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!
Good idea.DHK,
From here, I'll attempt to move on to the other things you've brought up recently (including the reading recommendations, etc.). But like you and BobRyan have suggested, we should probably work to direct this conversation toward the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:
You said: I hope we can agree here. Islam is a different religion, with a different "sacred scriptures," a different way to "heaven" or paradise, and they worship a different god called Allah. It is a different religion completely.
But that is as far as it goes. There is a matter of linguistics, and second a matter of "professing."A response: Islam is certainly a different religion. The Koran, what Muslims hold to be divinely revealed “Scripture,” is not Scripture at all. Islam doesn’t present “the Way” to Heaven. It is indeed an entirely different religious system. As far as the word “Allah” is concerned, though, Arabic Christians worship Allah, too. The Arabic word for God is, after all, “Allah.” So from a linguistic perspective, the word Allah, itself, refers to the One God, Creator of Heaven and Earth. In a carefully qualified sense, Muslims, as the Catechism says “acknowledge the Creator” and “profess to hold the faith of Abraham…”
And this is why doctrine derived from sola scriptura is so important.Together, with us, then, in a carefully qualified way, it can be said that they “adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” The Catholic qualifications associated with this teaching are less about a right theology and more about the brokenness of humankind due to sin. They have nothing to do with God’s immutable nature. And everything to do with human conceptions of God, which, apart from special revelation are shrouded in mystery. The article here (which I believe was written by a non-Catholic Christian) speaks to this issue quite thoughtfully and reasonably, I’d say.
You continued: “Catholic salvation… runs contrary to the Bible… We come to know his son through the Word.” These are the two most important points listed here that need to be discussed. Obviously there is disagreement.
The RCC has a Catechism whereby we know its teachings and can thereby judge them clearly.A response: To reach the conclusion that Catholic salvation "runs contrary to the Bible," one must first view the Catholic Church not as a teacher, but as something to be judged, evaluated, and if necessary, condemned. In other words, in order to conclude that the Catholic Church teaches a false Gospel, one must presuppose that such a thing is possible.
After 20 years in the RCC, I was saved by the grace of God through faith in His work on the cross.That leap, far from being required or justified by the Bible itself, is a leap made according to one’s tradition, philosophy, understanding of history, and often, prejudice. It also represents a classic case of begging the question.
You continued, saying: “The Son is defined for and speaks to us through His Word.” This is the Biblical position (Heb.1:1,2). It needs to be discussed more.
The incarnate Christ left this world at the time of His Ascension ca. 29 A.D. So that point is moot.A response: Yes. The Catholic Church has always taught this. It's good to see that you hold to this Catholic teaching. The Church has never taught, though, that Christ is *only* revealed to us through His Word. To claim this much is to add to Scripture, to cling to a tradition of men as though it were the bona fide Word of God. In truth, this, like so many other matters, isn’t an “either-or” situation. Christ is revealed to us both through Scripture and the Incarnation.
When you define "Church" as the RCC you are simply speaking of mysticism and superstition, and are not "rightly dividing the word of truth." You cannot explain how and why Christ would do what you just claimed. It is not possible.He’s revealed to us both through Scripture and through the Church, “which is his body,
You are quoting Eph.1:23 and then saying it is talking about the prophets, Christ and his miracles. Not so. That is not the meaning at all. You didn't even know where in the Bible you were quoting from!and the fulness of him which is filled all in all.” He’s revealed to us both through the prophets and through His miracles.
