BB influence for good?

In the post above MB argues convincingly for benefit for Baptists that are not really in agreement with "sola scriptura" seeing the true depth to which the sola-scriptura position is out of harmony with their "tradition-first" model.

I point that out in my response.

So clearly for baptists that are drifting away from sola-scriptura - making personnal choices to reject it over time - will benefit from BB by getting a fresh look at just how far they have drifted off course with evangelicals and will be confronted with the need to find another church that fits their needs.

So that is "one way traffic out".

What about the "traffic coming IN"?

Many here have testified that they came OUT of tradition-shackled denominations to the freedom of a more evangelical "sola-scriptura" denomination.

We probably wont see some groups saying "as a result of participating on the BB I came out of my tradition-shackled prior-denomination" because there are some groups that are not allowed to post.

We "Might" expect some to say "as a result of reading threads here -- though not allowed to participate -- I came out of my tradition-shackled denomination" -- but one would think that it is more likely that people leave a position of error when given a chance to ask questions, express concerns, dig into scripture on questions that interest them.

So by the nature of the existing rules we may find that the benefit such as MB has stated it above - is the primary one for those changing denominations where as the "traffic coming into" evangelical churches as a result of BB participation might be more restricted. (Less likely to be seen)

Thoughts?

in Christ,

Bob

 

I don't see "blame" going on here -- did I miss something?

The point of the OP is to show that by filtering with certain rules we are more likely to see "one way traffic out" than "one way traffic in". These people will be making their decisions anyway - but the BB helps them accelerate that process by seeing sola-scriptura methods applied to a number of subjects.

in Christ,

Bob

 

That is true - the Bible is not "having it both ways".

the extent to which we have differences is the extent to which "man-made tradition" has made inroads into our understanding of God's Word.

Christ had the same problem with the differences that existed between HIS view of scripture and the Disciples view of it.

"I have many more things to tell you but you can not bear them now" John 16.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Wouldn't you agree that in the history of your posting here you have never (or should I say "almost never") made a sola scriptura argument? you are always arguing from the writings of men - and perceptions of flawed men in the past -- and never making arguments based soley on the inspired Word of God.

Your methods have been to rely on the word-of-men rather than exegesis and The Word of God alone to make your case.

Clearly from the very beginning on this board you seem to have been "most comfortable" with "tradition plus some scripture mixed in at times".

But not as a participant on a subject on this board?

As were the RCC and Eastern Orthodox (tradition-shackled) faith traditions.

As we have already seen "the existence of differences" was never seen to "be absent" from the bitter divisions that existed historical been tradition-bound faith groups.

EVEN the RCC theologian Martin Luther argues that Popes AND their own RC church Councils "were in disagreement with each other" on matters of tradition.

Looking at all the varieties in views between Lutheran, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, RCC, Episcopal etc "

"They couldn't - can't - all be right."

So given that these TRADITION burdened group do NOT agree ask yourself the question " where, then, is the Truth and who has it, and how do I know it?"

Is it sinful man and the many conflicting traditions of sinful man -- in that case -- the Methodists have "traditions" and the "Baptists" and the "Church of Christ" and the "Lutherans" and the Presbyterians etc.

ALL of them have their own Magesterium.

ALL of them have their own closely held traditions

ALL of them have scripture.

"Whose tradition is correct"

You started a thread called "The Theological bankruptcy of sola Scriptura" or some such like - but did you EVER find that "There is NO differences between RCC, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian ..."

Even WITHIN the RCC there is debate over Vatican II and the assumption of Mary and almost every other tradition let alone BETWEEN RCC and other groups.

The case has NEVER been made in all of these threads "There is NO tradition differences between tradition-based denominations".

No not even once.

in Christ,

Bob

 

My argument is that you benefit from the BB by seeing the extent to which your reliance on tradition does not agree with the "Sola Scriptura model".

I also argue that you can avail yourself of the BB opportunity to explore the tradition-gaps "of tradition topics" to see EVEN more clearly all the ways the varies tradition-shackled denominations DIFFER among themselves on matters of tradition.

Purgatory anyone?
Indulgences?
Pope as infallible head of the CHRISTIAN Church? Vicar of Christ?
Mary as "sinless"
Mary as having only ever had one child?
Mary as "Queen of Heaven"?
IMAGES to Mary?
Altars to Mary?
Magic transubstantiation phrases?
Infallible RCC council decrees?
"Extermination of dissenters"?

List of man-made-traditions and the existence of tradition-based groups that would NOT agree to the same points -- is almost endless.

Indeed - IF We were more "OPEN" to those denominations steeped in man-made-tradition and we could present to THEM the list above - showing them that tradition is a failed solution for the panacea of "no division - no differences" we would see THEM leaving and coming to the INFALLIBLE source of scripture -- God ALONE -- God's WORD as the infallible source.

I would not argue that those coming out of the tradition-shackled groups did so because "Jesus was not there" or "Could not be found" or ... I think they just see the light of leaving a dark-ages model and going to a more Protestant "Sola scriptura" model is truly following the Acts 17:11 model and embracing the words of Christ in Mark 7 where we are told that "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" is pure error.

Because the board tends to shy away from letting them in -- the "benefit seen" here is going to be more for people in your position than for those leaving the tradition-based groups.

in Christ,

Bob

 

In that case I would not have seen them. I am just posting from the POV/context of seeing your solutions posted here.

Same is true in the list of traditions I gave.

Nothing new there.

Is it your claim that "tradition USED to be sufficient to keep all denominations in line under the RCC but now even that does not work"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

Unless I really missing the boat here - this thread you point to is arguing about KJVO -- pro-vs-con. I have no idea how that would be debated "sola scriptura" and i don't see anyone arguing "Paul says in his letter to the Galatians that you can only read the KJV" etc.

Did I miss your point??

in Christ,

Bob

 

The question is -- do you now claim that "it doesn't work like it used to"?

If it is no better than "sola scriptura" why not use the Bible method approved in Acts 17:11?

Recall that when speaking to the magesterium of the one TRUE church started by God at Sinai and fully steeped in tradition Christ condemned them saying that they 'teach for doctrine the commandments of men' - Mark 7.

This is significant becase ALL DENOMINATIONS agree that GOD started the nation-church of Israel at Sinai and that pre-cross there was "no other church" in existence. Was "tradition just not working then either"?

in Christ,

Bob