Why did the RC Church add book at trent if the Canon is "closed."

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
I don't really know what you're problem is. You can more easily "interpret" a more difficult book such as one of Shakespeare's works (say Romeo and Juliet), than you can the Bible.

DHK, given the multitude of interpretations that are at variance with your personal infallible interpretation, all supposedly backed up by comparing Scripture to Scripture, in historical context, yada yada....

How do you know for certain that yours is correct? </font>[/QUOTE]I have answered your question before. If I answer it again will you accept my answer this time?
1. I accept the Bible as my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. That eliminates any other source such as Oral Tradition, Church Canons, the Book of Mormon, etc.
2. I take the Bible literally except in places where the Bible itself specifically indicates otherwise such as in parables.
3. The Bible commands us to rightly divide the Word of Truth. It means that the Scripture harmonizes with each other, not contradicts.
4. The Bible is not meant to be allegorized any more than Shakespeare is. The word "history" came from His Story. It is God's Revelation to mankind. It is not hard to understand.

Furthermore if you had taken my initial challenge, and did a search on IFB church websites you would see that what you call "my interpretation" is no different from thousands of others who follow the same type of hermeneutics and exegesis that I do. We simply believe the Bible. It is not a hard concept.
DHK

 

[frozencell]

It's also not a hard concept to understand that he was asking you how you know your IFB interpretation is the right one over all of the other myriad Protestant interpretations.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by frozencell:
It's also not a hard concept to understand that he was asking you how you know your IFB interpretation is the right one over all of the other myriad Protestant interpretations.

If you haven't gotten it by now, what more can I say. I am not going to answer it again.
DHK

 

[neal4christ]

I still haven't "gotten" it.

Stick 10 Baptists in a room and ask their opinion on something and get 11 answers!

Seriously, it does bother me personally that there is such a vast array of folks claiming their interpretation is THE one.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
1. I accept the Bible as my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. That eliminates any other source such as Oral Tradition, Church Canons, the Book of Mormon, etc.

As do many others who disagree with you.

2. I take the Bible literally except in places where the Bible itself specifically indicates otherwise such as in parables.

This requires for you to decide what is literal and what is not. Take our other discussion concerning the Second Coming. You take "the nations" to mean literal geo-political nations. It could just as easily, and in keeping with the language of biblical times, mean "all people".

You decide that it is literally geo-political nations and then begin the task of interpreting the remaining text based on that assumption.

3. The Bible commands us to rightly divide the Word of Truth. It means that the Scripture harmonizes with each other, not contradicts.

And having made a decision as to a meaning of a particular word or verse, you go about your task of "harmonizing". You then decide that this or that must be symbolic in order to harmonize with your previous assumptions.

4. The Bible is not meant to be allegorized any more than Shakespeare is. The word "history" came from His Story. It is God's Revelation to mankind. It is not hard to understand.

And yet that is excatly what you do when it suits your preconceived ideas.

Furthermore if you had taken my initial challenge, and did a search on IFB church websites you would see that what you call "my interpretation" is no different from thousands of others who follow the same type of hermeneutics and exegesis that I do. We simply believe the Bible. It is not a hard concept.
DHK [/QB]

Your challenge is to look at the beliefs of those who agree with you and see that they agree with you.

Which icon is the one that makes the raspberry sound?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
I still haven't "gotten" it.

Stick 10 Baptists in a room and ask their opinion on something and get 11 answers!

Seriously, it does bother me personally that there is such a vast array of folks claiming their interpretation is THE one.

In Christ,
Neal

Neal, my challenge to them was to do a search on IFB church websites and examine their statement of faiths, and see how similar each of them are. I am sure that most IFB statements of Faiith I could agree with.
I am not speaking of such things as who the two witnesses are in Revelation 11, and if they prophesy in the first half of the Tribulation or the second half, OR
If the sons of God in Genesis 6 are fallen angels or men of the line of Cain, OR,
on which day Jesus was crucified.
These are non-issues. They are interesting to study and discuss, but you won't find them in anyone's statement of faith. They may be areas where, as you say, you will find dozens of Baptists disagree. But on that which is written in IFB church's statements of faith, there is rarely any disagreement.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
Neal, my challenge to them was to do a search on IFB church websites and examine their statement of faiths, and see how similar each of them are. I am sure that most IFB statements of Faiith I could agree with.

In other words, go to websites that agree with you and see if they agree with you.

How about non-IFB bible only churches?

You want to issue that challenge?

Jehovah Witnesses
Seventh Day Adventist
Penticostals

Well you get the idea. They are all sola scriptura. They just have a different interpretation. And they would defend it the same way that you do. Scripture against Scipture. Guided by the Holy Spirit.

So why are you right while they are wrong?