I don't limit God, but God limits Himself. He once spoke to us through his prophets. Then when the OT canon was complete there was a period of 400 years when God was silent and spoke to no one. That is the 400 inter-testamental period. Then suddenly John the Baptist appears, who is called the last of the OT prophets, and the fore-runner of Christ. The gospels tell us the history of Christ and the disciples, and Acts gives us the history of acts of the apostles from Pentecost onward as they started churches and ministered. Doctrinal epistles followed. With the Book of Revelation, the canon of Scripture was closed, and God has now finished speaking. He has given us all the revelation we need to know about Himself and salvation.It is a desperate fundamentalism, whether it's Islamic, Mormon, or Christian, which is often bent on self-assurance, that fashions for itself the black and white paradigms by which it purports to, in God’s place, distinguish the sheep from the goats. For you to limit the mode of divine revelation of Christ to Scripture alone is, as I’ve said many times now, is to contradict and even defy the very Scriptures you purport to uphold. It is, again, a most unBiblical form of Biblicism which goes so far to desperately maintain itself as to contradict its own principle of existence.
You continued: “The apocryphal books, put in the OT canon, were never accepted by the Jews… The Jewish canon was completed by 450 B.C… The oldest of those books is 250 B.C., and some of them were written either during or after the time of Christ… How is it possible that these are OT books, or should be put in a canon of Scripture that was closed in 450 B.C.?.. The OT Canon, given to the Israelites, quoted by Jesus was written in Hebrew. Those are the books inspired of God… All the Apocryphal books were written in Greek. That would disqualify them immediately” All of the above focuses around the Canon of Scripture and whether the Apocrypha was ever recognized as part of it.
Concerning sola scriptura, we call that "internal evidence" whether or not these books should be accepted.A response: Again, there is a great irony in the fact that all the reasoning, history, philosophy, and attempt at rational analysis above is itself extraBiblical and thus in violation of the principle of Sola Scriptura. So it is that in the process of seeking to uphold what you wish to uphold (Sola Scriptura) you must violate the very principle you’re seeking to uphold. Before we even begin to discuss the legitimacy of the above claims, that patent fact must be acknowledged. For one shouldn’t criticize another for swaying from the Bible when he himself sways from the Bible to justify his initial criticism. This particular point speaks to the centrality of this question to this discussion. For if Sola Scriptura falls, then the rest of your tradition will collapse with it. What will remain there, though, is the Incarnation of Christ and the Church He established- a Church you don’t recognize on account of the Biblicist Tradition you’ve chosen to accept.
You continued: “The Magesterium (sic) is made up of fallible sinful men who came up with a document...I can show you from Scripture that Peter was never in Rome as the RCC claims… He was never there as a bishop or in any place of leadership in any church. Thus the very foundation of the RCC lies in question.” The above points, though a bit varied have to do with authority. Who or what is the authority in our lives?
You want to believe that. But it is not true. It is the only divine authority that we have and ever have had. It is the measure of authority that the Jews had and were constantly told to measure all things.A response: This passage, like most or all of the others you’ve presented, hinges upon the unBiblical notion that the Scriptures should be looked to as an encyclopedia of Christian doctrine. This is why, recently, I kept re-pasting that comment from David Anders concerning Sola Scriptura. As he said, we Catholics don’t hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because, simply put, it has not been revealed by God Almighty.
I have previously demonstrated the Trinity, and I have just demonstrated sola scriptura.For that matter, no Christian held to it prior to the Reformation Era. We are, thus, not bound to it as followers of Christ. Neither did a prophet or a miracle, nor did the Lord Himself reveal the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to us. You’ve acknowledged that fact by saying that the doctrine is recognized as valid in a manner similar to the way by which we recognize the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. There are a few problems with that analogue, though, which we might have the chance to discuss soon.
You are quoting Eph.1:23 and then saying it is talking about the prophets, Christ and his miracles. Not so. That is not the meaning at all. You didn't even know where in the Bible you were quoting from!
It was this statement that was confusing to meDHK,
I am working through the material you've shared. But I must quickly jump in to respond to this. You must be sure that you understand a person correctly before you can criticize his position. In this case, I wasn't implying that Ephesians 1:23 was "talking about the prophets, Christ and his miracles." The two points I made were separate. First I was talking about Scripture and the Church and next I was talking about prophets and Christ's miracles. Maybe I wasn't very clear. Maybe you just misunderstood me. Either way, I do indeed know the context and location of my Biblical reference.
