Featured A Jehovah's Witness is at my Door!

You don't get it do you? In India there is evidence of William Carey in the 1700's.(sarcasm is intentional) Despite the fact that the Oldest Church in India is Catholic (Dating back to Thomas himself in their Tradition) and the next oldest is Orthodox is only proof to Biblicist that India didn't have real Christianity until William Carey. Persia follows the mystery religions, Ethiopia are heretics, and all the rest are false. Actual Documented history is irrelevant and so are any archeological finds. Because how Biblicist interpretation of Scripture also molds his view of world history. He holds that scripture acurately defines the "model of history" therefore any history not based in biblical "prophetic principles" of what he thinks the scripture tells him the early church should be is false. Its really a circular argument. I believe the infant church should look like how I interpret scripture to have described it, therefore any evidence to the contrary is false evidence because it doesn't support my presupposition. Circular.

 

Why are there so many Lutherans with differing beliefs?
Why are there so many Catholics with differing beliefs?

Don't kid yourself. There are many factions or sects within the Catholic Church with wide and varying beliefs, so divergent in their beliefs that Catholics like TS would not like to consider them as Catholics even though they still take the name as Catholics.

Also Luther, who believed in sola scriptura would be ashamed of you, turning in his grave even now, to hear you say the things you are saying.

In short, your argument holds no water.
Paul had to correct Peter.
Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement over John Mark.
Peter told his readers that some of Paul's epistles were hard to understand.
Jesus said of his own disciples that they were "slow of learning."

The Sanhedrin looked upon Peter and John, considered that they were "ignorant men," but noted "that they had been with Jesus."
I don't follow the church fathers. But I do know who I do follow.

 

The Catholic Church is united in doctrine. The problem is those people who call themselves catholic and decent from Catholic teaching are not really Catholic. Most of this like the Lutherans are based in social issues but those who decent from doctrinal issues aren't Catholic. They have their own belief and are stubborn enough not to align themselves with Catholic Teaching.

 

I will not speak too much about Lutheran doctrine except to say that I know that some of the churches that I am acquainted with are evangelical and some are completely apostate. That tells me there is a difference in doctrine without even going into statements of faith, etc. There are major differences of doctrine between evangelical and liberal churches. It is a difference between belief vs. unbelief.

Paul correcting Peter was not just practice. It had to do with doctrine as well. He had sided with "those of the circumcision," after the decision had already been settled in Acts 15. He had gone back to his old Judaic ways and been influenced by the legalistic Judaizers thus perverting the way of salvation. That is doctrinal, and doctrinal correction on the part of Paul.

I never used the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch. However it is a good example, and example which we follow to this day. It is an example of sola scriptura. The Eunuch was reading out of the Book of Isaiah. Philip came to the Eunuch and asked him "Do you understand what you read?" He replied, "How can I understand except some man show me?" Then Philip began at the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus. Philip did not rely on the Church Fathers, on Oral Tradition, etc. He relied on the Scriptures. He preached from the Scriptures Jesus. The gospel can clearly be found in the Book of Isaiah. Everything one needs to know about Christ is in the Book of Isaiah. Since Philip was already enlightened of the Holy Spirit he could show the Eunuch these things that he too might understand and be saved.

The disciples of Jesus are the mature Christians, not the disciples of the disciples of the disciples of the Apostles, who are the people that you are actually talking about. The inspired truths of God are written for us in the Scriptures, not in the uninspired writings of the Church Fathers, from whom much of the early heresies entered into Christianity. Thus, it would be a big mistake to go and rely on those writings that contain such error.

I depend on God's Word. Thorough study, proper hermeneutics, and study without bias along with guidance from the Holy Spirit gives one the truth. You see today the RCC takes the approach to the Scripture with the bias that the Catechism can't be wrong; the Pope can't be wrong; baptism is the new birth; etc. All of these presuppositions are already in place. Their mind is closed to the Scriptures before they even start.

Be like Adoniram Judson, a Congregationalist, and America's first foreign missionary. He was fluent in Greek. Half way across the Atlantic, while reading his Greek NT, he was so convicted of the Holy Spirit that "Baptidzo" meant "immerse" and that baptism was by immersion after faith in Christ, that he became a Baptist by conviction. He wrote back to the Congregational Church and testified of his decision, being convicted of the Holy Spirit to do the right thing and become a Baptist. Naturally he lost all of his support, and landed in India to meet Carey almost penniless. Did God provide for him? Yes, of course he did. He always provides for his own. But Judson was able to study the Word without bias, even the bias of his upbringing in the Congregational Church.

 

From reading your other posts AND in reading this post you still do NOT UNDERSTAND our position and are still misrepresenting it. I will note that continuing distortion a little further down. So you have NEVER approached scriptures the way I stated and it is obvious as you cannot even articulate it properly.

There are various beliefs among different Lutheran congregations. Within Lutheran congregations there are differences of views between individual members. The same can be said of Catholics. Eastern Orthodox Catholics versus Roman Catholics and then there are myrids of break away "Catholic" splits.