 

[neal4christ]

And Methodists, Presbyterians, SBCs, Cooperative Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Primitive Baptists, and Anglicans, just to name a few? That is my concern, DHK; not just IFBs. Even amongst IFBs there is probably some disagreement, especially when it comes to KJVO, which is the most important doctrine for some IFBs (listed at the top of the doctrinal statements). That seems to be foundational for some groups, yet there is disagreement on that.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:

Originally posted by DHK:
1. I accept the Bible as my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. That eliminates any other source such as Oral Tradition, Church Canons, the Book of Mormon, etc.

As do many others who disagree with you.

First I limited myself to IFB churches. Second I limited myself to their statements of faith. In those I find little if no disagreement.

2. I take the Bible literally except in places where the Bible itself specifically indicates otherwise such as in parables.

This requires for you to decide what is literal and what is not. Take our other discussion concerning the Second Coming. You take "the nations" to mean literal geo-political nations. It could just as easily, and in keeping with the language of biblical times, mean "all people".

You decide that it is literally geo-political nations and then begin the task of interpreting the remaining text based on that assumption.

I have been studying the Bible most of my life, and have been teaching it for a good part of it as well. The Catholics on this board spend their time studying their Cathechism and dogmas of the Catholic Church. Who is more qualified in the interpretation of the Bible?
You said, according to your interpretation, that it simply could mean "all people," but yet Jesus clearly states that he separates the nations, not just all people. It is a judgement of all the nations, not all the people. All the unsaved people will be judged at the Great White Throne Judgement (Rev.20:11-15), and the saved at the Judgement Seat of Christ (1Cor.3:11-15). There is more than one judgement spoken of in the Bible.

And though I have stated so (about the judgement of nations), you still won't find that in IFB church's statements of faith.

3. The Bible commands us to rightly divide the Word of Truth. It means that the Scripture harmonizes with each other, not contradicts.

And having made a decision as to a meaning of a particular word or verse, you go about your task of "harmonizing". You then decide that this or that must be symbolic in order to harmonize with your previous assumptions.

Go back to the thread on the perpetual virgin Mary. I have you and all the other Catholics backed into a corner wher you have no answer. The thread was eventually dropped for that reason. I compared Scripture with Scripture, and words with their proper meanings. There is a proper meaning for the word adelphos--brother. There is also a specific word for cousin, which the Holy Spirit did not use in Mat. 13:55. That among other arguments provided an unanwerable argument that you had nothing to come back with. Compare Scripture with Scripture. Look at the words and see their meaning, and you will come up with the right interpretation or meaning. "Rightly divide the word of truth."

4. The Bible is not meant to be allegorized any more than Shakespeare is. The word "history" came from His Story. It is God's Revelation to mankind. It is not hard to understand.

And yet that is excatly what you do when it suits your preconceived ideas.

Perhaps you forget or don't know my background. I wasn't a Baptist "on purpose." I was a Catholic for 20 years. I got saved when the gospel was presented to me through an interdenominational organization working on the campuses of universities such as Campus Crusade. I wasn't really encouraged to go a church of any kind. Soon after I had an occupation that isolated me from others. It was then that I was able to find time to study my Bible. Studying my Bible on my own I found how greatly the Catholic Church doctrine disagreed with the Bible. I had to make a decision whether to follow what the Bible taught or what the Catholic Church taught. I could not conscientiously follow both. They were at odds with each other, contradicting each other. I chose to follow the Bible. I read the Bible without any presuppostions. I didn't have any. The only presuppositions I could possibly have was Catholic, that which I had been indoctrinated with for the past 20 years. Now I was able to read the Bible for the first time in my life. As a Catholic I had not been permitted to do so. The Bible was new to me. I had never even owned one. My beliefs came originally from that time period--no presuppositions involved.

Furthermore if you had taken my initial challenge, and did a search on IFB church websites you would see that what you call "my interpretation" is no different from thousands of others who follow the same type of hermeneutics and exegesis that I do. We simply believe the Bible. It is not a hard concept.
DHK

Your challenge is to look at the beliefs of those who agree with you and see that they agree with you.

This is what you don't get. We are not a demonitation. We are not associated with each other in any way. We don't have the same creed, such as Lutherans do. We don't have a catechism to follow such as Catholics do. We are not even organized to the level of the SBC. We are totally independent and autonomous, havinng nothing to do with each other, and in most cases never having heard of each other, and yet believing the same things.
How does a man go and start a church and end up believing the same that you do? He believes the Bible and that is all.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

DHK, you are demonstrating very convoluted logic here.

A church identifies itself as IFB because they hold certain beliefs and choose to associate with other churches holding the same beliefs.

You then want to take this voluntary association based on similar beliefs as proof that your beliefs are right because someone else believes the same thing.

It means nothing and proves nothing.

