How sufficient is the Scripture?

[michaelp]

Ani Ibi:

That’s up to you. I’ve requested that we use the terms Pentecostals or Evangelicals for those in the pentecostal movement – except for Charistmatics because Charismatics are generally understood to be Catholic. It’s no skin off your back to concede to this reasonable request for common language.

This is a self-contradictory, disingenuous, and unwarranted statement. If you claim that precision in terminology is pedantic and creates too many red herrings to keep this discussion interesting, then indeed you do **not **appreciate my desire to be precise.

Some precision in terminology can be pedantic sometimes. As Tea has pointed out astutely, discussion needs some common ground in order to gain momentum. Common ground needs common language. So certainly some precision is necessary. Otherwise there is a risk of people using terminology in ‘special’ senses out of context, without explanation, and without negotiation. Misunderstanding ensues. Misunderstanding breeds conflict. We don’t want that.

As for my desire to be precise creating too many red herrings: in the specific question at hand my request for precision was legitimate. I have demonstrated above that it was legitimate. Because it was legitimate, it could not have been a red herring.

As for keeping this interesting: interesting to whom? To everyone who happens by? To you and Phil? To you? This discussion is an open discussion. Some people are going to make requests for clarification. Some people are going to disagree with what you are saying. This is normal in a discussion. To condescend to such people (or to take personally things which are mere disagreements and not intended to be personal) is to harm the spirit of inclusivity which in turns harms the spirit of the discussion.

Please do not condescend to me by telling me what I ‘really need’ to do.

Not so. I used this term once in reference to your posts. Secondly, I suggest that it is useful to distinguish between ‘accusing’ you of something and responding to what you are saying. You are not the same as what you say. You may not agree with someone’s response, but your disagreement does not justify your decision to take what that person says personally.

Your repetitive insistence that I look up things in the dictionary is unwarranted and condescending. Particularly in the light of the reality. The reality is that I have given dictionary references. The reality is that you have not given dictionary references.

Also, pardon me if I point out the obvious: having just suggested (rather uncharitably) that my request for precision is pedantic and a red herring, you are now making a similar request for precision by claiming that I ‘need’ to look things up. That is a double standard. (Double standard: a set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another. – Websters)

Please be mindful of the following two board rules:

1. Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
2. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

We have done your poll. We have taken pains to explain why we disgree with the notion of ‘scriptural sufficiency.’ We have also taken pains to explain the focus of Catholicism concerning the Church over the individual and that, while individual Catholics may strive to understand scripture through their own studies and reading, the final word rests in the Magisterium. That’s it. We shall continue to mourn those who have left communion and pray for their souls.

Thanks again Ani. I am sorry for being condencending.

I hope you have a good day,

Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

Ani–it’s a grace.

Thank you for saying that so simply. That it is a gift makes everything different for me. Really indescribable. Really such a relief, because I could never have been smart enough to ask for such a gift.

st_felicity:

God gives the gift of faith and in that we are given trust and peace. Thank God for that grace and many others.

Thank you. I knew about grace, faith, and peace. But somehow I didn’t connect trust. Trust for me is immediately useful. I have great plans for trust!:bounce:

st_felicity:

As for another thread topic–Maybe broaden it out to asking where people have seen the grace of God active in their lives–I know I’ve got several things I could contribute!

Ha! Why do I envisage you rubbing your hands together counting the seconds to give your next witness? I am a little burnt out at present and have a ton of work to do this weekend. But when I gather my wits, I will turn my thoughts toward (hopefully) a good question for a thread.

And now…back to this thread…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

Thanks again Ani. I am sorry for being condencending.

OK Michael. Let’s get some sleep and start tomorrow with fresh hearts.

 

[Ruth101]

ppcpilot:

Scripture will not get you to heaven. A clean soul gets you to heaven.

John 15:1-5 I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine dresser. Every branch in me that bears not fruit he takes away: and every branch that bears fruit, he prunes it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now you are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can you, except you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches: He that abides in me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.

