Why I am not a theological liberal.

[Walpole]

This is the Roman Catholic position. There are two other positions of which I am aware. It is not possible to determine which is correct from material evidence. Aside: Obviously, if you believe R.C. tradition is infallible, then you believe the R.C. version.

Three models for the authentication of Scripture (I won't bother with the details of each)

1. Roman Catholic model
2. Evidentiary model
3. Self-authenticating model

I think if you are honest, you know the real answer. What are the odds Protestants just so happened to have the exact same New Testament canon as the Catholics decided upon? And not only the same exact canon, but the same exact order!

The other models are demonstrably fallacious. I can grab a completely random person off the street and stick him in a library containing hundreds of books and epistles, including books and epistles that comprise the New Testament canon. He would have no idea what books are inspired and be able to pick out those matching the New Testament canon. He would be at a complete loss.

The reality is you can only hijack what the Catholic Church already picked out for you. There is no inspired table of contents and even all your top theologians will tell you they are taking a fallible guess at what is infallible Scripture.

Once again, you cannot even arrive at the Scriptura, without violating the sola!

 

[Fastfredy0]

You are actually making my point. Even the definition itself becomes entirely subjective. What I say it is might be different from what you say it is. And you have no authority to claim your version or definition is any better or worse than a definition I might provide.

Well, if that be true then further discussion is futile as we would be talking past each other.
Using this train of thought, everything we say is subjective as the definition of each word we use is not defined in Scripture, thus our discussion is a subjective malaise.
Example: You use the word "subjective" by that term is subjective as it "might be different from what you say it is. And you have no authority to claim your version or definition is any better or worse than a definition I might provide." Thus, all discussion if without meaning as, unless mathematics, it is 'subjective' (granted the meaning of subjective is subjective as are all words.)
Aside: To a point, you have a minor point. Language is subjective to a degree.

Unless you can use sola Scriptura to define sola Scriptura, you are violating the very belief in the doctrine by going outside of Scripture to define it.

Unless you use the word SUBJECTIVE to define SUBJECTIVE, you are violating the very belief in the doctrine by going outside of Scripture to define it. This is absurd.
Back to reality. I can define the term "sola scriptura" and you can define it. If we come to a common understanding we can then determine the validity of our posed definitions with the caveat that the english language is to a degree subjective.

After all, what does the word ALONE mean?

Alone = to the exclusion of ALL OTHERS
Only = without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively

Yes, my bad. I forgot to give that part of the definition of "scripture alone".
"Scripture alone" is the concept that the ONLY (and thus the word ALONE) infallible source of information about God is found in the 66 books of the Bible. It is a human concept and as you said "scripture alone" is therefore not without the possibility of error. You are an R.C. and you believe (IMO) that there are other infallible sources for God's communication. Like me, your idea is a human concept is therefore not without the possibility of error. Which gets us back to the difficult models use to determine the authority of scripture. Eventually we have to agree to disagree.

The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Gotquestions (I agree with this definition. My guess is the phrase became popular from those who wanted to differentiate themselves and their doctrine from the R.C. church in the reformation ... but I am not a historian).
Aside: the authority of the definition is man. In this case GOTQUESTIONS.ORG. For you and I the authority is anything we agree to with said authority limited to any discussion we have on the matter.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I think if you are honest, you know the real answer.

I have my bias' as do you. I am honest when I say I believe in the self-authenticating model. You believe in the R.C. model. One or both of us is wrong. I believe both of us is being honest. I only know that I am being honest.

What are the odds Protestants just so happened to have the exact same New Testament canon as the Catholics decided upon?

Well, they don't agree to the canon as I believe (correct me if I am wrong as I grant your knowledge of R.C. doctrine surpasses mine) the apocrypha is part of your canon.
Aside: One of these posts I am going to recall how to spell apocrypha (thank you spell checker)

the other models are demonstrably fallacious. I can grab a completely random person off the street and stick him in a library containing hundreds of books and epistles, including books and epistles that comprise the New Testament canon. He would have no idea what books are inspired and be able to pick out those matching the New Testament canon. He would be at a complete loss.

The statement indicates a lack of understanding of the models. You set up a false method by which God used man to determine the content of scripture and then shot down your invalid model.
If God determines what we will accept as his infallible word then He will use His method (whatever it is) to infallibly ensure we have proper scripture.

 

[Quantrill]

Tradition is the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice.

St. Luke opens his account stating what he is writing has been handed on to him...

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)



I think you are conflating the Roman Church with the Catholic Church. The Latin (Roman) Church is but one of many Churches which comprise the Catholic Church. (Not all Catholics are Latin / Roman.)

Circling back to my original post here, how do you know what is or is not a false doctrine? What body, organ or mechanism do you have to ensure what you believe is actually the Christian faith?

