Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Yeshua1, Jan 16, 2014.
Whci view has been the prominent/traditional held by baptists?
Unequivocally, without fail, Sola Scriptura. So-called "solo" Scriptura is the direct implication that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority, a viewpoint that is rejected by nearly all serious biblical scholars, certainly by SBC seminaries, and overall is unbiblical in its concept. Sola Scriptura is the only infallible authority, and we should repudiate any position according to which individual Christians are the ultimate arbiters of Scriptural truth.
Amen and thank you. Dear John Fan is a loose cannon. He makes Crabtownboy look like a Calvinist. God gave us all we needed in Scripture. It is Inspired, infallible, and without error. This guy gave himself away in the Paul Washer thread. No doubt Paul's sermons are some of those documents that help us with the Bible.
The only crucial time in the history of the Inspired Word was when learned men were deciding which books to include and exclude, and I fully trust the Lord's hand was on them.
Baptists of all flavors known to me accept the Bible itself as the authority from God. Sola Scriptura, as identified here. Further, Baptists believe that only Scripture can interpret Scripture; a way of saying that any passage of Scripture must be understood to agree with all other Scripture. The idea is to prevent use of one verse - or a fragment of one verse - to serve as the springboard for an entire doctrine. And it does tend to frown on an individual running off with a totally alien doctrine or understanding of Christianity.
However, this begs the question of 'break aways'. Was Martin Luther justified in setting aside the teachings of the RCC? Were the Puritans justified in ignoring the authority of the Church of England? Was Roger Williams proper in ignoring the authority if the Church of England?
This is not to encourage anarchy at all. However, one - individually - must decide just exactly who really knows the overall message of the Bible. To that end, one must - individually - understand the message of the Bible.
If not, why are we not all members of the Roman Catholic Church. Or Eastern Orthodox, or Copts?
I might add, however, that this is usually in theory only, because men will oftentimes prop themselves up as the final authority. Logic, reason and emotion carry more weight with most than does the Word of God
This is so very true.
Often one may encounter folks who hold more to some "logic, reason, and emotion" rather than the truth.
Sat/Nep this about himself on 8/12/09 "can be a loose cannon at times."
You see,those kind of absurd remarks reflect your juvenile streak.
You are mistaken. There was no such occasion when "learned men" decided "which books to include and exclude" from the Canon of Scripture. There was no Church Council or meeting of any kind to "decide" on the matter.
In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. Right?
Right, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Amen! :thumbsup:
I think some folks here are into folk tales or following Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. Church Councils had no power or authority to "decide" anything about what constituted the NT canon.
"One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list;on the contrary,the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired,recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities." (F.F. Bruce,The New Testament Documents:Are They Reliable?,Grand Rapids,Eerdmans,1960,p.27).
Of course they didn't. I don't believe James [Edit: "Jacob" I mean. Sorry Jacob.] said they did. All he said was they affirmed the canon of Scripture. As I said, that was done under the power of the Holy Spirit, the true power behind the councils. Men need other men, unfortunately, to confirm things for them, even the things of God. Like God giving Israel the king she wanted, but He didn't want, He gave them the "confirmation" they were seeking.
It started with Sat/Nep saying that learned men decided what books to include and exclude from the canon. James was trying to imply that the Church Councils lent some authoritative weight to the already reognized NT canon. But nothing was officially "decided" at all. Common Christian people had already affirmed the inspired books of the NT centuries before. Those Councils did not give a stamp of approval --that was already done by the Holy Spirit among his people hundreds of years prior.
Actually, the compilation of the canon went on for a good two hundred years, if not more. At the end of the second century, most churches were still not including Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, and Revelation in their studies. It wasn't until over a hundred years later, in the early to mid fourth century, that all of the 27 books we now consider to make up the New Testament were compiled and "authorized" by church authorities.
Historically, believe that the early Church received the NT books as canon/authoratative and inspired very early on, even during times of the Apsotles themselves!
And by early Second century , MANY church fathers had essentially all NT canon books being quoted and referenced and used...
ONLY a few were debated, and those due to not knowing who authored them, NOT due to them being seen as fake/surious!
Interesting that JUST 4 gospels were officially recognized by church, none but heretics saw any other so called gospel as ever being legit!
hebrews/2 peter disputed due to unknown authorship by some, james due to some seeing him and paul contridicting each other,and revelation due to question if John the Apsotle or Elder wrote it...
23-27 universal received as scriptures from start, so NO Council/person gave canon its legitimacy, just officially recognised what was already seen as accepted!
The canon of the NT books were pretty much agreed upon by ealy second century, as the Epistles of paul were already being circulated and used by end of Apsotolic Age!
only a few books disputed, mainly due to questions on authorship, and james due to some seeing
disagreement betwen his views on law, and paul on grace!
Church just officaially recognised what had been already seen as the canon centuries earlier!
Think more in line with the OP would be how do we see things like catechaisms, and creeds used by some in Baptist churches?