James 1:17-18 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1 Peter 1:22-23 Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto sincere love of the brethren, see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Ge 6:5; Nu 22:18; De 1:25; 4:2; 9:5; 21:5; Jos 1:13; 1Sa 3:17; 9:10,27; 2Sa 14:17; 16:23; 22:31; 1Ki 8:20; 12:22; 13:1,5,26; 17:1,24; 18:24,36; 2Ki 1:16; 14:25; 23:16; 1Ch 15:15; 17:3; 2Ch 6:10; 10:15; 11:2; 30:12; Ps 18:30; Isa 1:10; 2:3; 40:8; 50:4; Jer 5:14; 13:12; 15:16; 19:3; 23:36; 42:15; 44:26; Eze 6:3; 12:28; 20:47; 25:3; 36:4; Da 3:28; Ho 4:1; Jon 3:3; Mic 4:2; Mt 4:4; Mr 7:13; Lu 3:2; 5:1; 8:11,21; 11:28; 24:19; Joh 10:35; Ac 4:31; 6:2,7; 8:14; 10:36; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5,7,26,44,46; 15:7; 17:13; 18:11; 19:20; 20:32; Ro 9:6; 10:17; 1Co 4:20; 14:36; 2Co 2:17; 4:2; 5:19; 6:7; Eph 6:17; Col 1:25; 3:17; 1Th 2:13; 1Ti 4:5; 2Ti 2:9,15; Tit 1:3; 2:5; Heb 4:12; 6:1,5; 11:3; 13:7; 1Pe 1:23; 2Pe 3:5; 1Jo 2:5,14; Re 1:2,9; 6:9; 19:13; 20:4

I think these should show that the Word of God is sufficient to bring us unto a saving faith in Jesus Christ whom God hath sent.

 

[st_felicity]

…michaelp…(sniff-sniff)…now I’m starting to feel like Lisa did earlier…have you forgotten about me?.. :crying: %between% …I’m especially interested in your response to…

Felicity’s prior post

Having said all of this, I believe that you seek such infallible certianty through your Magisterium, which is not possible since you are fallible.

WAIT!..I not saying I AM INFALLIBLE…I’m saying the Magesterium as a teaching body in matters of faith and morals are infallible–and I have faith in that due to the “evidence” that I accept as Biblical and historically true and you don’t (I think you should look again).

I am persuaded that there is no evidence that your Magisterium should be looked at as an infallible source. For me to believe in them would be to take a hopeful blind leap into the dark, since there is no biblical or historical evidence for infallibility in my opinion.

.
(Felicity’s emphasis)
And as you have pointed out very clearly, our opinions are fallible.

I gave evidence in an earlier post where Biblically/Historically a body of believers with authoritative roles in the church made decisions for the WHOLE Church–do you not consider the Jerusalem council to be an historical event? Were not those early Church leaders making a binding pronouncement that was guided by the Holy Spirit through Peter’s vision? What-up wi’ dat?

There is at least as much evidence for the authority of the Church as there is for the resurrection of Christ. Why do you pick and choose what evidence is “compelling”

There is no blind leap–Granted “it is a hard teaching” because we must submit ourselves to the authority of another–but Jesus calls us to do that.

…You won’t forget me will you?.. %between% smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_44.gif

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ruth101:

I think these should show that the Word of God is sufficient to bring us unto a saving faith in Jesus Christ whom God hath sent.

You are saying that the Word of God is sufficient to bring us unto a saving faith in Jesus Christ (that is, that it is sufficient for salvation). However is Scripture sufficient for salvation?

 

[michaelp]

Sorry Felicity. Thanks for reminding me. And thanks for sticking around.

I gotcha here…this makes sense. And lo and behold, I agree!

Hey wait a minute. This just does not happen to me! Glory day!!

WAIT!..I not saying I AM INFALLIBLE…I’m saying the Magesterium as a teaching body in matters of faith and morals are infallible–and I have faith in that due to the “evidence” that I accept as Biblical and historically true and you don’t (I think you should look again).

But your understanding of the Magisterium is fallible, since you are fallible. Therefore, you are essentially in the same place as me. Fallibly trying to understand an infallible text (you the Magisterium, me Scripture). Sometimes it is self evident, sometimes it takes some work.

I gave evidence in an earlier post where Biblically/Historically a body of believers with authoritative roles in the church made decisions for the WHOLE Church–do you not consider the Jerusalem council to be an historical event? Were not those early Church leaders making a binding pronouncement that was guided by the Holy Spirit through Peter’s vision? What-up wi’ dat?

Actually, you are going to be surprized, but I do not believe that the coucil in Acts 15 actually took place. I believe that all the other events in Acts are historical, but not this one. HA! Got you. I am just kidding.

