Need help answering a Baptist

[Contarini]

My answer is, the elect never stop believing. They are never without salvation faith.

So the next question is, “Do you acknowledge that some people think they are among the elect and are not?”

If so, how do you know you are not one of those people? If it’s possible for someone else to be wrong, why is it impossible for you to be wrong?

I don’t see how Reformed theology provides assurance, except in a highly subjective, irrational way. That is to say, clearly some Reformed folks have subjective assurance (and some of them, by the judgment of others of them, are probably mistaken in their assurance), but I don’t see how there’s actually a logical basis for this assurance.

If assurance is based on an internal “witness of the Spirit,” clearly it is possible to mistake one’s own presumption and human emotions for such a witness.

If it’s based on the “practical syllogism,” we’re back to looking at one’s own works, and all Luther’s criticisms of that method of reaching confidence in one’s salvation apply.

And so on.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Sure they will. That’s why many believe the doctrine: it’s reasoned from Scripture.

But the chain of reasoning is manifestly bad, with huge leaps that clearly aren’t dictated by the Biblical evidence itself.

Sola Scriptura is a negative doctrine, originally–it is what happens when you take medieval scholasticism and subtract the confidence in the Church. Trying to provide a basis for it in Scripture itself is a failed project.

Edwin

 

[William_C]

One reason for me not to embrace the “reformed doctrine”

(With all love and respect for my fellow Christians)

Well at least you see that what the early church did is not the issue.

That’s a start.

 

[Bookcat]

Well at least you see that what the early church did is not the issue.

That’s a start.

It is the issue. As you noted the early Church has no bearing on the “reformed doctrine” --the one is not connected to the other -though those who came up with the “reformed doctrine” in the 16th century can have honestly thought it did.

The early Christians did not believe in Sola Scriptura and that is the start.

 

[William_C]

So the next question is, “Do you acknowledge that some people think they are among the elect and are not?”

Yes. I also think some think they are not among the elect, and they are. So what?

Contarini:

If so, how do you know you are not one of those people? If it’s possible for someone else to be wrong, why is it impossible for you to be wrong?

I never said it was impossible that I’m wrong.

Contarini:

I don’t see how Reformed theology provides assurance, except in a highly subjective, irrational way.

Who’s claimed that a doctrine provides assurance?

Contarini:

That is to say, clearly some Reformed folks have subjective assurance (and some of them, by the judgment of others of them, are probably mistaken in their assurance), but I don’t see how there’s actually a logical basis for this assurance.

Are the apostle John’s statements regarding “knowing you have eternal life,” illogical?

Or are they true?

Contarini:

If assurance is based on an internal “witness of the Spirit,” clearly it is possible to mistake one’s own presumption and human emotions for such a witness.

If it’s based on the “practical syllogism,” we’re back to looking at one’s own works, and all Luther’s criticisms of that method of reaching confidence in one’s salvation apply.

And so on.

Edwin

Congratulations, Edwin. You have proven you are an ordinary person who knows what many other ordinary persons know. :clapping:

 

[Micah11]

So in the very earliest days…the early Christians believed in Sola Scriptura?

So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus** it is written **by the prophet:
Matt 2

But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
Matt 4

Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’”

For this is he of whom it is written: ‘Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.’
Matt11

And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’” Matt 21

Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night**, for it is written: **‘I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’
Matt 26

**As it is written **in the Prophets: “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.” Mark 1

THIRTY reference to “it is written” in the gospels alone. In addition:

For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. John 5

Acts 17
Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.

 

[William_C]

It is the issue. As you noted the early Church has no bearing on the “reformed doctrine” --the one is not connected to the other -though those who came up with the “reformed doctrine” in the 16th century can have honestly thought it did.

The early Christians did not believe in Sola Scriptura and that is the start.

I’m certain there were many things the early Christians didn’t believe in. So what?

 

[William_C]

But the chain of reasoning is manifestly bad, with huge leaps that clearly aren’t dictated by the Biblical evidence itself.

Sola Scriptura is a negative doctrine, originally–it is what happens when you take medieval scholasticism and subtract the confidence in the Church. Trying to provide a basis for it in Scripture itself is a failed project.

Edwin

Thanks for your opinion, Edwin.

 

[Bookcat]

'So what?

Well if understand things correctly the whole approach to Sacred Scripture those who embrace the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is based on something that was was developed in the 16th Century.

The Bible --or even the New Testament was never intended as a book to be taken on its own.
The New Testament presupposes the Church from which it came.

The very disagreement from one community to another among those of say Baptists in reading the Bible from within the sola scriptura approach is a sign that such is not the approach that was intended. Especially since the approach is not even itself found in the Bible.