Luke was writing from first hand eyewitness accounts. That is not the same as 'tradition'. He had access to others who wrote Scripture also. He experienced these things which we find in Scripture, and wrote Scripture himself. His is not tradition.

But, as I said, there is nothing wrong with tradition if used correctly. Hence the problem with the Roman Church who uses it to shore up much of her false teaching.

No. I'm not conflating the Roman church with the Catholic Church. I recognize the distinction. It is Rome that conflates the Catholic Church with the Roman church. Hence the name 'Roman Catholic', which is really an oxymoron. I as a Protestant am part of the Catholic (universal) Church of Jesus Christ. Rome wants to be that Catholic church, but she is not.

I have the Scripture to know and study to determine the true from the false. I have access to believers now and those who have gone before and studied the Scriptures.

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

Luke was writing from first hand eyewitness accounts. That is not the same as 'tradition'. He had access to others who wrote Scripture also. He experienced these things which we find in Scripture, and wrote Scripture himself. His is not tradition.

Sure it is. What Luke was writing down was the beliefs handed down to him by witnesses. This is the very definition of tradition.

---> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tradition

But, as I said, there is nothing wrong with tradition if used correctly. Hence the problem with the Roman Church who uses it to shore up much of her false teaching.

No. I'm not conflating the Roman church with the Catholic Church. I recognize the distinction. It is Rome that conflates the Catholic Church with the Roman church. Hence the name 'Roman Catholic', which is really an oxymoron. I as a Protestant am part of the Catholic (universal) Church of Jesus Christ. Rome wants to be that Catholic church, but she is not.

Yes, it most certainly is an oxymoron. Hence the Church is called the Catholic Church. The term, "Roman Catholic" was a term given to the Roman Church by the Anglicans, in an attempt to distinguish the difference between the "Church of England" and the Catholic Church.

I have the Scripture to know and study to determine the true from the false. I have access to believers now and those who have gone before and studied the Scriptures.

Quantrill

Everyone has the Scriptures to know and study and to determine the true from the false. Arius did and he was a Scripture scholar.

Who go to decide if he was right or wrong?

 

[Walpole]

I have my bias' as do you. I am honest when I say I believe in the self-authenticating model. You believe in the R.C. model. One or both of us is wrong. I believe both of us is being honest. I only know that I am being honest.

I do not not doubt you are being honest and I am not questioning your honesty. What I am questioning is whether you really thing someone can pick out the exact same canon (even in the exact same order!) as the Catholic New Testament canon if I pull a random person from the street and threw them in a library with hundreds of books to pick from. If you truly believed in the self-authenticating model, every random person pulled from the street should be able to pick out the exact same books which comprise the New Testament canon.

Do you really believe that?

Well, they don't agree to the canon as I believe (correct me if I am wrong as I grant your knowledge of R.C. doctrine surpasses mine) the apocrypha is part of your canon.
Aside: One of these posts I am going to recall how to spell apocrypha (thank you spell checker)

Yes, the Catholic Old Testament canon includes the deuterocanonical books. In fact every canon in Church history contained them. They were removed when the Protestants arrived on the scene.

The statement indicates a lack of understanding of the models. You set up a false method by which God used man to determine the content of scripture and then shot down your invalid model.
If God determines what we will accept as his infallible word then He will use His method (whatever it is) to infallibly ensure we have proper scripture.

Correct my misunderstanding. Explain to me how Protestants arrived at the exact same canon as the Catholics, in the exact same order, other than by simply copying theirs.

 

[Walpole]

Well, if that be true then further discussion is futile as we would be talking past each other.
Using this train of thought, everything we say is subjective as the definition of each word we use is not defined in Scripture, thus our discussion is a subjective malaise.
Example: You use the word "subjective" by that term is subjective as it "might be different from what you say it is. And you have no authority to claim your version or definition is any better or worse than a definition I might provide." Thus, all discussion if without meaning as, unless mathematics, it is 'subjective' (granted the meaning of subjective is subjective as are all words.)
Aside: To a point, you have a minor point. Language is subjective to a degree.


Unless you use the word SUBJECTIVE to define SUBJECTIVE, you are violating the very belief in the doctrine by going outside of Scripture to define it. This is absurd.
Back to reality. I can define the term "sola scriptura" and you can define it. If we come to a common understanding we can then determine the validity of our posed definitions with the caveat that the english language is to a degree subjective.


Yes, my bad. I forgot to give that part of the definition of "scripture alone".
"Scripture alone" is the concept that the ONLY (and thus the word ALONE) infallible source of information about God is found in the 66 books of the Bible. It is a human concept and as you said "scripture alone" is therefore not without the possibility of error. You are an R.C. and you believe (IMO) that there are other infallible sources for God's communication. Like me, your idea is a human concept is therefore not without the possibility of error. Which gets us back to the difficult models use to determine the authority of scripture. Eventually we have to agree to disagree.