I do believe in the authority of the council for one reason–THERE WAS APOSTLES THERE! We don’t have apostles here. They had shown the signs of a true apostle and therefore has unquestionable authority:

2 Corinthians 12:12 Indeed, the signs of an apostle were performed among you with great perseverance by signs and wonders and powerful deeds.

There is no one today performing these signs, therefore, there is no reason to believe that anyone is an apostle nor has the authority of an apostle.

If the Magisterium performed the signs of an apostle, I would give them the authority of an apostle. If not, it would be a blind leap of faith that believes contrary to the evidence of history and Scripture.

There is at least as much evidence for the authority of the Church as there is for the resurrection of Christ. Why do you pick and choose what evidence is “compelling”

I have never seen any.

There is no blind leap–Granted “it is a hard teaching” because we must submit ourselves to the authority of another–but Jesus calls us to do that.

Close your eyes and go driving. This is less dangerous in my opinion than what I percieve to be your methodology.

Hope you are doing well and having a relaxing weekend.

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Sorry Felicity. Thanks for reminding me. And thanks for sticking around.

Michael–You’re a sucker for a teary woman!!!

But your understanding of the Magisterium is fallible, since you are fallible. Therefore, you are essentially in the same place as me. Fallibly trying to understand an infallible text (you the Magisterium, me Scripture). Sometimes it is self evident, sometimes it takes some work.

'Round and 'round we go…Where it stops, nobody knows!!!

Actually, you are going to be surprized, but I do not believe that the coucil in Acts 15 actually took place. I believe that all the other events in Acts are historical, but not this one. HA! Got you. I am just kidding.

My jaw dropped…until your last line– You DID get me! You never know on these forums…stranger things have been said!

I do believe in the authority of the council for one reason–THERE WAS APOSTLES THERE! We don’t have apostles here. They had shown the signs of a true apostle and therefore has unquestionable authority:

2 Corinthians 12:12 Indeed, the signs of an apostle were performed among you with great perseverance by signs and wonders and powerful deeds.

There is no one today performing these signs, therefore, there is no reason to believe that anyone is an apostle nor has the authority of an apostle.

Ooooohhh…Youre one of those end of the Apostolic Age=end of God’s guidance for His Church, types! (I know that’s simplistic…You don’t need to correct me)

The Bible clearly shows that Matthias succeded Judas based on Scripture in Psalms–they needed to fill the space for the original 12 and thus he needed to be one that had been with them from the beginning. So succession is Biblical.

The authority (perhaps not the miracle working–the apponted bishops and presbyters weren’t “in the building” at Pentecost) is described as being passed on by the imposition of hands–1Tim. 4:14, 5:22, 2Tim 2:2, and the church grows out of this–Eph 2 19-22, and matures into the One Holy and Apostolic Church we see today–Eph 4:11–The Catholic Church!

So “Apostolic succession” is Biblical.

If the Magisterium performed the signs of an apostle, I would give them the authority of an apostle. If not, it would be a blind leap of faith that believes contrary to the evidence of history and Scripture…I have never seen any.

I know I’m not going to convince you.:nope:

I’m absolutely CERTAIN ONE of us is right.
(as much as I can be morally certain )
I know where I’m laying my money…My Church has 2 millenia of scholarship and history behind it–through all its hardships, it still remains true to its origin.

Close your eyes and go driving. This is less dangerous in my opinion than what I percieve to be your methodology.

With the Holy Spirit driving this bus…I have faith He will steer us through!

God Bless you Michael, it’s been a great exchange!

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

But I certianly don’t see it that way. As you probably already assumed I, along with all other Evangelicals who study history, see the modern Roman Catholic Church as a “Johnnie come lately.” Namely in the 12-13 centuries. But I think that this is a different subject.

