Sola Scriptura

[Grace&Truth]

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.

Then what to you believe the Scriptures were given for?

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

There is no T(big T)radition. That is just made up by those who wanted to have more power, control other churches & people.

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?

I can honestly say I do! MY Salvation is based on what Scripture teaches, not Tradition, not RRC, not Protestant. If a Baptist Church teaches another gospel then what NT teaches I would not attend there. I am (no one is) saved thru a church or a church teaching. I am saved thru Jesus as taught in the Holy Scriptures. How do I know what is taught from the pulpit is true? Because during the Preaching and the Teaching I have my Bible the Pastor gives the references I follow along. If the Word says something different then what is preached I believe my Bible. Thats how we do it in the Baptist Church. I also study on my own and ask the Holy Spirit to teach me as I compare scripture with scripture.

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.

It might have been confessed and upheald by your denomination (church) you attend, but that does not mean it is true. Truth is only found in the Holy Scriptures and a church is only as true as it models and teaches the Bible.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

A. Paul never said anything about the Roman Catholic Church or its dogma or anything relating to them. Paul said specifically in Galatians 2 points are noted from this discourse 1) what "other gospel" were they preaching? Its stated clearly here
Observing the law was the other gospel. That means following Jewish Law as specified in Torah and Talmudic interpretations following a specified haggadah. It means nothing regarding something representing what it symbolizes. 2) what gospel was preached again its listed above Christ against the jewish law. Christ completed the law fulfilled it in his body. Its accomplished. Thus its clearly against law it has nothing to do with baptism.
B)It changed its application between Augustine and Luther very much so. In fact both Calvin and Luther liked Augustine. Which changed the understanding inthe mind of the commoner. Read how things were done during Augustine's time and Luther's time. In fact, Cathedral's, I have been made aware of were common places and the liturgy would be said while people traded their livestock and otherthings during the service. A lot of issues in practice. Sales of indulgences were another change.
C) Its clear by the question you don't know what you are talking about.

Too many mental gymnastics here. So only the false doctrines God identifies in Galatians are "another Gospel" and any "other" Gospel is fine?

Or, rather, if anyone preaches any other Gospel than that which God gave through the Apostles, let them be accursed.

So, does the papacy teach the same Gospel of the Apostles?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

what are you 12 yrs old, doctor?

In XC
-

I don't think he is, but my 12-year old daughter can see the lies of the papacy.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Again, you reaffirm changing Christianity according to "the Fathers" without any change in essential truth.

Then you assert that it makes no difference to THE ESSENTIAL BIBLICAL TRUTH of justification by faith without works (Gal. 1:8-9) whether one believes that ordinances are inclusive of justification or not and yet this inclusiviness is the very thing that Paul ACCURSED. You follow that statement by confirming the errors of the Jews who repudiated justification by faith without works then, as well as now, as they also demanded inclusion of ordinances for justification.

You are pitting these TRADITIONS OF MEN against inspired biblical teaching that says IT DOES MATTER TO GOD and those who include such ordinances (circumcision/baptism/etc.) are "ACCURSED."

Your very arguments to justify your position indicate clearly you reject justification by faith without ordinances/works (Rom. 4:9-12; Gal 1-5) as it make no difference to you and you even argue it should make no difference to me. Only a person who denies justification by faith without ordinances could use this line of argument to justify what they regard as THE CHURCH who rejects the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith without works, without ordinances.

Christianity has changed over the 2,000 years of it existance. but the base truth never has and those I've already mentioned. If baptim to you is a symbol then what do you care if they felt in necissary in the early church? During that period of time people believed the symbol that represented the thing was the thing itself. .

 

[DHK]

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.

Harsh language because you refuse to do your homework. I gave you a link. Perhaps you refused to read it. You have the internet. Do you know how to use it. Have you heard of google? Do you really know what successionism is? Apparently not! I do not believe in successionism, so the libel continues all because you fail to do your homework and find out what Baptists believe. I do not believe in successionism. Do not tell me what I believe. Find out. If I tell you that you believe in a spiritual resurrection and not a bodily resurrection of the Lord how would you feel? Should I just make that assumption about you?

You assume positions that are wrong. And yes, you are right, that is libel. Why continue in it? There is another name for it--ignorance.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Too many mental gymnastics here. So only the false doctrines God identifies in Galatians are "another Gospel" and any "other" Gospel is fine?

Or, rather, if anyone preaches any other Gospel than that which God gave through the Apostles, let them be accursed.

So, does the papacy teach the same Gospel of the Apostles?

