How do protestants explain history

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Buddyroe said:
OK here goes:

Central to protestant theology (almost all denominations) is sola scriptura (SS), the principal that the Bible is not only the basis for Christian faith but also the guide to Christian living (providing comfort, rules, devotions). Bishops, priests, pastors, teachers, missionaries are all subordinate to the Bible. SS recognizes the essential role the early (even Catholic) Church performed in not just compiling SS but preserving it as well. We have in addition to SS the records of communication of the early Church fathers to better understand how they did this and what their thoughts were. Since God inspired (verbal plenary) the authorship likewise the recoding and preservation comes from God (authority of Father, Jesus ‘The Word’, and the Holy Ghost). The Bible speaks for itself:

2 Timothy 3:16–3:17: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works

Once codified SS became axiomatic and no longer open to change. What remains is for any reader to properly understand what God has delivered which is no small task. To that end we are all responsible to employ good hermeneutics and it is a good idea to employ it daily so as to not weaken the skill. While there are many schools of hermeneutical thought, the basics should employ:
  1. Always have the verse read out (exegesis) its own meaning, the opposite reading in (eisegesis) is not permissible.
  2. Text must be understood in full context, often single words or even verses are not enough.
  3. Search for added context using complimentary passages e.g. the synoptic gospels and OT quotes made in NT.
  4. Research the original language and culture of the text, usually Koine Greek or Aramaic.
    Learn how the people lived and how their culture influenced their thoughts and actions.
    Our own culture is important to us but using it to judge ancient culture is a serious pitfall, very similar to eisegesis.
  5. Understand that the Bible is not just rules and doctrines but also history and devotion.
Click to expand...
Jesus didn’t ascend into heaven throwing down a bible saying here you go you can’t prove the bible from the bible that is a circular argument what did the first Christians do they had a church not a New Testament
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
In regards to 2 Tim 3:16, I replied on another thread:

Let’s look at that entire paragraph:

2 Tim 3:10 Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico′nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and[a] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,* 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Paul says:

  1. *]You have observed my teaching.
    *]**Continue **in what you have learned.
    *]**Knowing **from **whom **you learned.

    It then says:

    Scriptures are profitable. **Not **the **sole **and **single **authority, not that it is exclusive, but that they are **profitable **to maintain teaching, learning — and more importantly: from whom you learned!

    So, who teaches Scriptures in a wrong way should be **avoided **and this bad teacher destroys any profitability that the Scriptures offer.

    And how do you know from **whom **you should learn?

    1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

    Paul clearly understands where to go for the truth. Alas, we should as well. And the Church is one, not many.

    Jose my friend in Christ,

    What an excellent example of hermeneutics ‘in context’. I’m a good old Calvinist boy and will argue with you later. Nevertheless your in context amplification is understood and well received.
Click to expand...
 
Deborah_112 said:
The true gospel according to the King James Bible:

youtu.be/y4wx3DoFog8
Click to expand...
Hello Deborah, the link you provided is exceptionally beautiful and honoring of our Lord Jesus Christ, thank you ever so much.

The scripture selections offered by Deborah are consistent with most English translations which means the source text is being carefully observed. I do not see any statement that is in contradiction to the basics of the faith for al Christendom.

With regards to KJV I will comment separately (I promise it will be nice).

The web link from Deborah should be viewed a devotional drawing all of us prayerfully closer to our Savior.
 
OK here goes the good old KJV report everybody fasten your seat belts.

After the reformation (and based on prior scholarship) an English translation was produced that would have significant impact on western civilization in general and Christ’s church in particular.
While it is simply vernacular (a translation) its impact is so significant that many take the assumption that it is divinely inspired. Taken to the extreme some might assume that KJV is manifest Sola Scriptura. Everybody relax!!! It is near impossible for a vernacular to be holy inspired in the sense of SS. Nevertheless, the net effect of a vernacular that has significant history and impact needs at least to be examined.

Here are some important considerations for the KJV.
  1. It is based on the ‘Received Text’ which is considered even by many scholars Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant to be greatly considered as authoritative. When English speaking people read the KJV they are getting much of the authoritative understanding from even prior to the reformation. (Note that textual criticism and modernist scholarship denies ‘Textus Recepticus’; it is fair to comment the results of modernist scholarship has been heretical and disastrous - separate thread needed)
  2. The exceptionally beautiful language of KJV has influenced the English language. All English speaking Christian faiths have a window into the language of God by the particular KJV phrasing.
  3. The very language of KJV was so powerful that imitators sought legitimacy through imitation e.g. Edgar Cayce would receive messages from the spirit world KJV inspired, bhagavad gita, Book of Mormon, Koran all ended up phrasing their English tomes KJV wise even though nearly all their efforts were 19th-20th century.
  4. English verbal familiarity with scriptural quotations makes the KJV a natural reflection on God’s Holy Word. No other modern English vernacular enjoys such broad familiarity.
  5. Though KJV is in English and easily understandable the archaic vernacular forces me to consider a Bible context separate from my present circumstances.
 
benjohnson said:
If you consider Sola Scriptura to be “me and my bible,” then I’d agree.

