Theology the Queen of the sciences

[TCassidy]

Usually when a person says they are against study bibles, commentaries, and books is because they are against biblical authority

I have bad news for you. Study notes in bibles, commentaries, and books are not scripture and have absolutely no "biblical authority."

 

[Baptist Believer]

Usually when a person says they are against study bibles, commentaries, and books is because they are against biblical authority and prefer to read and interpret the bible anyway they please.

Uh, no.

Nothing wrong with the use of those things in moderation, but biblical authority is best embraced by actually reading the bible carefully, thoroughly, and often - becoming so familiar with it that when you read commentaries and books you will know if the author is making a good and valid point or not because of your familiarity with the scripture. I personally don't like study bibles because I don't like interpretation on the same page as scripture. Too many people read the notes in their study bibles as having equal or more authority than the biblical text.

I was dialoguing with a person on another board who thinks women can be pastors. He thinks 1 Tim has been poorly translated from the Greek, yet his only authority is a liberal theologian.

If he understands the Greek properly, he needs no human authority. (By the way, not only "liberals" think that God calls women to be pastors.)

I suggested he check out John MacArthur's commentaries but he refused, as he wants to claim 1 Tim to be poorly translated, yet has no biblical authority to do do. This is the type of guy that will be against books, commentaries, and study bibles because he wants to interpret the bible any way he pleases.

Biblical authority DOES NOT flow from John MacArthur or any other human being - it flows from the scriptures. You have a long history of chasing down books that support your positions (and essentially dismissing everything else) and thereby claiming "biblical authority" for your position.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

 

[evangelist6589]

Uh, no.

Nothing wrong with the use of those things in moderation, but biblical authority is best embraced by actually reading the bible carefully, thoroughly, and often - becoming so familiar with it that when you read commentaries and books you will know if the author is making a good and valid point or not because of your familiarity with the scripture. I personally don't like study bibles because I don't like interpretation on the same page as scripture. Too many people read the notes in their study bibles as having equal or more authority than the biblical text.


If he understands the Greek properly, he needs no human authority. (By the way, not only "liberals" think that God calls women to be pastors.)


Biblical authority DOES NOT flow from John MacArthur or any other human being - it flows from the scriptures. You have a long history of chasing down books that support your positions (and essentially dismissing everything else) and thereby claiming "biblical authority" for your position.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

Talk to the hand!

Seriously I know scripture is the authority, however there are those that God has especially gifted (John MacArthur) whose books and commentaries are right on the money most of the time. I am not saying MacArthur knows everything. But you are right its best to know the scripture. The alcohol argument for example. I know the scripture does not forbid drinking, it forbids drunkenness. But there are those that have written books and preached sermons on the topic that the Bible teaches teetotalism, when this is simply not true.

Or the women in ministry argument. There are those that think that women are called to be pastors, when the bible does not teach this, and no exegetical reading will come to this conclusion.

 

[evangelist6589]

I have bad news for you. Study notes in bibles, commentaries, and books are not scripture and have absolutely no "biblical authority."

I not once claimed that they did! But they are usually written by scholars who know more than most.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I not once claimed that they did! But they are usually written by scholars who know more than most.

Knowing "more than most" is not biblical authority. And there are a lot of people who write books who certainly DO NOT know "more than most."

Moreover, you really did equate "study bibles, commentaries, and books" with biblical authority, although you may not believe that as a doctrine. In practice, you constantly throw out John MacArthur and the WOTM (sic) as having the last word on various doctrines and issues.

 

[Baptist Believer]

...however there are those that God has especially gifted (John MacArthur) whose books and commentaries are right on the money most of the time.

How do you know that? Are you so well versed in scripture that you can point out when MacArthur is in error - even if he is attempting to support something you like and/or already believe?

I am not saying MacArthur knows everything. But you are right its best to know the scripture. The alcohol argument for example. I know the scripture does not forbid drinking, it forbids drunkenness. But there are those that have written books and preached sermons on the topic that the Bible teaches teetotalism, when this is simply not true.