Again this is all with great love and respect for my fellow Christians who set out to follow Christ.

 

[Bookcat]

So

And nothing there (or in any verse in the Bible) is about Sola Scriptura.

 

[Bookcat]

I’m

And the next question – is where did say the New Testament come from? Why those books??

 

[William_C]

The very disagreement from one community to another among those of say Baptists in reading the Bible from within the sola scriptura approach is a sign that such is not the approach that was intended.

Says who? You?

Bookcat:

Especially since the approach is not even itself found in the Bible.

You find the same type of disagreement within communities of centralized authority. Therefore, your conclusion applies to communities with centralized authority as well; namely, it’s a sign that communities with centralized authority are not the intended approach.

 

[Contarini]

Yes. I also think some think they are not among the elect, and they are. So what?

I never said it was impossible that I’m wrong.

Fine, then I don’t really see on what basis you object to the Catholic denial that assurance is possible.

Who’s claimed that a doctrine provides assurance?

Fair enough. What I should have said is, “I don’t see how the Reformed understanding of salvation actually allows a person to have assurance.”

Are the apostle John’s statements regarding “knowing you have eternal life,” illogical?

Or are they true?

Of course they’re true–that’s one of those silly questions that assumes only your interpretation is possible.

But the “knowing” is moral certainty, not absolute certainty, and it applies to the present, not necessarily the future.

For that matter, 1 John also says that a person who has been born of God does not sin. . . . and that people who have the anointing of the Spirit don’t need teachers. Taking prooftexts from 1 John literally as weapons to beat up other people’s theology with is if possible even more inconsistent and dubious a practice than doing so with the Bible in general.

Congratulations, Edwin. You have proven you are an ordinary person who knows what many other ordinary persons know. :clapping:

I am very happy to be such a person.

Edwin

 

[William_C]

And the next question – is where did say the New Testament come from?

God.

Bookcat:

Why those books??

They’re the books God wanted.

 

[Micah11]

And nothing there (or in any verse in the Bible) is about Sola Scriptura.

How do you know?

 

[William_C]

Fine, then I don’t really see on what basis you object to the Catholic denial that assurance is possible.

Catholics say you can’t know. Scripture says you can.

Scripture does say you can know, doesn’t it?

Contarini:

Of course they’re true–that’s one of those silly questions that assumes only your interpretation is possible.

But the “knowing” is moral certainty, not absolute certainty, and it applies to the present, not necessarily the future.

For that matter, 1 John also says that a person who has been born of God does not sin. . . .

…continually (I believe it’s a present tense verb).

Contarini:

…and that people who have the anointing of the Spirit don’t need teachers.

Is John wrong?

Contarini:

Taking prooftexts from 1 John literally as weapons to beat up other people’s theology with is if possible even more inconsistent and dubious a practice than doing so with the Bible in general.

Who’s beating up anybody? Give me a break!

How about using history to beat up other people’s theology with. Is that OK with you?

Contarini:

I am very happy to be such a person.

Me too.

 

[MaryBernard]

What the early church did is not the issue. It has no bearing on the reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I thought the point of the reformation was to bring the church back to what is was during the earliest time. So if that wasn’t the point, what was the point then?

 

[William_C]

I thought the point of the reformation was to bring the church back to what is was during the earliest time. So if that wasn’t the point, what was the point then?

The discussion is about Sola Scriptura. The discussion is not about the point of the reformation.

 

[Bookcat]

Says who? You?

You find the same type of disagreement within communities of centralized authority. Therefore, your conclusion applies to communities with centralized authority as well; namely, it’s a sign that communities with centralized authority are not the intended approach.

The question is what did Jesus intend? What did he do?

Jesus founded a Church which yes has authority from him. Nowhere does one find him teaching sola scriptura. But yes one does find him founding a Church.

Did people disagree with the Church? Sure it happens. Not good but it happens. Did differing groups found their own communities around doctrines of their own? yes the early centuries is full of various heretical groups …say denying the Divinity of Christ etc.

Did those differing groups use the Sacred Scriptures to claim that their doctrines where correct? Yes. Where they correct? No.

Was it the idea of Jesus that people just go the Bible and take that alone as their way? One does not find any such idea. Rather one finds that he founded a Church. He formed a Church – a people and gave authority to certain men to teach and bind and loose within that Church. He gathered around him a Church. A Church that loves the Sacred Scriptures.

 

[MaryBernard]

The discussion is about Sola Scriptura. The discussion is not about the point of the reformation.

I’m even more confused now. Most sola scripturists believe that this doctrine was embraced by the early church. Are you saying that it was not?