Wow. Not sure how to comment on this. I’ve never heard this version of history. No protestant denomination can solidly plant themselves before the 16th century. I don’t see how, even if your contention was true, one could call the Catholic Church a Johnny come lately logging in during the 13th. But you are right - different topic. Unfortunately we can’t make any more progress on the primary topic without reasonable agreement here.

michaelp:
I don’t think that you should be lumped together with them any more than Evangelicals want to be lumped together with all those who claim sola Scriptura.
OK, for the sake of continuing the discussion, I will allow you to include Catholics with the other 3 groups with a Magisterial Authority. Even in doing this, Evangelicals are not off the hook at all, and the formal insufficiency of Scripture is still demonstrable. Here is my logic: Catholics and the other 3 groups you mentioned all use Scripture (though different) and a Magisterial Authority. HOWEVER, they all use a DIFFERENT Magisterial Authority and that is a reasonable explanation as to why they arrive at different endpoints theologically. Protestants, on the other hand, are using the SAME authority - Scripture - yet they STILL do not demonstrate unified theology. Since they are all using the SAME authority and receiving different messages from it, I would conclude that either they are incapable of understanding the message of their Authority(Scripture), or Scripture itself lacks or is unable to communicate, its message. Take your pick, but they all end with Scripture being formally insufficient (One cannot know that one knows the truth of Scripture simply from knowing the words of Scripture)

michaelp:
Rememeber, Evangelical is a transdenominational term that unifies rather than separates. Therefore, we would be on the same page with all the essentials.
Unfortunately your authority doesn’t list the “essentials” so you have no idea what you’re talking about. How could you possibly know the essentials vs. the non essentials? This “essentials” term, in my opinion, is an attempt to create unity where it does not fully exist largely as a means to “keep the peace” and to justify the foundation of Sola Scriptura. Infant/Child Baptism is a perfect example of an essential that the Bible is unclear on. Yet the Bible is clear of the need for baptism. The truth is, you don’t know whether to baptize your child, you have no means of determining when they should be baptized and you don’t know if it is essential to their salvation. The fact that you all agree on this being a “non-essential” changes nothing.

michaelp:

While Roman Catholics can differ as to what they consider to be non-essential issues, so do Evangelicals. We all agree upon the five solas of the Reformation.

I don’t know what all 5 are, but nobody agrees on what “faith alone” means. And the only time we hear this term in the bible it contradicts Sola Fide.

michaelp:
Primarily, I teach systematic and historical theology through a program called The Theology Program. It seeks to give the average lay-person seminary level training that is taylored to work with the demands of full-time jobs and families.

Wow - sound great! What do you think of Grudem’s Systematic Theology? Be honest. As much as I enjoy the intellectual side of Christianity I feel a stronger pull to develop spiritually through praryer, obedience and charity. It’s much harder for me at this point in my life. But I will never give up…
I have to go to bed. I play on the “worship team” tomorrow - all day affair which gets me up at 0600…

I judge you not,

Phil

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

The Bible clearly shows that Matthias succeded Judas based on Scripture in Psalms–they needed to fill the space for the original 12 and thus he needed to be one that had been with them from the beginning. So succession is Biblical.

Yes, I agree with you that succession is biblical. However, I would also point out that succession was personal. Yes, information was clearly passed along from person to person. However something much greater than information was passed along with the information. Something which could not have been passed along by means of a book.

st_felicity:

I know I’m not going to convince you.:nope:

Very likely not. :crying: As long as it is about interpreting a text. As long as it is about interpreting information. However where is the truth? In the Bible or in Jesus? What is the truth? What the Bible says or what Jesus is?

Jesus says He is the truth. He doesn’t say he speaks the truth or has the truth. He says he is the truth.

“…I am the way and the truth and the life…” (Jn 14:6) [emphasis mine] Ruth101 opened up an interesting angle on this discussion with her post which was a list of references to the Word of God. (Logos)

newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

There is much to be understood about logos from the Book of Wisdom, which does not appear in many Protestant Bibles.

In any case, where I am going with this (and why it is difficult to understand for some) is that truth (for Catholics) is personal. It is a way of ‘being’ which is passed on by example and by interpersonal creative response. It is not something to be possessed by acquiring a book and reading it with an acquisitive eye. Wisdom does not equate to the acquisition of information. Wisdom has more to do with personal transformation. Personal transformation, not once but in every moment.

Mother Theresa advises us to look for Jesus not in a book but in the faces of other human beings.

st_felicity:

With the Holy Spirit driving this bus…I have faith He will steer us through!

Yes, I do too.

As for Church history, including Scripture which is part of Church history: there are gaps in narrative which can only be understood by being willing to see the charisma of certain people in the stories. That is, that certain people were present.