No gymnastics as well. Dr. Walter brought up Galatians. But you do bring up a good point. What was the Gospel the Apostles taught? Certainly, Jesus taught the innamate establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven and the charachersitics of that Kingdom. Pray tell what did the Apostles teach as the gospel. Paul in Galatians says Christ Crucified. So out with it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The same "law" and works of the law Paul refers to in the book of Galatians is the same "law" he refers to in Romans speaking to the same kind of Jews with the same problem:

In the book of Romans "the Law" refers exclusively to the standard of righteousness that manifests the character of God. - The righteousness of God

1. The law written on conscience manifests this standard - Rom. 2:14-15

Rom. 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another


2. This is the character/standard made manifest in the "law and the prophets" a. The Mosaic moral, ceremonial, civil laws
b. The prophets interpretations and applications
c. Romans 3:21

Rom. 3:21 But now the righteousness of God....being witnessed by the law and the prophets;


3. This is the character/standard made manifest in the Person and life of Christ. - Rom. 1:17; 3:21-22; 10:4

Rom. 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.


Rom. 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ

Rom. 10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.


4. This is the characer/standard that is pursued and obtained ONLY one of two ways: - Rom. 3:27

a. "the law of works" - by personal performance
b. "the law of faith" by substitutionary performance through imputation

Rom. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


5. This is the character/standard that is violated "the law of sin" -Rom. 7:25

Rom. 7;22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:....25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


6. This is the character/standard written upon the new heart - Rom. 8:4

Rom. 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 Cor. 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.


7. This is what the Gentile obtained through faith but what the Jew failed to obtain through works. - Romans 9:30-33

Rom. 9:30 ¶ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;


8. This is the Law that serves as the standard of righteousness in judgement for all who come NOT BY FAITH but by their own works: - Rom. 2:6-10


9. No flesh shall be justified under this law - Rom. 3:20-21.

A. Paul never said anything about the Roman Catholic Church or its dogma or anything relating to them. Paul said specifically in Galatians 2 points are noted from this discourse 1) what "other gospel" were they preaching? Its stated clearly here
Observing the law was the other gospel. That means following Jewish Law as specified in Torah and Talmudic interpretations following a specified haggadah. It means nothing regarding something representing what it symbolizes. 2) what gospel was preached again its listed above Christ against the jewish law. Christ completed the law fulfilled it in his body. Its accomplished. Thus its clearly against law it has nothing to do with baptism.
B)It changed its application between Augustine and Luther very much so. In fact both Calvin and Luther liked Augustine. Which changed the understanding inthe mind of the commoner. Read how things were done during Augustine's time and Luther's time. In fact, Cathedral's, I have been made aware of were common places and the liturgy would be said while people traded their livestock and otherthings during the service. A lot of issues in practice. Sales of indulgences were another change.
C) Its clear by the question you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No gymnastics as well. Dr. Walter brought up Galatians. But you do bring up a good point. What was the Gospel the Apostles taught? Certainly, Jesus taught the innamate establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven and the charachersitics of that Kingdom. Pray tell what did the Apostles teach as the gospel. Paul in Galatians says Christ Crucified. So out with it.

I would like to know what you believe justification by faith includes and excludes? When does it happen? Is it a progressive action? Are we NOW justified or only POTENTIALLY justified with real justification later? Do you make a distinction between justification by faith before God and progressive sanctification before men?

 

[Dr. Walter]

No gymnastics as well. Dr. Walter brought up Galatians. But you do bring up a good point. What was the Gospel the Apostles taught? Certainly, Jesus taught the innamate establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven and the charachersitics of that Kingdom. Pray tell what did the Apostles teach as the gospel. Paul in Galatians says Christ Crucified. So out with it.

I don't believe you are being gynastic either. I think you are really telling us that you believe that baptism and good works are inclusive in your doctrine of justification by faith. I think you are really defining the basis of your own salvation as it really is.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Harsh language because you refuse to do your homework. I gave you a link. Perhaps you refused to read it. You have the internet. Do you know how to use it. Have you heard of google? Do you really know what successionism is? Apparently not! I do not believe in successionism, so the libel continues all because you fail to do your homework and find out what Baptists believe. I do not believe in successionism. Do not tell me what I believe. Find out. If I tell you that you believe in a spiritual resurrection and not a bodily resurrection of the Lord how would you feel? Should I just make that assumption about you?

You assume positions that are wrong. And yes, you are right, that is libel. Why continue in it? There is another name for it--ignorance.

