The Difference Between Sola Scriptura And Biblicism (R. Scott Clark)

[Reformed]

The authority of hell cannot prevail against Christ's churches, nor did the bible teachings die out and had to be given a second time.

Words mean things. Show me where I said they died out? I said they were lost for nearly 1000 years. Rome had a choke-hold on Christianity for that period of time. There were sporadic lights as in the Waldensians and John Huss, but not enough to break Rome's domination of Christendom. And because of the verses you quoted, the truth did not die out. When the Reformation occurred it loosened Rome's grip. Contrary to what you protest, there were many aspects of theology that the Reformers and Puritans improved upon in regards to scholarship. The Patristic Age was a time of mixture and error. Arianism was running rampant. Its kissing cousin, the Monophysite controversy, carried over to the 5th-century. The teachings of the apostles and prophets were diluted with emerging Roman paganism. The true faith was persecuted during this time, only to emerge as militant as ever in 1517.

I do not expect you to agree with my rendition, but I am going to put it on record for others to consider.

 

[Reformed]

So, as you don't believe all that, you are not "Reformed?"

Not to the satisfaction of my Presbyterian friends, but I consider myself very much in the Reformed tradition.

 

[Reformed]

I didn't know that, and I would disagree with him on that point.

Scott is not shy about his opinions. For that matter, neither am I. I think we are more alike than I like to admit.

 

[TCassidy]

Not to the satisfaction of my Presbyterian friends, but I consider myself very much in the Reformed tradition.

So you are Reformed and believe all that garbage I posted above?

 

[TCassidy]

Show me where I said they died out? I said they were lost for nearly 1000 years.

Semantics. A distinction without a difference.

 

[Reformed]

So you are Reformed and believe all that garbage I posted above?

Did you even read what I typed in post #78?

 

[Reformed]

Semantics. A distinction without a difference.

Lose an argument and deflect it with semantics? You are better than that.

 

[thatbrian]

Lose an argument and deflect it with semantics? You are better than that.

There seems to be no genuine, rigorous debate on BB.

 

[thatbrian]

Did you even read what I typed in post #78?

Read your post??? I don't think anyone but you and I even read the OP.

 

[TCassidy]

Did you even read what I typed in post #78?

Yes, I did. You seem to have missed the point. Rather spectacularly.

 

[TCassidy]

Lose an argument and deflect it with semantics? You are better than that.

So your deflecting the discussion with the semantics is now my fault?

#1. I haven't lost the argument. You didn't show up for it.
#2. It was you who tried to use the old "quote where I said that" ploy.
#3. I'm better than that? I know. It was you who tried the sophomoric ploy.

 

[TCassidy]

There seems to be no genuine, rigorous debate on BB.

Don't be so hard on him. He couldn't respond so he tried the "quote where I said that" ploy.

 

[Reformed]

Yes, I did. You seem to have missed the point. Rather spectacularly.

I took you at your word. You wrote:

And I have debated "Reformed" persons who believe in double predestination, salvation without Christ, the elect being saved before they were born, deny missions of any sort, and don't believe that Gospel preaching is necessary nor is the Great Commission for us today.

As you are Reformed, does the above describe you? And is the above the historical definition of "Reformed?"

To which I responded:

Big "R" Reformed is typically reserved for Presbyterians. My Presbyterian friends bristle at the notion of a Baptist claiming any affinity to the Reformed faith apart from infant baptism.

I believe only the Elect will be saved. The Elect is made up of individuals called from eternity. Ergo, if a person has not been called they will not be saved. The lapsarian debates try to take the sting out of that truth by saying the God simply passes over those who are not predestined for salvation. I find myself chuckling at that. God passes over? I just do not see that in scripture, although even the Reformers debated that point.

No one is saved until they are regenerated in-time.

Deny missions? Calvinists have a long rich history of missions which I embrace.

The Gospel is the means of salvation and will continue to be preached until the end of the age.

The Great Commission? Praise God that it is in full force and going strong!

You asked me "whether the above describe you"? I answered you point-by-point. Unless, of course, you were being sarcastic in your post and really did not want my answers. I am usually pretty quick on the uptake but I am not a mind reader.

 

[Reformed]

So your deflecting the discussion with the semantics is now my fault?

#1. I haven't lost the argument. You didn't show up for it.
#2. It was you who tried to use the old "quote where I said that" ploy.
#3. I'm better than that? I know. It was you who tried the sophomoric ploy.

What I meant was that you are using the semantic retort as a way to question the veracity of what I wrote in post #70 and #81. Lost and died out are not the same thing and I have no intention of letting you represent me that way. I stand by what I said in both posts. You never responded yea or nay on post #81 except to accuse me of using semantics. I figured you failed to respond to what I said (except for the semantics remark) because you yielded your position.

Your turn.

 

[Reformed]

There seems to be no genuine, rigorous debate on BB.

Even a broken clock is right twice-a-day, so I am holding out hope.

 

[Reformed]

Read your post??? I don't think anyone but you and I even read the OP.

I used to get upset about that stuff but no more. I have come to expect it which is a sad commentary in itself.

 

[Reformed]

Anway, it is 1:52 AM here on the east coast. I should be in bed. Good night, friends. I will check-in later this morning.

 

[thatbrian]

I used to get upset about that stuff but no more. I have come to expect it which is a sad commentary in itself.

Call me old fashioned but I still insist that if you are going to argue against me (the OP, in this case) you should at least hear my assertion.

Fools speak before listening. Contemptible fools brag about speaking before listening.

 

[Reformed]

Call me old fashioned but I still insist that if you are going to argue against me (the OP, in this case) you should at least hear my assertion.

I agree. It is the polite thing to do. Either that or do not engage.

And with that, I believe my involvement in this thread has run its course. See you in the next fracas.

 

[TCassidy]

I took you at your word. You wrote:

Okay. I will try one more time. And if you don't get it this time I will leave the two of you to your mutual admiration society.

If I redefine the word "reformed" to mean something different from the historic definition, and what you believe, that does not mean you believe it.

If the author of the article redefines "biblicist" to mean something different from the historic definition, and what we believe, that does not mean we believe it.

Got it now?