Quote from signature line

Where does it say that in Matt 28:19?? Jeepers, for people who claim to be sola Scriptura, you aren't half inferring stuff that simply isn't there!

 

How? Did a table of contents fall out of the sky or someone dig one up on gold plates a la Book of Mormon? Or did all the believers wake up one morning sometime in, say, the second century and intuitively know what was 'in' and what was 'out'?

 

Again, where in Scripture does it claim this?

 

I dont get what on earth that has to do with the issue - unless of course you are laughably claiming that 'The Word' here means 'Scripture', in which case it also says "The Word became flesh" - so when did your Bible last grown legs and run around?:laugh:

 

But that's a circular argument; how do you know what should be in the Bible and what shouldn't?

 

I disagree.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Jesus was speaking prophetically to his apostles. The only ones that He would guide into ALL truth would be his apostles. Otherwise everyone of us would be perfect in our doctrine and there would be no need for debate, would there?

In the writing of Scripture Jesus said HE (the Holy Spirit) would guide them into ALL truth. That was His promise, and that is what it refers to.

Yes, he told them they were to write a book--a book written by God, the Holy Spirit.

 

Interesting comment Matt! I’ve happened upon some interesting conversations in regards to the Islamic view of the Koran and the Protestant view of the Bible.

Islam obviously denies the incarnation of God, but Islam does believe that God became incarnate in words (the Koran). Hence the reason one can be put to death in Islamic societies for defacing the Koran. The Koran is set-up over Islam.

Protestantism, although certainly they believe in the incarnation of God, also holds a similar view of the bible as that of Islam and I’m thinking of these KJV only folks, whom I used to be one. The Bible is set-up over the Church having authority over the Church, much the same as Islam.

Orthodoxy and I’m not sure with Anglicism, but we certainly believe that the Bible is authoritative, (and our veneration of Holy Scripture is no different than the Hebrews of the OT) but only within the context of the Church. Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition counter balance each other and are only properly interpreted within the context of the Church (her councils, creeds, and canons), whom all authority has been given too. It is the Church that Christ protects and it’s the Church through the Holy Spirit that keeps her from heresy.

In XC
-

 

How do you get that from the passage you've quoted? It says nothing about writing anything down. Again, with respect, you also are inferring what isn't there into the text.

 

Oh DHK looks like you’re the next victim of “out of context”

Interestingly enough it doesn’t condemn the Thessalonians for believing based on what they heard. It does commend the Bereans for doing their homework by saying they were more noble. Note he didn’t call the Thessalonians base. I like the mixed crowed not just Jews. Paul also used philosophy when he spoke so maybe they also compared his notes with theirs.

Then

It is obvious comparison between Mediums and Spiritist to the Law. And note how it states the “law” or “Torah” and Testimony. Pray tell Testimony of whom? The Prophets surely. But at that time was that only the written word? No because Isaiah is speaking it so his Testimony as well. So, not just written.
Then you quote:
“

Spoken words of prophets were written down. Ok but then the command given by God through the Apostles and at this point the entire NT wasn’t written down so we assume he meant what the Apostles said to them. Ie….Oral Tradition.

The final thing you are right about it validates Paul as an apostle and authorizes his writings. But to say Sola Scriptura was from the beginning is a bit much. Not accurate

 

In Afrikaans we say, Jy kan argumenteer tot jy blou is in jou bakkies: One may argue till you're blue in the face. It won't help. As jy 'n klap van die windmeul weg het, is dit vir altyd: Once you've had a blow from the windmill, it's for ever over with you.
It is only by faith possible - and faith is the gift of free grace - to believe the authority of the Scriptures above everything else but God in the Church, above the Church as well.

It's like arguing God; or arguing God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; or arguing free and sovereign grace; or election.

These things have so thoroughly been debated by the best of the best of the best of Christians, I seldom venture to vent my humble opinion. I think it is the lazy people who will rather come to debating forums with these kind of 'questions', while their minds have been set long before they would enter into debate. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still my stalwart old friend used to say.

It is fruitless.

 

Thinkingstuff, My post 70 was meant as a comment on matt Black, post 68.

By the buy: I have posted you a private message. Please read it?

 

Sorry for butting in, but here goes...

That the Church has authority is evident from Scripture--from the words of Christ and the Apostles themselves...

Christ: "He who hears you (the Seventy) hears Me, he who rejects you rejects you rejects Me, and he who reject Me rejects Him who sent Me." (Luke 10:16)

(--pretty self-explanatory...seems like Christ is giving those He sends out great authority.)

Christ again: "Assuredly I say to you (the Apostles) that whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matt 18:18)

(--"binding and loosing"...that sounds pretty authoritative, particularly if whatever the apostles bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven.)

Paul: "And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." (Eph: 1:22-23)

(--so Paul calls the Church, Christ's body and the "fullness of Him who fills all in all" (ie not a mere 'human institution'!) and that God gave Christ to be head over all things to the Church. (Looks pretty authoritative to me)

Paul again: "I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15)

(--the church is the pillar and ground of truth...sounds like it is pretty important, and not just some merely 'human institution'.)