DHK you don't believe in successionism. then what is it you believe? Do you hold to

of the Continued Succession of the Primitive Church of Jesus Christ from the Apostles Unto This Present Time

If you do you are a baptist successionist. This is the fundamental tennant of what they believe. This view is purported by John Christian, J. M. Carrol, Thomas Crosby, GH Orchard, JM Cramp, William Cathcart, Adam Taylor, DB Ray, William Estep.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No gymnastics as well. Dr. Walter brought up Galatians. But you do bring up a good point. What was the Gospel the Apostles taught? Certainly, Jesus taught the innamate establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven and the charachersitics of that Kingdom. Pray tell what did the Apostles teach as the gospel. Paul in Galatians says Christ Crucified. So out with it.

It is not hard to understand. The Apostles taught, rather, God teaches, in the Scripture, justification by faith alone.

This the papacy calls accursed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I would like to know what you believe justification by faith includes and excludes? When does it happen? Is it a progressive action? Are we NOW justified or only POTENTIALLY justified with real justification later?

You're confusing yourself. Justification happens upon believe. Sanctification happens over a life time. The difference between Catholic view and our view is that our view we are declared (justified) righteous in the catholic view they are made (justification) righteous. I think you make the issues more complicated. You still haven't answered my question.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is not hard to understand. The Apostles taught, rather, God teaches, in the Scripture, justification by faith alone.

This the papacy calls accursed.

Is that the Gospel the apostles preached? is that what scripture says? There are several terms in use and each has a particularity to it. One does not mean the other. It can be an aspect of the other or a part of the other but not equal.

Justification
Salvation
Sanctification
Fath
Belief

Each of these words have a specific meaning you must define them before you tell me what you think you are saying.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You're confusing yourself. Justification happens upon believe. Sanctification happens over a life time. The difference between Catholic view and our view is that our view we are declared (justified) righteous in the catholic view they are made (justification) righteous. I think you make the issues more complicated. You still haven't answered my question.

My friend, I did not ask you what I believed! I asked what you believed. So I am not confused at all as I did not make any statement about myself.

Based upon your own distinctions above between declared righteousness at the point of faith versus being made progressively righteous in order to be justified would it be fair to conclude that the progressive notion is a perversion of the gospel truth of justification by faith or does it matter to you?

If Paul is only repudiating the Jewish type of progressive justification doctrine and it is only their type being "accursed" why would he include an "angel from heaven" or "any man" in his application of Gal. 1:8-9 if it has no application outside the Jewish type???

So the consistent contrast in the scriptures between "grace" and "works" or "justification by faith without works" and "justification by works" is only a Jewish progressive justification and this contrast has no application outside of the Jews???

 

[DHK]

DHK you don't believe in successionism. then what is it you believe?

I told you in a previous post what I believed. I gave you the name, but you apparently did not understand what it was or didn't bother to look it up. It is called "the spiritual kinship theory," and it is not successionism."

Do you hold to If you do you are a baptist successionist. This is the fundamental tennant of what they believe.

No I don't.

This view is purported by John Christian, J. M. Carrol, Thomas Crosby, GH Orchard, JM Cramp, William Cathcart, Adam Taylor, DB Ray, William Estep.

You are wrong.
Christian doesn't. Some of these others don't either.
Read again the Trail of Blood without bias. I realize that there may be historical mistakes in the booklet. But the basic theme of the book is correct. If you understand what he is saying, the theme, then that is what I believe.
Read volume I of J.T. Christians book on Baptist History. You will find the same theme in his book as "The Trail of Blood," written by Carrol.

The theme is simply this: That in every age since the apostles God has left himself a witness. "He knows them that are His." In every age there have been those that have had similar beliefs to what we call Baptists today. There is no succession there. We don't connect these churches together. One didn't evolve from another or "succeed from another. They were always there, protesting against the corruption against of the RCC and other corrupt denominations and evils of the time. A good example of that would be the Montanists. They did not come from any one. It was Montanus whom God called to preach against the corruption of the times and live a life of purity. Many followed him. Their churches were based on purity of life in opposition to the corruption of the churches that was in existence at that time. Who did they succeed from and who succeeded from them. No one.

There were in every age those that preached the pure gospel of Christ, protesting against the corruption of the RCC, and other corrupt sects such as gnosticism, Arianism, etc. They had the Word of God. Sola Scriptura was good enough. They didn't need the ECF. The Bible was enough to preach the purity of the gospel.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My friend, I did not ask you what I believed! I asked what you believed. So I am not confused at all as I did not make any statement about myself.

Based upon your own distinctions above between declared righteousness at the point of faith versus being made progressively righteous in order to be justified would it be fair to conclude that the progressive notion is a perversion of the gospel truth of justification by faith or does it matter to you?

If Paul is only repudiating the Jewish type of progressive justification doctrine and it is only their type being "accursed" why would he include an "angel from heaven" or "any man" in his application of Gal. 1:8-9 if it has no application outside the Jewish type???

