True or False

Good question. I'd have to know more about the history of the church to answer, though. How long was the Roman Catholic church in the majority, for example?

 

Strange coming from Sproul. I wonder if he would have given Luther that advice?

 

Or anyone else in the reformation or other periods of awakening?

I do see his point though. People have formed cults on taking scripture and interpreting it incorrectly. So, I think I'd like to read the stuff Sproul said/wrote around the above statement.

 

I have the DVD on which Sproul says that, and it was said in the context of Watchtower-ites and such. Remember also that the RC church did not apostosize overnight, it was incremental. It was the coucil of Nicene that established the Trinity as orthodox doctrine after all. It was when the RC became, after some time, so currupt and non-biblical that those within it such as Luther began speaking out. Even in its corrupt prime, the catholic church had some good doctrines - well at least one - the trinity.

What he is saying is that if someone comes along, like say Harold Camping, who says he knows something that no other bible scholar in history knows - they ALL, including non-RC, missed it - then something is askew.

One of the clear marks of a cult is the claim to unique, "private", truth.

 

Most baptist theologies like opposition to baptismal regeneration, opposition to infant baptism, symbolic communion, local autonomy, etc are rejected by a majority of Christianity. So I disagree that it is always a good idea to dump your minority interpretations.

 

Arguably Luther and the Refomers did not discover something new in scripture. Luther traced back much of his findings to Augustine.

 

The history of interpretation IS a factor in proper interpretation but it is not in and of itself the deciding factor. I think Sproul is overstating his case.

When the church fathers disagree on a subject, then what do we do? We still have the privilege, the responsibility, the burden, and the right to interpret scripture.

 

...that a majority of the church has ignored ...

When Sproul said the Church I am sure he was talking about the Reformed alone

Cool. But they have four now in the Trinity. Who says it's had it's prime?

I think if one has a belief that is unorthodox and it doesn't seperate one from ones congregation it's ok. I live alongside some really awful mixed up doctrines but it doesn't matter. I shall win them over. God willing of course.

Hello J. Jump.

Why I can't see why we should always dump our 'new insight' but I think it is a thing to bear in mind if one finds oneself out of line with those one considers in the highest of regard. Who am I to gainsay these giants? Keep an eye on your sanity chip, if Christians start to shun you then you have something wrong.

or why not? I don't think one can believe what one does not believe. If we have a belief it is not possible, not for me anyway, to put it aside just because others have said otherwise, as others do, regardless of their status.
It is my duty to make sure of all things. To get it nailed down. We will be in error anyway we think why worry? It is God that teaches, we must accept each other's differences. Each generation needs to explore this land.

Just a quick check on my sanity.

john.

 

I would modify Sproul's statement. I would replace "dump it" with "extreme caution." What is the likelihood that man will come up with a new interpretation of scripture? I believe "remote" would be a generous term.

A text only has one interpretation. Wars have been fought (figuratively and literally) over that intpretation, but the a text still has only one. I believe healthy discussion and debate is necessary. But I agree with Sproul's premise. If we come up with a new doctrine that the church has never held, we are on shakey ground. I would rather walk through a minefield blindfolded than to hastily embrace a new teaching. For example: do Sanders, Dunn and Wright truly believe they have discovered something new with the New Perspective on Paul? Have they, in the past fifty years, undone everthing that Augustine through the Refomers taught? What are the consequences of introducing new doctrines that the church has never held to?

Blindfold anybody?

 

I have to modify my previous post. I just remembered that Sproul's statement was made in defense of understanding the importance of church history and councils. The JW's claim, that Jesus is not God, is an old lie known as Arianism which was hashed out and condemned at the Council of Nicea. Many of the church councils through the centuries have already done the work of separating the orthodox from the heretodox for us. That's his point.

That said, yes it is true that we as Baptists hold a skeptical eye on church councils, because after all some of those councils condemned US!

However, we can save ourselves a lot of work by studying the findings (sorry for the mililtary language, can't think of a better word right now) of these councils inasmuch as they may rightly divide the word of truth.

For example, for those of us that are calvinistic, a quick read of the report from the Council of Dordt, made up of mostly reformed and presbyterians, would give us a to-the-point yet thorough understanding of the five Arminian points and the five counter-points against them.

 

Doulous said

Now I would like to see Sproul's quote verbatim. I bet he said something more akin to "you PROBABLY should dump it" - not so dictatorial.

 

Dunno, does it matter if I got my Bible from Burger King?

 

Sounds like a whopper to me.

 

Friends,

It was just 100 years ago that Albert Schweitzer,
a great theologian and missionary, published his
book on "The Quest for the Historical Jesus".

Schweitzer almost lost his faith over such a passage as Mark 8:38; Mark 9:1 and Sproul has become a partial Preterist over the same verses.

Of what time was Jesus speaking when He allowed
that "some would not taste death, by any means,
until they had seen God's kingdom having come in
power"? Did Jesus have John himself in mind when He answered Peter as to whether "John might live
until He comes" (meaning comes) IN POWER?

It took me 3 days of searching, 13 years ago in June of 1993, to find that "God's Kingdom is coming in Power" for 1260 days through the Two Witnesses before they join the "some who will not taste death until AFTER it comes in power and with Christ's authority". Rev.12:10-14.

Am I guilty of heresy because few share this discovery with me?

Mel Miller www.lastday.net

 

J. Jump asked:

Is this a true and acurate assessment? Should we always dump an interpretation if the church hasn't seen Scripture the way we have been led to see it?

Sounds like a good rule of thumb to me. Who am I compared to 2000 years of wisdom?

It's not inconceivable that someone might come up with a genuinely new and accurate interpretation of a biblical passage, but I'd want to see a darn good argument in its favour before I threw the consensus of the historic church under the bus.

 

Grasshopper asked:

Strange coming from Sproul. I wonder if he would have given Luther that advice?

From what I have read of Sproul, he would probably see Luther recovering the true faith that had been lost or obscured during the dominance of the Church of Rome.

For example, take a look at his book Willing to Believe some time to see where Luther fits in the historic debate over free will.

 

I know that Albert Schweitzer is considered a great humanitarian but 'theologian' and/or christian? I dont think so! Arent his 'christian' beliefs questionable?