For instance, why did Veronica leave her very ordinary daily chores to sneak past dangerous auxiliaries to wipe the face of Jesus? Why did grouchy Simon carry the cross? Why did the Jewish women weep? Because the man walking the Via Dolorosa was Jesus in person. Was he giving a sermon? No. Was he interpreting scrolls? No. He was simply there.

Probably it was witnessing the martyrs which converted so many in the early days. Not just doing the mental calculation about why the martyrs just kept on coming in droves and wouldn’t give up, but also experiencing the presence of God in the last moments of the martyrs.

Interpretation of the Bible has its uses. But it is not the be-all and end-all. And can actually be a trap. The devil, afterall, knows Scripture.

 

[mtr01]

Philthy:
OK, for the sake of continuing the discussion, I will allow you to include Catholics with the other 3 groups with a Magisterial Authority. Even in doing this, Evangelicals are not off the hook at all, and the formal insufficiency of Scripture is still demonstrable. Here is my logic: Catholics and the other 3 groups you mentioned all use Scripture (though different) and a Magisterial Authority. HOWEVER, they all use a DIFFERENT Magisterial Authority and that is a reasonable explanation as to why they arrive at different endpoints theologically. Protestants, on the other hand, are using the SAME authority - Scripture - yet they STILL do not demonstrate unified theology. Since they are all using the SAME authority and receiving different messages from it, I would conclude that either they are incapable of understanding the message of their Authority(Scripture), or Scripture itself lacks or is unable to communicate, its message. Take your pick, but they all end with Scripture being formally insufficient (One cannot know that one knows the truth of Scripture simply from knowing the words of Scripture)

Phil
Interesting. This must be a relatively new fad in non-Catholic circles, the *ecclesia Dei *or sola ecclesia argument. I just made virtually the same reply to virtually the same argument on another board. To me, it is simply a deflection from the real issue, and in the end, seems to be analogous to arguing that geology and biology should derive at the same conclusions (using different subject matter) because they use the same scientific method.

If anything, however, it demonstrates that such “ecclesia Dei” groups are extremely internally consistent and cohesive: how many Mormon “denominations” are there? How many Jehovah’s Witness “denominations” are there? How many Roman Catholic “denominations” are there?

In my opinion it’s a pretty useless argument that, in the end, works against *sola scriptura. *Hmm, maybe they *should *use it more often.

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

Michael–You’re a sucker for a teary woman!!!

'Round and 'round we go…Where it stops, nobody knows!!!

My jaw dropped…until your last line– You DID get me! You never know on these forums…stranger things have been said!

Ooooohhh…Youre one of those end of the Apostolic Age=end of God’s guidance for His Church, types! (I know that’s simplistic…You don’t need to correct me)

The Bible clearly shows that Matthias succeded Judas based on Scripture in Psalms–they needed to fill the space for the original 12 and thus he needed to be one that had been with them from the beginning. So succession is Biblical.

The authority (perhaps not the miracle working–the apponted bishops and presbyters weren’t “in the building” at Pentecost) is described as being passed on by the imposition of hands–1Tim. 4:14, 5:22, 2Tim 2:2, and the church grows out of this–Eph 2 19-22, and matures into the One Holy and Apostolic Church we see today–Eph 4:11–The Catholic Church!

So “Apostolic succession” is Biblical.

I know I’m not going to convince you.:nope:

I’m absolutely CERTAIN ONE of us is right.
(as much as I can be morally certain )
I know where I’m laying my money…My Church has 2 millenia of scholarship and history behind it–through all its hardships, it still remains true to its origin.

With the Holy Spirit driving this bus…I have faith He will steer us through!

God Bless you Michael, it’s been a great exchange!

What a great way to end this.

You are great to talk to. It has been fun.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Wow. Not sure how to comment on this. I’ve never heard this version of history. No protestant denomination can solidly plant themselves before the 16th century.

It depends on who you talk to and who you read. You see, Protestants would say just the opposite. Don’t you know that the Reformers and all their followers (until the anabaptists) believed that they were mearly Reforming the Church that had gone bad, expecially in the preceeding few centuries.

Do you think that the Reformers thought that they were starting a new Church that had no roots in history. Read them. They are constantly quoting the Church fathers and theologians.

To say that Protestantism is a novalty is begging the question.

I don’t see how, even if your contention was true, one could call the Catholic Church a Johnny come lately logging in during the 13th. But you are right - different topic.

Right.

Cont

 

[michaelp]

Unfortunately we can’t make any more progress on the primary topic without reasonable agreement here.

