1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Bible as 'sacrament'?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Matt Black, Jan 14, 2005.

  1. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Would you include the (present) Catholic and Orthodox Churches in that ambit, or just their past 'incarnations'?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  2. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    “ambit” - had to look that one up! I do not normally read either RCC or Orthodox writers. Nor do I generally read those who hold to higher critical theory regarding the origin of Scripture (Graf-Wellhausen). Probably a slight weakness on my part, but then I only have so many hours in the day. I do, however, read a variety of protestant reformed theologians who hold divergent positions on many issues. When a topic of interest arises, I often read all I can find on a subject, sometimes including pagans and agnostics, depending on the subject. Was reminded the other day that I have not been keeping up real well with current trends in psychotherapy either. Again, can only do so much.
     
  3. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    But you do read the ECFs, who were (prior to 1054) both Catholic and Orthodox. I'm interested...at what point in history (roughly) do you consider the Catholic and Orthodox to have 'deviated' so far from what you consider to be sound doctrine as to not me worthy of reading?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  4. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read more ante-nicene that post. Not sure I could put a time stamp on a "deviation" point, but would more likely evaluate issues on a subject by subject basis. Nor is it a matter of "worthiness". It is simply a matter of available time and the best use of that time. I probably waste 4-5 hours a week watching meaningless drivel on the “telly”. But, it is relaxing to kick my brain into neutral and be mesmerized by a movie or program that is designed to appeal to about the 5th grade level! I guess I could read the post-nicenes, just haven’t referred to them much. Nor would I want to suggest that I spend a great deal of time reading the antes either. More commonly my reading of them is motivated by desire to see what they say about a particular subject than to just read them for leisure or even discipline. Have never read all of “City of God” but have read sections. I am generally pretty set against things that I believe reek with allegorism. The only limitation there is the imagination of the interpreter. That is why I feel so strongly about CLGH. Do not generally spend a great deal of time reading those who do not hold that Scripture is authoritative. It only takes one or two, "I know that the Bible says this, but..." to turn me off to a particular writer. I can get back into them, but it takes a focused effort. If on the other hand it is relating to a subject that has grabbed my attention, I am captivated by the debate and sometimes become almost consumed by the issue. Amil, postmil vss premil has been one of those.
     
  5. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would also add that I am greatly enjoying this discussion! When you mentioned the legal briefs I had a better understanding of why. Did you know that both C.I. Scofield and Philip Mauro (dispy and strong anti-dispy of about the same time period) were both former attorneys? I find your depth of thought particularly stimulating!
     
  6. IveyLeaguer

    IveyLeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think this quote makes a very important point to the thread. If truth is what matters most we need not fear scrutiny. We must be willing to put anything we believe to a scriptural test, and not shelter any belief in any way. After all, it's God's Truth, not ours. Otherwise, IMO, we open ourselves up for Satan to sift us as wheat. It's not always easy to accept being wrong about a belief, especially when we are heavily vested in it, but I've also found that the truth has always more than made up for it, it's always better than what I let go - it refines, bolsters, and adds to the rock solid foundation Holy Scripture provides. Any doctrine or truth, worth its salt, will withstand any scriptural test.

    My attitude is I want the Truth - I don't care what it is. Had I come to that place many years ago, I could have avoided a great deal of pain and suffering.
     
  7. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Permit me to make a suggestion. I have elsewhere mentioned Vincent of Lerins’ ‘rule’ of “that which is believed everywhere, by everyone, at all times” as being helpful to discussions of this nature. Vincent is of course speaking about belief within Christendom and that necessarily begs the ‘drawback’ question of defining Christendom and ‘The Church’ ™. It also has the potential to direct us towards a single teaching authority in ‘The Church’™, and therefore points us in the direction of some kind of Magisterium if you like (I don’t necessarily!), a case of “all roads leading to Rome”.