The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Gotquestions (I agree with this definition. My guess is the phrase became popular from those who wanted to differentiate themselves and their doctrine from the R.C. church in the reformation ... but I am not a historian).
Aside: the authority of the definition is man. In this case GOTQUESTIONS.ORG. For you and I the authority is anything we agree to with said authority limited to any discussion we have on the matter.

I am short on time so let me just address a few things.

Once again, unless you can define the doctrine from Scripture alone, your definition or my definition or Gotquestions.com's definition is moot as it would be going outside of Scripture to define what it is you claim only Scripture alone can do.

Secondly, as for 2 Tim 3:16, "ALL Scripture" ≠ "ONLY Scripture".

 

[Fastfredy0]

If you truly believed in the self-authenticating model, every random person pulled from the street should be able to pick out the exact same books which comprise the New Testament canon.

This is a misunderstanding of the self-authenticating model which states that God determines the method whereby we can be assured our canon is correct. God has not determined the method be that any random person will pick the same books. In other words, you cannot arbitrarily chose God's method of ensuring canon which your hypothetical proposes.

Correct my misunderstanding. Explain to me how Protestants arrived at the exact same canon as the Catholics, in the exact same order, other than by simply copying theirs.

They did not come up with the same canon. We covered this. The canon of protestants does not include the apocrypha. Thus the foundation of your statement is in error. (Aside: spelt apocrypha correctly without spell check, woohoo)
I am not an authority on when/where/how the 66 books of the bible were established, so I can't answer the question.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion (Kindle Locations 1351-1354). Signalman Publishing. Kindle Edition.
The authority of Scripture derived not from men, but from the Spirit of God.
Objection, That Scripture depends on the decision of the Church.

Refutation,
The truth of God would thus be subjected to the will of man.

It is insulting to the Holy Spirit. Paul testifies that the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets," (Ephesians 2:20). If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist. Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets, until her Judgment is interposed. For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed.

It establishes a tyranny in the Church.

Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Secondly, as for 2 Tim 3:16, "ALL Scripture" ≠ "ONLY Scripture".

Agreed ... but then I never used this verse to validate any thing I proposed so the comment is moot as it does not confirm or deny the possibly of "sola scriptura".

"Sola scriptura" is a man made doctrine that is used to deny the thought that man determines what God's infallible instructions are. Thus, it is a man made doctrine to deny the authority of TRADITION or anything else supposing itself to represent God's instructions.
TRADITION (despite your quoting Luke 1:1-4... I think that was the verses) is a man made doctrine to authenticate the infallibility of the R.C. church ... a very useful tool to dominate its members. You believe in the authority of TRADITION, I don't. That is what this discussion is in a 'nut-shell' IMO. This is an impasse that our training, study and bias will not surmount to the point that we will change our view point.

 

[Walpole]

This is a misunderstanding of the self-authenticating model which states that God determines the method whereby we can be assured our canon is correct. God has not determined the method be that any random person will pick the same books. In other words, you cannot arbitrarily chose God's method of ensuring canon which your hypothetical proposes.

The reality is you have no way of knowing apart from borrowing the list the Catholics put together. You can try and whitewash this by stating there was a method or theory, but the reality is you just took the list the Catholics authoritatively stated were the canonical books.

It was the Church's authority which you borrowed...

"It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept." - Canon 36 from the Third Council of Carthage, 397 A.D.

---> Four books of Kings = First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings
---> Paraleipomena = Chronicles
---> Five books of Solomon = Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus
---> Two books of Esdras = Ezra and Nehemiah
---> Jeremiah = Included the book of Baruch, which was not separated out until (Baruch was Jeremiah’s scribe)


This same canon was affirmed repeatedly by the Church at the Council of Rome, affirmed by Damasus, Innocent, Galasius, the Fathers at Florence, then declared dogmatically at Trent when the Protestants began removing books from the canon, then affirmed yet again at Vatican I.

(Though I am focusing our discussion on the New Testament canon, since you brought up the deuterocanonical books, it should be noted there is no Church in history which ever had a 66-book canon. It was entirely made up by Protestants.)

They did not come up with the same canon. We covered this. The canon of protestants does not include the apocrypha. Thus the foundation of your statement is in error. (Aside: spelt apocrypha correctly without spell check, woohoo)
I am not an authority on when/where/how the 66 books of the bible were established, so I can't answer the question.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion (Kindle Locations 1351-1354). Signalman Publishing. Kindle Edition.
The authority of Scripture derived not from men, but from the Spirit of God.
Objection, That Scripture depends on the decision of the Church.