I agree.

OK, for the sake of continuing the discussion, I will allow you to include Catholics with the other 3 groups with a Magisterial Authority.

Sweet!!

Even in doing this, Evangelicals are not off the hook at all,

Dang!!

Here is my logic: Catholics and the other 3 groups you mentioned all use Scripture (though different) and a Magisterial Authority. HOWEVER, they all use a DIFFERENT Magisterial Authority and that is a reasonable explanation as to why they arrive at different endpoints theologically. Protestants, on the other hand, are using the SAME authority - Scripture - yet they STILL do not demonstrate unified theology.

This may look more true than it is in actuality. Why? Because, broadly speaking, Protestant denominations use two different hermeneutics. 1) The “uniformed” lay person. He or she uses a “spirit-led” biblical docetic interpretation. In other words, this hermeneutic simply thinks the Bible is a magic book that you open up and God speaks to you wherever you are at. 2) Historical-grammatical-literary hermeneutic. This means essentially, the text means only what the author intended it to mean in is original language and cultural situation. Much more to it, but that should do. This is the most common Evangelical hermeneutic. It is what would be taught at the most promenient evangelical seminaries Dallas Theological Seminary, Trinity, Gorden-Conwell, Denver Seminary, SWBT, etc. Now, when you find people using this hermeneutic, you find an increadible amout of agreement on most theological issues. As a matter of fact, being around both groups, Evangelicals who follow this hermeneutic, and Catholics on this site, I find at least as much agreement (dare I say more?) as those of you on this site.

Therefore, it is not exactly like you say, since all people who interpret the Bible don’t use the same hermeneutic. Just like all people who interpret the Bible through a Magisterium (JW, Mormans, Roman Catholics, etc) don’t use the same Magisterium.

Do you see the connection now?

If not, I don’t know what to say. Expecially since I don’t know how we got thos this point to begin with!!

Since they are all using the SAME authority and receiving different messages from it, I would conclude that either they are incapable of understanding the message of their Authority(Scripture), or Scripture itself lacks or is unable to communicate, its message.

Nope, it is all your hermeneutic.

 

[michaelp]

Take your pick, but they all end with Scripture being formally insufficient (One cannot know that one knows the truth of Scripture simply from knowing the words of Scripture)

Unfortunately your authority doesn’t list the “essentials” so you have no idea what you’re talking about.

The five solas of the reformation.

Infant/Child Baptism is a perfect example of an essential that the Bible is unclear on.

THis is not an essential to Evangelicals. Maybe some fundementalists, but not Evangelicals.

I don’t know what all 5 are, but nobody agrees on what “faith alone” means. And the only time we hear this term in the bible it contradicts Sola Fide.

What do you mean “Nobody knows?” You are not hanging around Evangelicals then. I go to ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) every year and you could not prove this statement there.

If the congregations are ignorant (which they often are), this does not mean that nobody knows what something means. This is the same thing with Roman Catholic laypeople. Don’t judge by a bad representative. You ask me to do the same, right?

Wow - sound great! What do you think of Grudem’s Systematic Theology? Be honest. As much as I enjoy the intellectual side of Christianity I feel a stronger pull to develop spiritually through praryer, obedience and charity. It’s much harder for me at this point in my life. But I will never give up…

I have to go to bed. I play on the “worship team” tomorrow - all day affair which gets me up at 0600…
I judge you not,

Phil

I like Grudem. I use him in my theology classes. He is a fly in the ointment of Evangelicalism because of his stand on Spiritual gifts, but it keeps us sharp.

Got to go,

Have a great one,

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

I agree.

Sweet!!

Dang!!

This may look more true than it is in actuality. Why? Because, broadly speaking, Protestant denominations use two different hermeneutics. 1) The “uniformed” lay person. He or she uses a “spirit-led” biblical docetic interpretation. In other words, this hermeneutic simply thinks the Bible is a magic book that you open up and God speaks to you wherever you are at. 2) Historical-grammatical-literary hermeneutic. This means essentially, the text means only what the author intended it to mean in is original language and cultural situation. Much more to it, but that should do. This is the most common Evangelical hermeneutic. It is what would be taught at the most promenient evangelical seminaries Dallas Theological Seminary, Trinity, Gorden-Conwell, Denver Seminary, SWBT, etc. Now, when you find people using this hermeneutic, you find an increadible amout of agreement on most theological issues. As a matter of fact, being around both groups, Evangelicals who follow this hermeneutic, and Catholics on this site, I find at least as much agreement (dare I say more?) as those of you on this site.