    A more helpful model to evangelicals therefore might be found in the concept of embracing the idea of pluriformity, and here a combination of Pascal and the Russian Mikhail Bakhtin is useful; the former for his dictum, “a plurality that cannot be organised into unity is chaos (denominationalism plus mutual anathematisation of other Christians’ beliefs); a unity without plurality is tyranny (the cults)”; the latter for his asking whether there is any single voice able to pronounce absolute Truth, and for encouraging dialogue accordingly between Christian traditions, placing ‘absolute’ and ‘final’ categories of Truth in their proper eschatological perspective, and accepting that this side of the eschaton we “see but through a glass darkly” per I Cor 13 and stressing the apophatic in theological approach.

    The problem with the Pascal-Bakhtin solution is however twofold: on the one hand, it leaves unchanged the plethora of Biblical interpretations based on sola Scriptura (albeit embracing these rather than anathematising all but one interpretation, as many fundamentalists do), and on the other hand it tends towards a plurality of epistemologies and in what sense can this be said to be different from post-modern relativism?

    Nevertheless, I believe that a synthesis of both Lerins’ approach and that of Pascal-Bakhtin’s (and please do not think I am straying into dialectic materialistic territory in saying this!) would bear great fruit in endeavouring to settle this interpretative problem.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  8. IveyLeaguer

    IveyLeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Without addressing that point, Matt, and keeping it short, this thread has stimulated some thoughts and I would very much appreciate knowing (without debating) whether you and the other good thinkers here agree or disagree on a few personal points:

    1. The Bible is God's Word, reveals many infallible Truths that will never pass away, and has the Almighty's full authority behind it. In it, there is much Truth which is not clear, and much which is hidden, therefore the best of us see through a glass darkly. God is pleased to have it that way.

    2. Having navigated the interpretation waters, I landed on Simplicity Island - the common sense of LGHC or Literal, Grammatical, Historical, Contextual - where it will apply from Genesis to Revelation.

    3. It is necessary to be constantly discerning and prayerful with scripture, always testing, discarding, and refining.

    4. Bibliolatry is possible, but pride is more likely to get you than anything else. In a different sense, pride in one's intelligence often leads to unnecessary, and fruitless, allegory.

    5. Today, there are more outstanding resources available to the average Christian than there were to the giants of the faith. At the same time, walking into a Christian bookstore is a very dangerous thing, unless you have a full tank of discernment and a very sharp sword. Contemporary Christian authors worth reading, like cover corners in football, are few and far between.

    6. There isn't enough time to explore just the things of God. I've limited outside interests to topics that apply to the present-day Christian, things like ancient Hebrew culture and the Hegelian Dialectic. I haven't read a novel, save the first 5 or 6 Left Behind series, in a long time though I probably should go out and buy a handful of Grisham's books and start reading. Either I'm overdoing it or responding to a sense of urgency, sometimes I'm not sure which. I wonder how you all feel about it.
     
  9. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ivey Leaguer, I agree with all your points. I think #2 is especially important and many need to be aware of #5. I rarely go to Christian bookstores because much of the materials there are not doctrinally sound or they are superficial. I think at least the online Christian bookstores now get there books from secular companies and this is why you can often find New Age or cultic books there.
     
  10. IveyLeaguer

    IveyLeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point, I like CBD but I know their #1 is selling books. Can't say for sure about cultic but in the Atlanta area it's not hard to find some New Age in the Christian bookstores, though it's much more subtle, I guess. I've never seen a lot of hardcore New Age, I'll look next time I'm in Borders.

    With many Christian bookstores, especially the chains, I think it's sad but fair to say there's more erroneous or bad material available now than good, scriptural teaching.
     
  11. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Futher thought on the issue of "how to know Christ, unless through (sola) the Scriptures": if I want to know about Tolkien, I can either read Humphrey Carpenter's biography of him or I can talk to people who knew him; it's probably best to do both to get a fully-rounded picture of the man. In the same way, if I want to know about Jesus in a fully-rounded way, I can read his biographies - the Gospels - and I can talk to those who know Him - the Church, wherein the Holy Spirit resides.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  12. IveyLeaguer

    IveyLeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt,

    Here is an audio (Windows Media) file of R.C.Sproul discussing several of the questions you raise in this thread - SS, SF, authority of scripture, authority of church, etc., etc..

    Having read your posts, I think R.C. would be a tremendous resource for you. The program is about 30 minutes but the teaching part is about 20 uninterrupted minutes.

    I pray this information will bless you .