Of course, being Lutheran, that’s not our definition regardless of the long-winded attemps of one particular poster here.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

.
 
Adamski said:
Jesus didn’t ascend into heaven throwing down a bible saying here you go you can’t prove the bible from the bible that is a circular argument what did the first Christians do they had a church not a New Testament
Click to expand...
Sorry Adamski but you beckoned for a more non Catholic/Lutheran view, be careful what you ask for.
Your reply is hyperbole and I can appreciate it as much. Please review my reply, I am not making claims that Holy scripture advanced outside the Church. Real people suffered and anguished over this in the first few centuries, some were even martyred for the faith. It is a providence of God that what they did is blessed by Him because of the quality of their faith in Jesus and the times in which they lived.

The reasoning does not follow that all subsequent Christians have equal authority to add or subtract from that initial work. 1stCentury saints=Catholic Church (mostly true); what they ordained is approved by God (also true); subsequent saints and members have more complex and conflicting ideas under the guise of the Church and are equal with established scripture (not valid!).
 
Buddyroe said:
Sorry Adamski but you beckoned for a more non Catholic/Lutheran view, be careful what you ask for.
Your reply is hyperbole and I can appreciate it as much. Please review my reply, I am not making claims that Holy scripture advanced outside the Church. Real people suffered and anguished over this in the first few centuries, some were even martyred for the faith. It is a providence of God that what they did is blessed by Him because of the quality of their faith in Jesus and the times in which they lived.

The reasoning does not follow that all subsequent Christians have equal authority to add or subtract from that initial work. 1stCentury saints=Catholic Church (mostly true); what they ordained is approved by God (also true); subsequent saints and members have more complex and conflicting ideas under the guise of the Church and are equal with established scripture (not valid!).
Click to expand...
A couple of questions then

Why did many Christians view the letter of clement as scripture for the first 300 years

Why did all Christians view Maccabees as scripture until Martin Luther used his knife to cut it out and through it away
 
Adamski said:
Why did all Christians view Maccabees as scripture until Martin Luther used his knife to cut it out and through it away
Click to expand...
This is why it’s so tough to be a different Religion… Everyone has misconceptions about your history and beliefs.

Wouldn’t you agree when it comes to Evangelicals to Catholics Adam?
 
Adamski said:
A couple of questions then

Why did many Christians view the letter of clement as scripture for the first 300 years

Why did all Christians view Maccabees as scripture until Martin Luther used his knife to cut it out and through it away
Click to expand...
Why did many Christians view the letter of clement as scripture for the first 300 years?
Click to expand...
Because it’s pretty good stuff.
Why did all Christians view Maccabees as scripture until Martin Luther used his knife to cut it out and through it away?
Click to expand...
They didn’t, many Christians questioned its place in the canon from Jerome all the way to Cajetan. And they remained in good standing, Luther was in bounds to question them so to speak, as they weren’t formally canonized until Trent. Luther was before Trent.
 
dronald said:
This is why it’s so tough to be a different Religion… Everyone has misconceptions about your history and beliefs.

Wouldn’t you agree when it comes to Evangelicals to Catholics Adam?
Click to expand...
I do know sola scriptoria is impossible and unbiblical
 
Adamski said:
A couple of questions then

Why did many Christians view the letter of clement as scripture for the first 300 years

Why did all Christians view Maccabees as scripture until Martin Luther used his knife to cut it out and through it away
Click to expand...
Sorry my friend, I don’t know the answer.
 
benjohnson said:
He might want to be careful… historically Lutherans and Catholics have been known to put down arms against each other to go torment the Anabaptists.
😉
Click to expand...
Gratefully I have only been baptized once:thumbsup:
 
dronald said:
This is why it’s so tough to be a different Religion… Everyone has misconceptions about your history and beliefs.

Wouldn’t you agree when it comes to Evangelicals to Catholics Adam?
Click to expand...
I think that’s about the size of it; Evangelicals, Catholics, and I suppose Adam:)
 
Adamski said:
A couple of questions then

Why did many Christians view the letter of clement as scripture for the first 300 years

Why did all Christians view Maccabees as scripture until Martin Luther used his knife to cut it out and through it away
Click to expand...
First, we need to remember that, unlike the East, no Western communion recognizes 3 & 4 Maccabees as scripture. So, apparently the entire western Church, including the Catholic Church used its knife to cut them out and through them away. Or, more positively configured, the western Church prayerfully considered 3 & 4 Macc and determined it not to be canon.
Second, Luther’s 1534 translation has 1 & 2 Macc in it. He did view them as not on the same level as the rest of scripture, but he did include them.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top