Therefore, it is not exactly like you say, since all people who interpret the Bible don’t use the same hermeneutic. Just like all people who interpret the Bible through a Magisterium (JW, Mormans, Roman Catholics, etc) don’t use the same Magisterium.

Do you see the connection now?

If not, I don’t know what to say. Expecially since I don’t know how we got thos this point to begin with!!

Nope, it is all your hermeneutic.

Ah, so its sola hermeneutica!

That makes sense.

Peace

 

[st_felicity]

Now…after you said all those sweet things…I havta ask…I promise I won’t drag you into a loooong dialogue as before…

michaelp:

1. Historical-grammatical-literary hermeneutic. This means essentially, the text means only what the author intended it to mean in is original language and cultural situation. Much more to it, but that should do.

Nope, it is all your hermeneutic.

So in your hermaneutics you try to look at the books of the Bible as texts written in a specific time for a specific audience meant to be understood by that particular audience in a specific way?

Doesn’t that deny the timelessness of the "“True” author and that God is for all people in all time? Wouldn’t that be rather shortsighted of God? Do you really believe that the Sacred Text is limited to a specific historical audience? Isn’t God for everyone–not just History buffs, Grammarians, and Cultural Anthropoligists?

Sorry so many questions–but if I’ve got only one shot…

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

Now…after you said all those sweet things…I havta ask…I promise I won’t drag you into a loooong dialogue as before…

So in your hermaneutics you try to look at the books of the Bible as texts written in a specific time for a specific audience meant to be understood by that particular audience in a specific way?

Doesn’t that deny the timelessness of the "“True” author and that God is for all people in all time? Wouldn’t that be rather shortsighted of God? Do you really believe that the Sacred Text is limited to a specific historical audience? Isn’t God for everyone–not just History buffs, Grammarians, and Cultural Anthropoligists?

Sorry so many questions–but if I’ve got only one shot…

This is a great question. Once a person finds out what the text meant then, only then is he or she prepared to discover what it means for all time (timeless principles). Once once finds out what it means for all time, he or she can apply it to the contemporary audience. So . . .

1. Find out what it meant to the original audience.
2. Extract the timeless principles to find out what it means to the timeless audience.
3. Apply the timeless principles into a contemporary situation.

For example, take the third commandment (second for you):

This commandment is not to take the Lord’s name in vain.

Step one:
Without getting into the lexical and grammatical issues, lets try to understand it from a historical perspective. In the culture which the Israelites lived people used to use the name of their god in hexes, curses, and blessings in order to give validity to what they were saying. In other words, they would use their god’s name to accomplish a set goal. They may want to curse someone so they would say, “In the name of Baal, you will be cursed.” Or “In the name of Baal, this will happen.” It could have been something as simply as this. “Baal says that we should not go to war.” Or “Baal say that it will not rain.”

This common practice of invoking the name of your God on something in order to make it valid was what God did not want the Israelites to do. They should never use God’s name to validate or “give power” to a statement.

Step 2:
Naturally and self-evidently coming from this is the timeless principle which says thus: God is very protective of His reputation. People should not use God’s in a statement to give it validity. This would be using His name in a worthless manner (in vain). Essentially, Don’t say that God has said something He did not say.

Step 3:
Today, we should not use God’s name to give any teaching absolute validity if we don’t know for certian that it is from Him. Do not say, "Thus sayeth the Lord, if you are not infallibly certian that the Lord said something.

I have had people come up to me and say, “The Lord told me this . . .” This is taking His name in vain, attempting to gain validity to a statement by invoking His holy name.

You see, it does have timeless truth and application, ONLY after you have gone through the first step. This is historical-grammatical-literary hermeneutics.

Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

dennisknapp:

Ah, so its sola hermeneutica!

No, dennis. It’s Sola Historical-grammatical-literary hermeneutic. :crying:

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

Ah, so its sola hermeneutica!

That makes sense.

Peace

Cool . . . wait a minute, me thinks you are patronizing me. But I think that I can live with that, since it simply means sola Scritura (i.e. sola rightly interpreted Scripture).

Dennis, what is your favorite college football team?

Michael