I feel like this is just starting to get interesting! Thanks for conversing with me in this way!
Herbert
We "fundamental" Christians (Baptists) are not desperate, neither should we be put in the same class as Mormons or Muslims.
In the first line because "Church" is capitalized, it is assumed you refer to "The Church" particularly the RCC, which has nothing to do with the audience to whom Paul is writing to. Of course the difference is a difference in our outlook in our ecclesiology. Generally speaking I take the scriptures much more literally.
DHK,
...
You continued: “The Magesterium (sic) is made up of fallible sinful men who came up with a document...I can show you from Scripture that Peter was never in Rome as the RCC claims… He was never there as a bishop or in any place of leadership in any church. Thus the very foundation of the RCC lies in question.” The above points, though a bit varied have to do with authority. Who or what is the authority in our lives?
A response: This passage, like most or all of the others you’ve presented, hinges upon the unBiblical notion that the Scriptures should be looked to as an encyclopedia of Christian doctrine. This is why, recently, I kept re-pasting that comment from David Anders concerning Sola Scriptura. As he said, we Catholics don’t hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because, simply put, it has not been revealed by God Almighty. For that matter, no Christian held to it prior to the Reformation Era. We are, thus, not bound to it as followers of Christ. Neither did a prophet or a miracle, nor did the Lord Himself reveal the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to us. You’ve acknowledged that fact by saying that the doctrine is recognized as valid in a manner similar to the way by which we recognize the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. There are a few problems with that analogue, though, which we might have the chance to discuss soon.
In Him,
Herbert
I don't know it for a fact - but I presume that you have quoted "David Anders personal opinion" well.
Next - we need to look at the actual details in those texts - to "see IF those things are so" that are being claimed against the Bible teaching of testing all doctrine, tradition, practice against what we find in the actual Bible. Perhaps we should go through them one by one.
My definition of sola scriptura is a bit different than that of the Reformers. It has been refined by the Baptists.Finally, (and if you're reading this, DHK, could you do the same) could you present a "definition" of Sola Scriptura that you find to clearly express the doctrine as you understand it? I think that will help us discuss things fruitfully, as well. That way I know exactly what you mean when you say "Sola Scriptura."
BobRyan-
Thanks for the comment. As you know, I am trying to keep up with DHK. But you're right, it is my hope that we can eventually settle into a conversation focusing upon Sola Scriptura. A good place to start that conversation would probably be with the Geisler article that DHK shared a little while back. It is found here: http://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/
How about we start there?
As far as the opinion of David Anders goes, he's making a claim which either is or is not true. Earlier on in this thread DHK acknowledged that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine we recognize in a manner similar to the way we recognize the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Such a "binding inference" if we can call it that is a far cry from a clear explication of the doctrine being presented in the Scripture itself.
Further, either the position Anders holds is or is not true. If you say it's not true, it should be quite easy to demonstrate the falsity of his claim. Let's look again at what he said:
"The Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is not an article of faith in the Christian religion because it has not been revealed by divine authority."
Stated differently, no divine authority – Not Christ, not a prophet, not God himself, and not even the Bible – has identified the canon of scripture (whatever that might be) as the Church’s Rule of Faith."
Herbert - I don't think that is correct.
For example when "proving the Trinity" sola scriptura - to Jehovah's Witnesses we use "the bible and the Bible only". THEY on the other hand wish to make the Catholic argument that we would 'need the RCC' to show the Trinity. But in fact not a single quote from the RCC is used -- only the Bible.
Your argument is in essence 'that should not be possible' - we should not be able to show the Trinity - "sola scriptura" from the Bible to JW's - yet this is what we do all the time.
And it is even easier in the case of "Sola Scriptura" itself because you can see it in six texts - over and over and over again. A position that you "as a Baptist" would have had a hard time denying.