I'm not sure anyone is claiming "the church has authority over the word". I certainly don't agree that it's the RCC which decides the interpretation of the Scripture apart from agreeing with the consensus of all historic apostolic churches across time and space--"Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est." It's also a fact that the Church by consensus arrived at the fixed limits of the NT canon from the latter half of the 4th century through the beginning, starting with the first 27-book list that matches our own produced by Bishop Athanasius in AD 367, proceeding to the pronouncement of Bishop ('pope') Damasus of Rome in 382 and continuing through the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage(397 and 419). Like it or not we have inherited these decisions of the Church regarding the canon and most would admit that the Spirit was leading the Church in this process. (If not, that leads to some interesting epistemological problems.) However, claiming the Spirit guiding the Church in recognizing the canon (and fixing the limits), yet asserting that same Spirit-led* Church is not authoritative, is nonsensical.

(*Unless you want to try to assert that the Spirit of Truth [John 16:13] vanished from the Church after the last apostle died..except for one special exception in the case of the canon--of course, that would be 'special pleading'))

Ultimately God reveals Himself through His Incarnate Word--Jesus Christ. Jesus proclaimed that the OT Scripture testifed to Him (John 5:39) and He taught the correct interpretation of these Scriptures about Himself to His followers (Luke 24:27,45). He then sent out His disciples with authority (see again Luke 10:16, Matt 18:18 and also John 20:22-23) to proclaim His gospel and establish His Church (built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets-Eph 2:20). They proclaimed the kerygma and some of them wrote Scripture--in either case the Holy Spirit was guiding them into all truth (John 16:13).

One ultimately, then, cannot separate the authority of Scriptures (God's word) from that of the Church (His body; the fullness of Him who fills all in all; the ground and pillar of truth) because:
(1) they originate from the same Divine authoritative source--Jesus Christ
(2) the OT Scriptures were authoritatively explained (interpreted) by Christ and then proclaimed by the apostles as being fulfilled by Christ
(3) the early churches, before any NT was written, was based on this apostolic proclamation/interpretation
(4) the Apostles (some at least), the founders of the Church, wrote the Scriptures to the churches
(5) the churches recognized the apostolic message contained therein and were thus able to rule out those spurious writings which, though claiming apostolic authorship, were in fact false.
(6)the Church defended the proper apostolic interpretation of the Scriptures against the distortion of the heretics
(7) the Church eventually arrived that the limits of the canon and recognized that all the material doctrine that was needed for salvation was contained therein.

Althought the core of the NT canon was fairly well established by the end of the first century (the four gospels, Paul's writings, and perhaps Acts, 1 John and 1 Peter), it did indeed take about 300 more years before the Church reached a near-universal* agreement on the status of the following books: Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Revelation to John. These are facts of history.

(*I say near-univeral, since the Ethiopian Church had included a few more, and the 'Church of the East' a few less)

We Christians need to make sure we get our historical facts straight particularly when talking to non-believers. While "the church hierarcy getting together and deciding what should be in the Bible and what shouldn't" is of course a gross oversimplification and thus incorrect (since the core/majority of the NT canon was recognized by the end of the first century or early second), the final limits (to finally and authoritatively include the seven books listed above) were in fact settled by various pronouncements of bishops (ie Athanasius and Damasus) and councils (Hippo and Carthage) in the late 4th century.

Yet the Bible itself can be consulted as a historical document as to what Christ and the Apostles said and did, even without considering it the closed 27 book NT canon (fixed by the Church) which we have today. As mentioned above, Christ and Paul did state that Scriptures and the Church were both authoritative. One can trace these thoughts through history and see that the Church and Scriptures were never meant to be separated or pitted against each other.

 

ok. something needs to be done on the not allowing to post the one word rule.

 

one word rule? is that a secert BB unwritten rule...kinda like no Catholics are allowed to participate in discussion?

In XC
-

 

I was saying that because everytime I have a one word reply I keep getting an error message saying I have too few characters. So I end up saying more than I want. As far as the Catholic rule I don't think thats true (but I may be wrong) I think they can post in the other christian section. You're Orthodox and you're allowed to post. Thats kinda like Catholic.

 

I’ve had Catholic friends try and sign-up on the BB only to be denied membership. Many Catholics that do make it on the BB aren’t truthful on their application, b/c they know they’ll be denied. Eventually they’re sniffed out and burned at the cyber stake.

As far as myself being Orthodox, I signed up when I was a Methodist, and truthfully the BB administration really has no clue what an Orthodox is. My mom honestly thought my family and I was converting to Judaism.

If I’m carried to the cyber stake it won’t be because of Orthodoxy, but because of ignorance of what the Orthodox Church is.

In XC
-

 

We used to have a lot of knowledgeable RC posters on here a few years ago...before the 'Great Purge'.

 

Wow. I didn't know that. Retrospectively though it sounds funny. A baptist inquisition. :laugh:

I thought a B'hai could post on other denominations. Is it possible the people who run this board don't feel catholics are christian? So they are not a denomination? What about anglicans or Copts or Seventh Day Adventist?

 

I think it's because the powers-that-be felt that the RCs were proselytizing. (At least that's what some of the RC former posters told me in PMs). There were even a few Baptists that became RCs, so that kind of fed the suspicion I guess. I miss some of them--had some good discussions and debates, and I learned a lot (though nothing that would make me convert to the RCC )

 

During my Roman Catholic Inquiry phase, I met quite a few Catholics on Catholic message boards who used to be Baptist and who were actually moderators here on the Baptist Board, and who were converted.

Seems a few Catholic seminarians were members on the BB who studied under Scott Hahn (I believe that’s his last name?) and were influenced by the likes of David B. Currie (a former fundamental Baptist), Steve Ray and Johnny Atkins.

Former members of the BB were dropping like flies, converting to Roman Catholicism.

Thus as DT alluded to the “Great Purge” occurred.

A little BB History for you…

In XC
-