While I agree with you that MacArthur is wrong about the issue, how did you come to that opinion? Was it through careful study of the scripture or through finding someone who wrote what you want to hear?

 

[evangelist6589]

How do you know that? Are you so well versed in scripture that you can point out when MacArthur is in error - even if he is attempting to support something you like and/or already believe?


While I agree with you that MacArthur is wrong about the issue, how did you come to that opinion? Was it through careful study of the scripture or through finding someone who wrote what you want to hear?

Through studying the scripture on the issue aided by good books. However the scripture alone is the authority.

 

[evangelist6589]

How do you know that? Are you so well versed in scripture that you can point out when MacArthur is in error - even if he is attempting to support something you like and/or already believe?


While I agree with you that MacArthur is wrong about the issue, how did you come to that opinion? Was it through careful study of the scripture or through finding someone who wrote what you want to hear?

In the same vein you find people that teach you what you want to hear. No person who honestly reads scripture can come to the conclusion that God calls women to be pastors.

 

[HankD]

So many today seem to lack the ability to read critically....they can't read any genre that requires skills beyond juvenile fiction. In our schools Harry Potter has replaced Conrad and O'Connor; the closest you will get to Yeats and Elliot is Seuss.

If we have failed to teach a generation to read literature of the recent past I am not sure we should be shocked they resort to commentary of their choosing rather than Scripture.

What has been lost is the ability to think critically.

Cliff Notes work in a pinch

HankD

 

[JonC]

In the same vein you find people that teach you what you want to hear. No person who honestly reads scripture can come to the conclusion that God calls women to be pastors.

In the same way many might point out no person who honestly reads Scripture could justify abandoning his wife apart from, perhaps, infidelity?

I can respect Christians who earnestly study Scripture yet come to some erroneous conclusions far easier than those who replace Scripture with books and essentially follow men and humanistic doctrine.

 

[agedman]

How do you know that? Are you so well versed in scripture that you can point out when MacArthur is in error - even if he is attempting to support something you like and/or already believe?


While I agree with you that MacArthur is wrong about the issue, how did you come to that opinion? Was it through careful study of the scripture or through finding someone who wrote what you want to hear?

I can tell you were MacArthur is wrong

In his view that the blood of Christ was not shed for all people.

 

[evangelist6589]

I can tell you were MacArthur is wrong

In his view that the blood of Christ was not shed for all people.

It was shed for the elect.

 

[HankD]

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

HankD

 

[agedman]

It was shed for the elect.

Nope,

More of the Doctrines of Grace folks are recognizing the truth of John’s statements.

Here is a document MacArthur signed, IFCA Home - Doctrine

Unfortunately, he turned back rather than continuing in truth.

Look carefully at the statements. And remember he signed it.

 

[evangelist6589]

Nope,

More of the Doctrines of Grace folks are recognizing the truth of John’s statements.

Here is a document MacArthur signed, IFCA Home - Doctrine

Unfortunately, he turned back rather than continuing in truth.

Look carefully at the statements. And remember he signed it.

I don’t care. I care about what scripture teaches and it teaches actual atonement.

 

[evangelist6589]

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

HankD

The term world does not refer to every single person but to every type of person.

 

[agedman]

The term world does not refer to every single person but to every type of person.

Yep, I can agree with that

Each type of murderers, type of perverts, type of drunkards, type of adulterers, type of liars, type of ungodly human condition....

There is not a sinful condition that the was prevented from the blood shed by the lamb of the OT, nor the Lamb of God.

Every type of person of the whole world.

 

[agedman]

I don’t care. I care about what scripture teaches and it teaches actual atonement.

Yep,

No fake atonement found in the shed blood of Christ.

 

[agedman]

It is amazing that believers cannot come together on this issue that it is NOT a lack of blood in which salvation is determined, it is the matter of belief = salvation and unbelief = already condemned.

BELIEF is the determiner! Not the blood.

 

[TCassidy]

I not once claimed that they did! But they are usually written by scholars who know more than most.

Yeah. Right.

Usually when a person says they are against study bibles, commentaries, and books is because they are against biblical authority.