That is a bait-and-switch.
Your argument is 'they should have said - there is no such thing as that - we don't know what scripture is".
Yet Josephus claimed that they did know what it is - and that the Canon of the OT had been "closed" for over 400 years by the time of Christ.
That short list of texts of course --
Mark 7:6-13 is found in the Bible.
Isaiah 8:20 is found in the Bible.
Gal 1:6-9 is found in the Bible.
Acts 17:11 - is found in the Bible.
which you have not yet addressed in your focus on "sola scriptura" points.
For the record, I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is deducible from Scripture and I don't think that anything I've said would indicate otherwise. But arriving at that doctrine is indeed dependent upon the right interpretations of various verses being reached.
I
Again, BobRyan, I am just asking that you present a quick summary of your view of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura so that I am actually addressing what it is you believe rather than something that I imagine you to likely believe.
To suggest that I've committed some sort of bait-and-switch is to suggest that I am deliberately attempting to deceive. Please believe me when I say I am not. What have I to prove? Most everybody here (of the what, three or so people who may be following this discussion) already don't believe what I believe. Further, I keep coming back for more. So if I were trying to deceive, it is likely that my attempts at deception would be revealed as this conversation proceeds. Instead of baiting and switching anything, I am genuinely attempting to discuss these matters at length. DHK notified me of the policy here concerning links to apologetics sites and articles. I've respected that rule. Further, I have attempted to be as charitable as possible throughout the time I've spent here. Yet, as I said, I keep coming back.
I don't know, BobRyan, before I am going to take the testimony of Flavius Josephus too seriously, you're going to have to reveal to me why it is that I should take the testimony of a first-century Jew over the testimony of the Christian Church.
I don't look to non-Christians as authorities for the Christian faith.
Certainly Josephus, having died at about AD 100, wouldn't have considered the Apostles' writings to be Scripture, anyways. Yet we both do. So it is that you yourself are only appealing to him selectively and not as a truly dependable source. Further, had Josephus's father, Matthias, come from a lineage of Sadducees, he'd have likely acknowledged the Pentateuch and the Pentateuch alone as valid Scripture.
The Word of God is a standard. All things were and are measured by it. It has always been that way.
It has only been recently that people add to it.
The RCC teach: the Bible plus Oral Tradition.
The Mormons teach: the Bible plus the Book of Mormon.
The J.W.'s teach: the Bible plus the teachings of Charles Taze Russell.
The SDA's teach the Bible plus the teachings of Ellen G. White.
Then, when John wrote the "Book of Revelation" ca. 98 A.D. all revelation ceased. The canon of scripture was complete. Those who claim they have direct revelation from God now are false prophets/prophetesses. There are no such people--not in the RCC, the SDA, nor the J.W.'s, the Mormon's, not with Jim Jones, or the Moonies, nor with various Charismatics or their many leaders such as Benny Hinn, or Kenneth Copeland, etc.In 1 Cor 14 "the Bible says" that when the church came together - fully gifted by the Holy Spirit "each one had a revelation" - but "each one" was not also "Writing scripture" even though they had prophets and each one had a revelation.
Paul was an apostle. He lived during apostolic times. He spoke with the authority of an apostle. No one after that time, that is the first century could make the same claim.In several of Paul's letters he refers to 'other letters' that he had written that were not "also included in scripture" that we have today.
Those Bereans in Acts 17:11 used only the OT.None of these examples were considered by NT writers as violating the canon of scripture. Rather it is the bible teaching on inspiration and prophecy - which does not at all contradict Acts 17:11 even though much more scripture would ALSO be written after Acts 17:11.
"WE"??So my reason for rejecting those in that list that are in error is because of the actual error that they teach - not because "they exist". For example in 1 John 4 we are not told 'reject the prophets they are all false - anyone claiming to be a prophet must be in error" - rather we are told to 'test the prophets'.