Sola Scriptura: Put up or Shut Up

Does the fact that you do not accept the presence of a principle or application of a principle mean that the principle or application is non-existent? Is it possible that your understanding is incorrect, and the principle does exist and should be preached and your understanding should be corrected?

 

Well as much as is within us... Believing in God offends many in America. Add being a Baptist believer and you working on offending the majority of Americans.


HankD

 

I'll venture to say that the substitutionary atonement is the essence of our religion.

 

The imaginations of men are evil continuously. All photographs create an imagined response of the scene in our minds. Whether or not it's pornographic. If we see a scene in our imagination and look at it with lust in our hearts. How could it be any different than looking at someone physically?

I use the KJV but that doesn't make me an old fashion Christian. It doesn't make me KJV only either. I'm glad to see anyone read the Bible no matter what version. The sad fact is there isn't enough people who read it. Most just carry there's to church.

There does seem to be less and less who come to the evening services. Should we hold them if no one comes? Or better yet should we hold them if only one person comes? Any time the gospel is offered I would hope that God would provide those who need to hear it most.
After all it is God who gives the increase.

 

Perhaps it is and you have missed do to cultural situatedness, your personal biases, your intellectual limitations, your lack of historical or cultural knowledge, the noetic affects of sin, etc.

How about the man who fails to preach the whole counsel of God? That is equally bad, and perhaps, in some ways worse because it deprives God's people of the very thing that they need -- instruction from God.

 

Excellent point PL. :thumbs:

 

True expository preaching is the Church's greatest need. Not what passes for it nowadays. But real preaching that is always expository, hermeneutically wedded to the text.

 

The verse actually means: Abstain from every form of evil. It has nothing to do with "appearance," but you would have to know Greek or read another translation other than the KJV to know that.

 

So say YOU, however, once again Luke, You and I Disagree. I think he made a good point, it really matters not to me, that you dismiss it.

 

My "point" was not because "YOU" said it, but because, and you are demonstrating now, the attitude so often expressed by "hyper-confidence" in ones positions.

You are exactly right (generally speaking), when speaking of truth or fact "it does not matter how one thinks or feels" absolute truth and absolute fact are exactly that. We (you and me included) are fallible men, and no matter how confidently "we" feel about many things, we do not KNOW with absolute veracity whether our respective position is in fact absolute truth. The point he was making, and I agree with, is no matter how loudly you shout, or how much you deride me, or how eloquently you proclaim it, your "take" on the "truth" of a position, may in fact be incorrect, it MAY also be correct. It is the "attitude" to which I respond. If you want the "snipping" to continue, so be it. Eventually, I will grow tired of regressing to the "time in my life" when I "knew ALL the answers." I have numerous friends in the faith who are "reformed" in their theology and yet WE have wonderful respect for one another.

So again, I say, the sentiment (point) I found (interpreted) being expressed by Pastor Larry was valid and yes it was NOT POINTLESS.

 

So misrepresenting God by failing to say what God did say is not worse than misrepresenting him by saying what he did not say? Got any Bible for that one? Or you make that up?

I happen to think they are both equally wrong. The responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God is just that. We don't get to leave parts out. It is just as bad to omit something as to add something.

If you preach that God has condemned sleeping with your wife while she is on her period in this age, you are not preaching the whole counsel of God because you have missed the part where it says, "We are not under Law." Of course that demonstrates a fundamental issue here in this whole discussion which is simply that you don't really think about what you are saying.

I totally oppose preaching the traditions of men as commandments of God, at least as much if not more than you do.

I agree. But a sinful brother is one who does not have a problem with things God has condemned. And the fact is that God does not expect us to bury our heads in the sand. We are to understand what "things like these" are in Gal 5:21. Based on Scripture, you will not be able to say, "I didn't have a specific verse for it." God will say, "You should have known what 'things like these' were."

I am not jostling for intellectual high ground. I don't have a problem with things God has not condemned.

You won't last long in your supposed PhD work if you miss simple things like question marks. It was a question, yes designed to make a point, but it wasn't a "hurled, unfounded, unsubstantiated accusation." You would get eaten up in any seminar I was ever in. This would never pass muster.

Logical fallacy. A good point does not need specific examples and persuasive evidence. A good point is a good point when it is a good point. You are confusing points with evidence for points.

I could offer lots of examples, such as people who argued that interracial marriage was sinful. They meant well, but their minds were blinded by cultural situatedness and noetic sin.

Again, that's simply not true. An point is a point, whether it is specific or not. And again, it may simply be the case (and here it probably is) that you simply don't understand the point that was being made.

Here's the main point: How in the world can you say categorically that God has nothing to say about an issue unless you know everything and unless your thinking is completely untainted by sin, cultural situatedness, personal experience, bias, background, and the like?

Are you prepared to say that you know it all? I'm not. That's why I have not been dogmatic. I doubt you would say you know it all, but you act like it. You act like there is no possibility you are wrong. I think that is very unwise way to act, and I am determined not to (which is why I have tried to present things as questions).

If you will grant that you don't know it all, how do you know that what you don't know might be something that would change your mind on this issue?

I think you have bought into a vain philosophy that isn't built on Jesus. And I think that is dangerous.

But more importantly, I think you treat people here with disrespect if they don't agree with you. Here you went on a pretty blatant personal attack, which doesn't really bother me as much as it makes me laugh. And you did it out of ignorance because you didn't understand that it was a question designed to foster some conversation in a non-combative way. You seem too eager to fight and too reticent to graciously interact. I don't really want to be a part of that. I have tried with patience to interact with your ideas and have an exchange. You have made it difficult.

As you get into your PhD work, take some time to study argumentation and what sola scriptura actually means historically. I think it is a bit different than what you are presenting here.

 

Perhaps this thread has come down to whether or not there are "gray areas" in the Scripture for every occassion.

I would say no, but there are areas of disagreement as to the "situation" which might cloud the issue.
Remember Joseph Fletcher and "situation ethics"?

e.g. Some time back on the BB, a question was asked given the passage
(please this is just an example - somebody asked for examples):

2 Peter 2

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.​

Here is the question (or close to what was asked):​

Were the American patriots disobeying the Scripture in their rebellion against the Crown?​

If I remember correctly quite a dispute arose.​

Some went with legitimate Scripture as to protecting the innocent against tyranny and thievery of an unjust government and/or dictatorial leadership.​

Some went with the 2 Peter passage above as overiding all other scriptural principles.​

So, the cloud is ours and not the Scripture.​

In that sense then we must decide the objectivity of the Scripture when there is what appears to be mitigating "situations".​

Another but easier question which arose is - what to do with polygamous cultures when introduced to the gospel.​

e.g. A polygamous tribesman is saved. What does he do with his multiple wives and their children? Keep the first wife and throw out the rest?
Keep the first as his wife in terms of intimacy but support the rest and their children? May the rest of his wives remarry?​

Like I said that one is easier but still has difficulties.​

But like the question concerning the non-medicinal use of alcohol, use of tobacco, etc., there will be disputes among Baptist seeing we have no pope or Magesterium.​

HankD​