 

[neal4christ]

DHK,

You totally miss the point. IFBs, like the other groups that have been listed between Ron and I, all use sola scriptura. How is it they arrive at such different conclusions on very basic issues?

IFBs, in my general experience, tend to be so autonomous that they become isolationists, which I do not see as being what Jesus wanted. However, the one I was a member of was not that bad. We were a part of what I believe was called the IFCA (?), which if I am not mistaken, was not a "denomination," but very much a confederation of sorts identifying like minded groups together, which I see as vaguely similar to the SBC, but they won't call themselves a denomination.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[DHK]

T2U and Neal,
You will have to be more specific in your question then? Who do you want me to compare IFBers to? Go ahead and name the groups. Lutherans, Presbyterians, J.W.'s SDA's Moonies, Hindus, Catholics, Mormons, Anglicans?? Who?
Perhaps your misunderstanding is in what a Baptist is. But in a round about way I have already tried to explain that to you, by describing some of the principles that we hold to when interpreting Scripture. But there is more. If I listed all 8 Baptist distinctives which distinguish us from other protestants/religions, then you would have a better idea why we would consider our interpretation is correct.
DHK

[ March 19, 2004, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[neal4christ]

DHK,

To my knowledge all of these Protestant groups that have been listed use sola scriptura. Why all the disagreement then amongst them if they use the same rule for governing their interpretations?

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. By the way, I am a Baptist and you would not agree with some of the things the SBC believes and teaches, I would suppose.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
DHK,

To my knowledge all of these Protestant groups that have been listed use sola scriptura. Why all the disagreement then amongst them if they use the same rule for governing their interpretations?

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. By the way, I am a Baptist and you would not agree with some of the things the SBC believes and teaches, I would suppose.

Many of them, if not all of them, don't use sola scriptura though some say they do.
For example Bob Ryan is a SDA. He claims sola scriptura. Yet the SDA's would not exist without Ellen G. White and her writings. Thus the SDA movement has another authority other than the Bible. I appreciate Bob and the way that he does exegete the Bible, not referring to White's writings in his defence of doctrinal issues. Nevertheless one must look at the organization itself.

Every cult has its authority as the Mormon's have the book of Mormon.

Almost every Protestant church that I know of also has an authority. They may claim sola scriptura to an extent, but then their denomination takes over.
Many have a creed that they adhere to, that is the creed of the entire denomination. Was it one Methodist church, or the Methodist Church as a whole that came out publicly in favor of gays? Do the Presbyterians as a whole believe in infant baptism, or does each Presbyterian church have soul liberty to decide for itself what the Scripture teaches? What about the mode of baptism: sprinkling, pouring, immersion? Who can be baptized: infants, believers or unbelievers? The denomination decides, not the local church. It is even that way in the SBC to some extent. The SBC reserves the right to discipline any church that does not fall within the parameters that it has set. It is a denomination in its own right.

Denomination is not found in the Bible. Paul established over one hundred churches on three missonary journeys, but never one denomination. The churches were never organized together or associated together as the RCC would have us believe. In the Book of Revelation we find Jesus writing 7 letters to the angels (messengers) or pastors of 7 different churches in 7 different areas, all having distinct characteristics. Jesus gives no indication that these churches were connected in one denomination. They weren't. There is no denomination in the Bible. All churches were independent and autonomous. The very word "church" simply means "congregation" or "assembly." From the definition of the word alone one could never establish the concept of a denomination. Thus the Methodist Church or the Catholic Church are wrongly used terms (Biblically). A church is a local assembly or congregation according to the Bible.

Words have meanings. When you study the Bible and find out what the words mean, you find out the truth. There was a reason why Adoniram Judson, America's first foreign missionary--when sent out from the Congregational church to India lost all his support from said church. When studying his Bible on the way across the Atlantic (he was fluent in Greek), he came to the conclusion that the Greek word baptidzo could mean nothing else but immersion, and that baptism was by immersion after salvation. He wrote back to the Congregational church, told them of his conviction, and they consequently dropped his support. He landed in India without support. He soon went on to Burma and became one of the greatest missionaries in modern missions. He became at that point a Baptist, and was eventually supported by the Baptists. He beleived in sola scriptura. But what about the Congregational Church? Apparently not.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
[QB] T2U and Neal,
You will have to be more specific in your question then? Who do you want me to compare IFBers to?

I am not asking you to comapre IFB to anything.

I want to know how it is that you know that your interpretation of Scripture and your beliefs are right when every reason that you list is also given by others who believe very differently from you.

 

[BalmofGilead]

I may not be getting the jist of this thread, but my pastor put it this way...

There are 66 books in the Bible and 66 chapters in Isaiah. Isaiah's chapters closely represent the books of the Bible and therefore those 66 books of the Bible are the complete Word's of God. Not playing on any numerology or anything, but take a look at it. Neat!