Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

Ron, You said:
""But if it is so clear, why so much disagreement?""

This may sound like a circular argument but Satan is the reason their is so much disagreement. He has presented many options and folks ignore the Bible and bite on the options. Many fish bite on plastic worms because they look so real. Once the fish bites and gets hooked it realizes it was tricked but by then getting off the hook is not easy, not impossible, but very very difficult.

There is only one basic salvation difference that I have seen on this Board between Baptists, non denominationalits, etc... and that is whether Baptism is needed for salvation. It is one difference and the right answer is clear in scripture, i.e we are saved by grace, through our faith. The other differences I see are more superficial and would be equated to Peter and Paul's dispute. Hope that better explains my position.

Ron. Am I to understand that even the "skipper" of the boat has had to lean over the side before?

In Christ,
Brian

 

Greetings DHK:

These issues you mention, were not declared as dogma prior to this time for the simple reason that there was no argument against them up until that point. The "apocrypha" as you call them, were recognized by every Christian prior to the reformation. After Luther threw them out, the council of Trent made it clear that they were to remain in the bible. Later, when the reformers of the reformers denied the assumption of Mary, The Church officially declared this as dogma. Any search of the early fathers will support that this belief was held in the early centuries.

So you are asserting that Jesus did not appeal to His own divinity or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but only to Scripture? The problem with this is that Matthew is not attempting to specify the only source from which we are to make our appeal against the devil. Granted, on many occasions Jesus uses Scripture against the forces of evil, and rightly so, but not on every occasion. Many times He does appeal to His divinity, His miracles, and the Holy Spirit to fight the opposition against Him (John 5:32-47; 6:32-65; 7:16-19; 8:12-58, 10, 12, 14, 16). My point is just because Jesus calls Scripture as a witness against the devil in Matthew 4, one cannot therefore conclude that Jesus believed in sola scriptura. Would we say the devil believed in sola scriptura because he quoted verbatim to Jesus from Psalm 91:11? Of course not.

If you re-read my previous post, you will see that was my point.

This is not an accurate account of history. If you look into it, you will find that the debating over what books should or should'nt be included in the canon, was among Christians, not pagans or atheist.

 

"Doubtless thousands of infidels today really believe that the Council of Nice by some vote, or trick, or juggle, settled the canon of the Scriptures, and separated what they call the spurious Gospels from the genuine ones. But in fact no such thing was done at the Council of Nice; and in fact no such thing could have been done by any council, with any authority or effect. The votes of councils could no more settle the canon of the New Testament than the vote of a town council could decide what were the laws of a state or nation.
The early Christians read, and believed, and quoted the same books that we read, and believe, and quote, and in the same way that we believe and quote them; and they did this for generations before councils ever meddled with the subject; and the proofs of this fact are abundant and incontrovertible.
Robert Phillip repeats the following incident as received from the lips of John Campbell, the well-known African missionary and explorer, who said:
I remember distinctly an interesting anecdote referring to the late Sir David Dalrymple, better known to literary men abroad by his title of Lord Hailes, a Scottish judge. I had it from the late Rev. W. Buchanan, one of the ministers of Edinburgh. I took such interest in it that, though it must be about fifty years since he told it, I think I can almost relate it in Mr. Buchanans words:
"I was dining some time ago with a literary party at old Mr. Abercrombies, father of General Abercrombie, who was slain in Egypt at the head of the British army, and spending the evening together. A gentleman present put a question which puzzled the whole company. It was this: Supposing all the New Testaments in the world had been destroyed at the end of the third century, could their contents have been recovered from the writings of the first three centuries?
"The question was novel to all, and no one even hazarded a guess in answer to the inquiry. About two months after this meeting, I received a note from Lord Hailes, inviting me to breakfast with him next morning. He had been one of the party. During breakfast he asked me if I recollected the curious question about the possibility of recovering the contents of the New Testament from the writings of the first three centuries.
"I remember it well," said I, "and have thought of it often, without being able to form any opinion or conjecture on the subject."
"Well," said Lord Hailes, "that question quite accorded with the turn or taste of my antiquarian mind. On returning home, as I knew I had all the writings of those centuries, I began immediately to collect them, that I might set to work on the arduous task as soon as possible." Pointing to a table covered with papers, he said, "There have I been busy for these two months, searching for chapters, half-chapters and sentences of the New Testament, and have marked down what I have found, and where I found it, so that any person may examine and see for himself. I have actually discovered the whole New Testament from those writings, except seven (or eleven) verses (I forgot which), which satisfied me that I could discover them also. Now, here was a way in which God concealed or hid the treasure of his Word, that Julian, the apostate emperor, and other enemies of Christ who tried to extirpate the Gospels from the world, never would have thought of; and though they had, they never could have effected their destruction."
(Fundamentalist Baptist Library 2000)

I posted this to show that all the manuscripts were in place, and it was the early believers along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit that canonized the Scriptures. Many of us have a different view of the Church Fathers, and definately of those on the Church Councils, as to their qualifications, even to discern whether a book was inspired or not. By the opening paragraph of this quote it is obvious that David Cloud does. I would rather trust the early believers judgement in these matters than a council that debated it three centuries later.
DHK

 

You ignore historical documents from the first centuries, prior to the Council, which dispute which writings are/are not Scripture.

You can show no factual evidence that a single canon of Scripture was universally accepted, but rather rely upon speculation.

Please cite a single document prior to the Council which lists exactly the Books of the New Testament without additions or ommissions.

 

Hi Ron, Still waiting for your reply on "church" thread.

Also, when discussing the completion of the Bible you tend to sound as if God wasn't powerful enough to intervene and make happen what he saw fit. I may be off but it seems you lean heavy on "man" putting together the Bible and not God.

Take care,
In Christ,
Brian

[ December 18, 2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

Hi Brian,

Not sure what question you are referring to.

As for "man putting together the Bible and not God", the Bible did not just drop down from the sky. God used men to write and then recognize Scripture. We have historical evidence as to exactly who God used and when He used them.

If God saw fit to do it as He willed, what is the purpose in denying it?

Ron

[ December 18, 2002, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[ December 18, 2002, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Hi Ron, I had asked you on the other thread about the meaning of "churches" in the verse that says "As in all the churches of the saints".

As for this topic. We sound as we both believe that God was in control. I believe that God stayed in control and that is why The Bible in the widely accepted form it is in now is correct. Meaning KJV, NASB, etc... I believe the extra books in the Catholic Bible are not God's word or they would be in the versions that are used and produced the most in the world. I really think that God's Word is so important to God that he would protect it and draw us to it in its proper form. Just my logic take on it, no proof for it what-so-ever. Hey, at least I am honest

In Christ,
Brian

 

Bump - this came up on the "Someone shot santa" thread so I am moving it to the current section.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Does your Bible contain Acts 17? Did you notice how those non-believers in Christ were "checking out the apostolic teaching of Paul" to "See if those things were so"?

How would you do that today? How would you check out the direct verbal apostolic teaching of Paul (if he were to appear today)? The same way?

Some other way?

How about Gal 1:6-11 - if you hear a teaching today that differs from what you find in scripture do you really apply the apostolic teaching of Paul in Gal 1:6-11 and "let them be accursed"? If so, how do you do the comparison with "What had already been presented" to the Galations as the apostolic teaching directs?

Just curious.

In Christ,

Bob