on different emphasis depending what phase of life we are going through. And so it is with the body of believers entire. This is the nature of things. And hopefully that explains more of what I am saying.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I believe in what is called "the spiritual kinship theory" of Baptist History.
It is not landmarkism, and in no way related it to it. If you called me a landmarkist, I would say that either you are an ignorant fool that doesn't know tweet about Baptist history, or you are deliberately slandering me.
Which is it?
I am not a successionist either.
So why not dig into your books and find out what landmarkism is and what they believe.
Why not find out what Baptist successionism is, and how they differ from landmarkism.
Why not find out what I (and probably Dr. Walter) really believe concerning Baptist history, and would never associate ourselves with Landmarkism.

Why slander people out of ignorance??

Why use such hard language in your post like Raka? I get angry too and I don't say Raka to my brother. Don't you read scripture to modify your behavior? And Technically its libel rather than slander. However, both of you hold to successionism. Which is a cornerstone belief of the landmarkist. Though technically you may not be landmarkist you hold to a specific aspect which is baptist successionism.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The fact is this the basics of the faith never change. - Thinkingstuff

The gospel of justification by faith without works is a basic and Paul says let those who preach justification by works be regarded as "accursed." Baptism of repentant believers is a basic. Churches composed of baptized beleivers is a basic.

However, this is exactly what we see progressive change in - the basics - when we examine the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers.

1. Change from gospel basic to sacramental regeneration salvation

2. Change from baptism basic to infant, sprinking, pouring

3. Change from congregations of baptized believers to congregations of unregenerated; unbelieving members.

4. Change from Elders and Deacons to preists, pope, cardinals, nuns, etc

To claim that the "Fathers" (history of apostasy) is not a change of the very basics is hilarious. This is not progressive change but progressive apostasy from the essentials.