-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Sola Scripture?
- Thread starter nate
- Start date
....which is why we needed the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople to clarify the position ie: the whole Episcopate, not just individual Bishops.
No, it comes down to a need to trust what Jesus said when he said to His Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all Truth. </font>[/QUOTE]So basically, whatever the later Church teaches, that is it, whether it is scriptural or not. Just close your mind and let the "Fathers" do all the thinking for you.
Problem is, everyone could claim to be the true successor to the apostles. Your method of determining which is "the majority". But the majority could be wrong. The apostles warned that many would go stray. The few would find the truth.
What Christ told the apostles is that they would be guided into all the truth to write down and teach the Church. It is not talking about an infallible sucession, (and no matter how they measure up to the scriptures). And it is not talking about a body of hidden truth either. </font>[/QUOTE]Not exactly. The Episcopate has been fractured since 1054 - and even more so since 1517 - and no longer speaks with one voice. But it did exist as a teaching authority prior to that and has given us a sufficiency of Biblical interpretation to go on.
It's not an issue of "whatever the later Church teaches, that is it, whether it is scriptural or not"; rather it's the case of the earlier Church helps us to correctly interpret what that Scripture means and thus to determine what is truly Scriptural.
Nonsense. Utter rubbish.
If that were so, how come when I was lost and under conviction I encountered witnesses who shared with me from both of those groups and I heard the same gospel from both of them. The same for pentecostals, charismatics and non-denominationals who shared with me.
The same gospel.
I never once walked away saying "This is driving me crazy!!! All these different gospels!!!! Which one is correct????"
This is just more Catholic rubbish being thrown out.
Let me ask you this...
Ok, then which group do you consign to hell?
Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Neither. They are both misguided but sincere followers, as best they can with a distorted image, of Jesus Christ.
They are however mutually contradictory - if you don't realise that then either you didn't have their doctrine properly exaplained to you or, with respect, you didn't understand it.
and who this is, is debatable, you have to decide for yourself, subjectively, as an individual, which group best conforms to the apostolic witness, which group best fits the definition of a church....
</font>[/QUOTE]Surely the answer the that is the group that was around at the time of the Apostolic witness...and has continued in that witness via their successors.
That's largely because the ECFs were closer in time and mindset to the Apostles and Jesus than we are; in some cases eg: Ignatius, they were actually discipled and appointed by an Apostle (John in this case). That makes it far more likely that their interpretation of Scripture is going to be correct than ours, living up to 1900 years later.
DesiderioDomini
New Member
I have had many discussions with Calvanists in my time, mainly because they (so far, the most of the ones I have talked to) detest anyone who questions it, and first vow to convince them, then second condemn them. I still remember the day, it was around 9 months ago, when I told a fellow student "you are the first calvanist I have discussed this issue with who wasnt a complete jerk about it"
He lamented that he has heard that about 2 dozen times. Sadly, he is considerable younger than me, and has already realized the label here.
DesiderioDomini
New Member
I am unaware of a doctrine nor any other scriptural belief that I hold in which I am not fully willing to use in witnessing.
It appears that this tactic you have mentioned is very much like the mormons....we tell you what we want you to know to hook you, then we tell you some more later.
I have heard that "this is a deep issue, lost people cant understand it", but I dont buy that, given that this issue is the very essence of salvation.
I am not arguing against predestination for debate's sake, but only that it seems even you have agreed that it is inconsistent in that they will not acknowledge it in witnessing.
I don't deny that through their witness people are saved - but that still leaves us in epistemological No-man's Land
DesiderioDomini
New Member
Exactly. I am not trying to be obtuse, but my point is this: Wouldnt the fact that since God designed predestination, it would be a part of the "Good News"?
It is either good news that this person was predestined, or good news that they arent. According to Calvanists, God is glorified in both.
Why not proclaim it? I have never had a problem proclaiming that God has given them free will, and the choice to reject him, which will in turn bring about consequences that God does not wish to happen, but must, which is an eternity in hell. Now, I dont do this condemningly, but factually. Perhaps it is just my personality which wants to find out the whole story before making a decision. I guess I want others to do the same. It appears my predestinational brothers do not agree
I would suggest that one of the reasons why Calvinists and Arminians preach the same gospel as far as the unsaved are concerned is that both believe in salvation through faith alone in Jesus Christ, and that is the essential part that is communicated to the 'outside world' in their respective preaching, and an unsaved individual can positively respond to that. Dig a little deeper, however, and you will find that at that point they fundamentally diverge: Arminians see the 'faith' referred to above as an act of will of the hearer of the gospel; Calvinists contend that the faith response in the hearer is solely the act of will of God. Those positions are incompatible; however, for the reason given above, they do not hinder the preaching of the Good News by either group.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
That's largely because the ECFs were closer in time and mindset to the Apostles and Jesus than we are; in some cases eg: Ignatius, they were actually discipled and appointed by an Apostle (John in this case). That makes it far more likely that their interpretation of Scripture is going to be correct than ours, living up to 1900 years later. </font>[/QUOTE]The "problem" is that the SAME argument that would insist that the ECFs are so old they MUST be right - would also BE ABLE to argue that the APOSTLES are even OLDER and are as much MORE reliable when compared to the ECFs as they ECFs are said to be reliable when compared to today's Pope.