    R.C.Sproul - The Standard of Truth
     
  13. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Until several months ago, there were hardcore New Age books on the online CBD store, including Matthew Fox, Gerald Jampolsky, and others. A concerted effort by some Christians resulted in these books suddenly being removed. I wrote a review of one of Fox's books to get their attention; 3 weeks later, all of Fox's books were gone. As far as I know, these books are not on the site now.
     
  14. IveyLeaguer

    IveyLeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good work. God Bless You All.
     
  15. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    AS my computer has no speakers (yes, I’m an ancient British technophobe there!), I’m unfortunately unable to listen to Sproul’s sermon, excellent though I’m sure it is. Is there any chance you can summarise it or link me to a transcript?

    Some further thoughts. Sola scriptura advocates tend to accuse those of a more liberal persuasion of raising their own reason to a level above Scripture and hence ‘sanctifying’ their own thoughts and, because of what the Bible says about their own sinfulness, they consider that to be dangerous. I'm going to attempt to show why I think they’re wrong on this, and why, in fact, modern sola scriptura is actually far more in danger of doing this than a liberal or tradition catholic take.

    When you begin with the starting point that the Bible is the ultimate authority, you cannot act other than by your own interpretation of what the Bible says, and the plethora of interpretations from even the major denominations is evidence that the true interpretation is not exactly very clear.

    Because you feel your own interpretation is based more directly on Scripture the ultimate authority, you are far more likely to sanctify that interpretation as being what the Bible says, yet what you would be sanctifying would be your own thoughts on what the true interpretation is.

    The liberal cannot do this, because the liberal position admits the role of reason in interpretation and cannot honestly say with certainty that the position in question is correct. A less literal concept of scriptural truth adds to the uncertainty.

    The traditional catholic cannot do this because the traditional catholic defers to the Church rather than to their own interpretation either because the probability of a self-generated interpretation being truer than that discerned by the whole people of God over two thousand years (and more) is slim, or because their reading of the Bible leads them to expect that the Church has authority to interpret.


    It is quite true that the Bible tells of our sinfulness. Yet SS-advocates trust themselves to interpret! With respect, to me the "me-and-the-Bible" approach seems far more dangerous here than the alternatives.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  16. IveyLeaguer

    IveyLeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt, the Sproul audios are classroom lectures, not sermons, so it's too much to summarise. Sorry. Sproul has books, tapes and other materials on this subject available HERE, but it's worth several pounds (or euro?) for some used speakers to get the free audio (it'll be gone in a week or two), or you can buy the "Hath God Said" series.
     
  17. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Thanks! I'll endeavour to do that. I have a lot of time for Sproul as a general rule.

    Picking up on my last point, many posters here who affirm sola or prima Scriptura also adhere to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. Is there not a contradiction here? Why do these posters think they can sit down and decide more precisely what the Bible says than the two thousand years of Christians we've had so far, many of whom may be holier, humbler, and more insightful than them and many of whom certainly are than me? Hence the need for an interpretative community, the Church - Christians past and present - Scripture affirms this explicitly in I Tim 3:15.

    Furthermore, if Christ is the primary Revelation of God (how could he not be?) then it is, it seems to me, a reasonable approach to view those parts of Scripture which relate more closely to his Incarnation as carrying more weight than others.

    So, generally, I think a framework that has Gospel trumping Epistle trumping OT Oral History in terms of authority is not unreasonable, in spite of any problems with making this a cast-iron rule.

    The alternative is to argue that as the Bible is the primary authority, each bit of it has equal and ultimate authority and we are not free to say that, for example, turn the other cheek explicitly overrules an eye for an eye. This would be Bibliolatry in my view because it would put the Bible's words above the revelation of God in Christ as recorded therein.

    If you don't go down this dangerous equal-authority route, you are explicitly saying that some texts have more authority than others, then it seems to me that you can, cautiously and with fear and trembling, propose that the Bible as a whole teaches that Paul may have got certain things wrong and thus that the Bible is not inerrant as the term is usually applied, yet does not teach error in the context of the Church.


    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  18. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt,

    Started a response to this earlier in the week. Other things have shifted my focus. Will finish and post asap.
     
Loading...