So the consistent contrast in the scriptures between "grace" and "works" or "justification by faith without works" and "justification by works" is only a Jewish progressive justification and this contrast has no application outside of the Jews???

No you misapply Paul with an entirely different topic. Paul is speaking to the Judiazers who are saying you have to adhere to the Law of the original covenant to be saved. Neither Catholic or Baptist is saying that not even Orthodox (Agnus Dei represents that faith). If I can sum it up. Paul was fighting the notion that obeying the law saves. Clearly faith saves and not law. Justification does not enter it unless its the Torah that justifies and we know it doesn't. And I would say faith alone saves except that Its Gods grace alone that saves and my faith is nothing if I do nothing as is explained by James. Faith is only faith when acted upon. Thats how I see it. Why are you attempting an inquisition? Will I get burned at the stake?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I told you in a previous post what I believed. I gave you the name, but you apparently did not understand what it was or didn't bother to look it up. It is called "the spiritual kinship theory," and it is not successionism."

No I don't.

You are wrong.
Christian doesn't. Some of these others don't either.
Read again the Trail of Blood without bias. I realize that there may be historical mistakes in the booklet. But the basic theme of the book is correct. If you understand what he is saying, the theme, then that is what I believe.
Read volume I of J.T. Christians book on Baptist History. You will find the same theme in his book as "The Trail of Blood," written by Carrol.

The theme is simply this: That in every age since the apostles God has left himself a witness. "He knows them that are His." In every age there have been those that have had similar beliefs to what we call Baptists today. There is no succession there. We don't connect these churches together. One didn't evolve from another or "succeed from another. They were always there, protesting against the corruption against of the RCC and other corrupt denominations and evils of the time. A good example of that would be the Montanists. They did not come from any one. It was Montanus whom God called to preach against the corruption of the times and live a life of purity. Many followed him. Their churches were based on purity of life in opposition to the corruption of the churches that was in existence at that time. Who did they succeed from and who succeeded from them. No one.

There were in every age those that preached the pure gospel of Christ, protesting against the corruption of the RCC, and other corrupt sects such as gnosticism, Arianism, etc. They had the Word of God. Sola Scriptura was good enough. They didn't need the ECF. The Bible was enough to preach the purity of the gospel.

It sounds basically like the same thing. Just change the name depending on when you protest.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No you misapply Paul with an entirely different topic. Paul is speaking to the Judiazers who are saying you have to adhere to the Law of the original covenant to be saved. Neither Catholic or Baptist is saying that not even Orthodox (Agnus Dei represents that faith). If I can sum it up. Paul was fighting the notion that obeying the law saves. Clearly faith saves and not law. Justification does not enter it unless its the Torah that justifies and we know it doesn't. And I would say faith alone saves except that Its Gods grace alone that saves and my faith is nothing if I do nothing as is explained by James. Faith is only faith when acted upon. Thats how I see it.

You say that Rome teaches progressive justification (inclusive of good works, ordinances, etc.) as you are being made righteous whereas the Bible teaches instant justification (declared righteous) at the point of faith.

Do you make any distinction between faith "in" an object versus actions you do "by faith"? Does justification occur due to what you believe "in" or by what is what is being done "by" faith?

Let me ask it from a different angle. Do you believe that justification is accomplished fully by the completed actions of Christ as presented in the gospel which is the object of faith or do you believe justification occurs not merely in believing "in" Christ' finished work but in addition is obtained through your actions produced by faith?

Are you justified by what someone else DID for you as the object of faith or are you justified in addition to what you are DOING "by" faith?

In other words is there a cause versus consequence relationship between the object and action of faith?

 

[DHK]

It sounds basically like the same thing. Just change the name depending on when you protest.

Read the link I gave you on Landmarkism. They are successionists. They are as far as one can be from the position that I can take.

They believe, as I mentioned in my example (for example), that one has to be baptized by a baptist by a baptist by a baptist by a baptist etc., right down to the Apostles or even John the Baptist. That is successionism.

Some believe that your Baptist church has to come from another baptist church which came from another baptist church which came from another baptist church which came from another baptist church right back to the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem in Acts chapter 2.

Some people believe that only "true Baptists" will make up the Bride of Christ, and those are the ones that are saved and will be raptured.

You really don't know what successionism is do you?

Neither one of us believe anything remotely close to that.

 

[DHK]

Another point that might be considered:
The Baptists (as a whole) don't believe in successionism.
The RCC does, as they claim they have a line of popes going right back to Peter. That is successionism, though it can easily be disproved. The RCC claims successionism, not the Baptists.