I do not know of any denomination on planet earth where there is 100% agreement in all interpretations or where there has never been a split over doctrine. Even among those who share the same confession of faith there are minor differences. I do not know of two individuals in the world who are 100% in agreement over every Bible statement, doctrine or teaching.

Baptists by the very name almost universally embrace believers immersion. Other commonalities are liberty of conscience, preisthood of the believer, sola scriptura as final authority in faith and practice, the triune God, incarnation, virign birth, full humanity and deity of Christ, separation of church and state and the list goes on. You are simply not very knowlegable of Baptists or Baptist History.

Again, you totally distort our approach to scripture by your circular reasoning analogy which is flawed and yet this your supposed "gotcha" proof.

Let me spell out clear for you where you can stop distorting our position.

1. We believe that the scriptures are SUFFICIENT and do PROVIDE all that is necessary for the believer to ascertain, doctrine, correction, reproof, instruction in ALL righteousness.

2. Part of that provision includes ESSENTIAL Biblical tests to discern between the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

3. Part of that provision includes essential rules of hermeutics

4. We believe the Scriptures are God's inspired Word provided in a contextual patternthat cannot be broken and is providentially preseved by God for all generations.


5. We believe that convictions of doctrine and practice are derived from studying the data provided by the self-defining contextual pattern of scripture and thus convictions are data driven and additionally confirmed by the Holy Spirit through harmonization of overall scripture.

In short, doctrine and practice are derived through an objective and rational study of the contextual data provided by Scriptures confirmed by comparing spiritual things with spiritual in keeping within the guidelines of Biblical guidelines and tests and as the conclusions are thus tested and tried and found solid, convictions are then the formed and inward confirmation of the Holy Spirit is the product of tried and tested truth.

Here is the difference. YOU go and sit at the feet and mouth of uninspired SECONDAR sources while WE go sit at the feet of PRIMARY INSPIRED sources. When John says "The Word was God" we go to Jesus, Paul, Isaiah, Peter,etc. and Let God's Word define God's Word - comparing spiritual things with spiritual things why you put your trust in fallible men as MEDIATORS between you and God's Word.

 

I think you are mistaken there. The Bible is our final authority in all things. I use other material. I would be foolish if I didn't. I consult commentaries, dictionaries, Greek and Hebrew reference works (have a library of over 2,000 books). But the Bible is my "final authority." Some would make Calvin or even Spurgeon their final authority. Perhaps they would be showing their spiritual immaturity in doing so. Most Baptists believe that the Bible is their final authority in all matters of faith and practice. I can't use it for a Math text or for Physics.

Where are you getting this stuff from? Who is telling you this? It sounds like gnosticism. I don't teach that. I do teach that the ECF are of little value, but I don't teach listening to an "inner voice" and I don't equate that to the Holy Spirit. Get your facts straight before you wrongly accuse.

I agree. Nowhere did I ever say otherwise.

It doesn't seem like you read my posts very often.
The unsaved cannot understand the word of God. They need enlightenment from others--those that are saved, those who have already been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. That is not the ECF. That is the function of the local church today. God has put in place local churches who preach and teach the Bible. These local churches have pastors, teachers, evangelists, that they may teach the people.

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
--A believer has the Spirit of God that he understands the Word of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
--The Ethiopian Eunuch (and all unsaved men) cannot understand the Bible and other spiritual things because he does not have the Spirit of God.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
--We don't have the apostles and prophets today. But we do have evangelists, pastors and teachers. They function in local churches.

Here is the reason why:
Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Your answer is explained above. I definitely don't believe that.

No it doesn't. You need to understand my position.

 

Then at least represent it correctly instead of consistently perverting it!

We have already put my Biblical based principle of interpretation to the test and seen the outcome. This is what happens when you as a Lutheran came at me with your infant baptism doctrine and I come at you with my Biblical based principles of interpetation.

Do you remember the consequence? YOU HAD TO FLEE THE BIBLE AS FINAL AUTHORITY to sustain your non-biblical doctrine of infant baptism. You fled to uninspired sources and that is why we are now in this very discussion!

JUST LIKE THE MORMON's doctrine of "burning in the bosom" FORCED them to FLEE the Bible to confirm their non-Biblical doctrine. False doctrine is always the consequence of one of two failures. Failure to abide by the basic rules of interpretation. Failure to recognize Scripture as final authority for doctrine and practice.

Not true! The basic rules are the same. The problem is that those with false doctrine ALWAYS DO NOT FOLLOW THOSE RULES when it comes to their particular false doctrine. False doctrine is ALWAYS the failure to follow basic rules of hermeneutics and/or the failure to recognize scripture as final authority.

 

Apostle john said INDIVIDUAL Chrsitians ALL have the unction/annoiting from the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them into truth...

Paul says the Spirit intercedes for us, that He has the mind of God, reveals the deep things of God to us...

When did He stop the work of Illuminating the Bible to each one of us, and turn it overto an organzational set up, to a church body/group?

 

There are literally THOUSANDS that approach this issue the same way I do. Hence, this is not an INDIVIDUALIZED approach to scripture. There are THOUSANDS in our past history that approached it by the same hermeneutics. They are found among Baptistic types or anti-sacramental types of Bible interpreters and they are in agreement.