But it seems that "only" the sola scriptura guys are willing to make that argument from "antiquity" consistently.
Once you claim that JOHN needs to be interpreted BY one of his own direct disciples (instead of just reading John as IF you could understand him) -- you provide no logic at all as to why you should be able to undertand someone John is talking to - but not John. So NOW you need "an interpreter" for your ECF source. And of course if a direct teacher to disciple connectoin is not "close enough" for you to undestand the teacher -- then the ECF can not be trusted until one of his disciples speaks - and that disciple can not be trusted (or understood) until one of his disciples speaks... The result being that the FARTHER you get FROM THE SOURCE - the MORE you rely on man-made-tradition AS IF it was "more reliable" than Christ!!
I.e. - Catholicism.
This got so bad that finally the Catholics THEMSELVES had to call foul - and find the solution of "sola scriptura" to break that ever growing chain of error. Hence their "reformation"
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The "string of denominations" that results from the Catholics trying to reform their broken down error-infested doctrinal system is merely the side-effect of trying to roll the ball back up the hill from whence it came. Each group successively standing on the shoulders of the work of the previous generation trying to sweep out the errors and return to the teachings of the REAL ECFS like Paul, John, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke etc.
They leave monuments in their wake - called "denominations". Lutherans form a monument to Luther without moving much beyond his reforms and the same is true with Methodists and Wesley.
And it goes without saying - the RCC is still stuck in the doctrinal rut of the dark ages - decorating that monument.
In Christ,
Bob
They leave monuments in their wake - called "denominations". Lutherans form a monument to Luther without moving much beyond his reforms and the same is true with Methodists and Wesley.
And it goes without saying - the RCC is still stuck in the doctrinal rut of the dark ages - decorating that monument.
In Christ,
Bob
I think Bob' first two posts above answer that and your subsequent responses to others well. As I said before, that can be at most an evidence, but not conclusive proof to be identifying one body today as "the original one that goes all the way back".
Funny that this discussion turns into CvsA. As I said, that's because people (especially on one side) go beyond the basic Gospel into an area that is beyond our knwoledge.
That's largely because the ECFs were closer in time and mindset to the Apostles and Jesus than we are; in some cases eg: Ignatius, they were actually discipled and appointed by an Apostle (John in this case). That makes it far more likely that their interpretation of Scripture is going to be correct than ours, living up to 1900 years later. </font>[/QUOTE]The "problem" is that the SAME argument that would insist that the ECFs are so old they MUST be right - would also BE ABLE to argue that the APOSTLES are even OLDER and are as much MORE reliable when compared to the ECFs as they ECFs are said to be reliable when compared to today's Pope.
But it seems that "only" the sola scriptura guys are willing to make that argument from "antiquity" consistently.
Once you claim that JOHN needs to be interpreted BY one of his own direct disciples (instead of just reading John as IF you could understand him) -- you provide no logic at all as to why you should be able to undertand someone John is talking to - but not John. </font>[/QUOTE]The analogy is where you have President Bush make Statement A which can be interpreted one of two ways. Then the White House press spokesman (McClellan as was or whoever it is this week
) comes on your screens and says :"To clarify, the President meant [the first way]". It's unnecessary to have further statements issued; the press spokesman's Statement B is sufficient to clarify/ interpret Statement A. Of course any number of political commentators and journos will attempt to pick apart and comment on both Statements A and B, but they don't add to the factual information contained within both statements.Thus when John writes "Jesus said 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no part of me'" (Statement A) and Ignatius his disciple and appointed successor writes about the Real Presence in the Eucharistic bread and wine (Statement B) we can see that Statement B explains, interprets and clarifies Statement A. Theologians can then argue about how the Real Presence exists in communion (Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, receptionism etc) but there is no need for further Statements to establish the truth of the Real Presence - what we have is sufficient.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The analogy is where you have President Bush make Statement A which can be interpreted one of two ways. Then the White House press spokesman (McClellan as was or whoever it is this week
Thus when John writes "Jesus said 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no part of me'" (Statement A) and Ignatius his disciple and appointed successor writes about the Real Presence in the Eucharistic bread and wine (Statement B) we can see that Statement B explains, interprets and clarifies Statement A. Theologians can then argue about how the Real Presence exists in communion (Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, receptionism etc) but there is no need for further Statements to establish the truth of the Real Presence - what we have is sufficient.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The analogy is where you have President Bush make Statement A which can be interpreted one of two ways. Then the White House press spokesman (McClellan as was or whoever it is this week
Thus when John writes "Jesus said 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no part of me'" (Statement A) and Ignatius his disciple and appointed successor writes about the Real Presence in the Eucharistic bread and wine (Statement B) we can see that Statement B explains, interprets and clarifies Statement A. Theologians can then argue about how the Real Presence exists in communion (Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, receptionism etc) but there is no need for further Statements to establish the truth of the Real Presence - what we have is sufficient.