Refutation,
The truth of God would thus be subjected to the will of man.

It is insulting to the Holy Spirit. Paul testifies that the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets," (Ephesians 2:20). If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist. Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets, until her Judgment is interposed. For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed.

It establishes a tyranny in the Church.

Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.

I'm speaking of the New Testament canon. The Protestants simply copied the exact same canon the Catholics declared.

 

[Walpole]

Agreed ... but then I never used this verse to validate any thing I proposed so the comment is moot as it does not confirm or deny the possibly of "sola scriptura".

"Sola scriptura" is a man made doctrine that is used to deny the thought that man determines what God's infallible instructions are. Thus, it is a man made doctrine to deny the authority of TRADITION or anything else supposing itself to represent God's instructions.
TRADITION (despite your quoting Luke 1:1-4... I think that was the verses) is a man made doctrine to authenticate the infallibility of the R.C. church ... a very useful tool to dominate its members. You believe in the authority of TRADITION, I don't. That is what this discussion is in a 'nut-shell' IMO. This is an impasse that our training, study and bias will not surmount to the point that we will change our view point.

Here's what you are missing and where you torpedo your own argument: For unless you can define the doctrine of sola Scripture using sola Scriptura, it is nothing more than your own tradition. Ergo if you believe in the doctrine of sola Scriptura, then you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of: Believing in the authority of tradition.

 

[jaybo]

Agreed... there is evidence for both sides.
My guess is that he was a Jew.

The apostle Luke was a Gentile physician.

 

[jasonc]

Was the Apostle Paul Jewish Before and After Jesus? — Kurt Willems

There is a short answer to this: yes, clearly Paul was Jewish.Nothing we have in the historical record of any reliability would call this into question. Although he was from Tarsus (according to Acts), he was born to a Jewish family with a history of Pharisaism. Paul was Jewish before and after Jesu

theologycurator.com

D-D-W ,why am I not surprised ?

 

[jasonc]

Was the Apostle Paul Jewish Before and After Jesus? — Kurt Willems

There is a short answer to this: yes, clearly Paul was Jewish.Nothing we have in the historical record of any reliability would call this into question. Although he was from Tarsus (according to Acts), he was born to a Jewish family with a history of Pharisaism. Paul was Jewish before and after Jesu

theologycurator.com

D-D-W ,why am I not surprised ?

oh and its a sin for some here to embrace Paul's jewishness ,God forbid a new like you and me embrace Romans on this and await for the land we have .

that is another thread

 

[Seasoned by Grace]

Please join the battle

OzSpen
Why does it have to be a battle? Haven't we had that as a problem here on this forum long enough?
I know it's probably just a figure of speech, but with all the problems forums have had, and having to "BAN SEVERAL PEOPLE permanently on this forum recently, I think you could use a better choice of words, that sounds a bit kinder.
PLEASE!!!

Seasoned by Grace

 

[Fastfredy0]

The apostle Luke was a Gentile physician.

I've read the commentaries. I disagree. I grant there is evidence for both sides. I am sure we won't be able to change one another's mind. It's a very minor issue.

 

[OzSpen]

I skimmed through your article, which is so biased and error-filled that I stopped reading part way through. Would you be interested in reading my article about theological conservatives having absolutely no idea what they're talking about?

jaybo,

It's useless telling me my article is "so biased and "error-filled" when you don't tell me the biases and errors.

Why don't you start a new thread that includes your article "about theological conservatives"?

What do I have "no idea" about? You are obtuse in your language.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

OzSpen
Why does it have to be a battle? Haven't we had that as a problem here on this forum long enough?
I know it's probably just a figure of speech, but with all the problems forums have had, and having to "BAN SEVERAL PEOPLE permanently on this forum recently, I think you could use a better choice of words, that sounds a bit kinder.
PLEASE!!!

Seasoned by Grace

Would you prefer, "Please join the defense of the faith"?

 

[jaybo]

jaybo,

It's useless telling me my article is "so biased and "error-filled" when you don't tell me the biases and errors.

Why don' you start a new thread that includes your article "about theological conservatives"?

What do I have "no idea" about? You are obtuse in your language.

Oz

This is in part what I wrote in response to your post: "You are right in saying that you expect a lot of resistance from theological liberals and agnostics/atheists. First of all, you're joining theological liberals and agnostics/atheists, which is totally wrong. Theological liberals believe in God; agnostics/atheists do not."

You obviously knew in advance that there would be a lot of resistance from people who disagree with you. So, why are you surprised that people disagree with you?

BTW, should I lump theological conservatives and agnostics/atheists together? That is your evaluation of people who don't share your views. But of course I won't do that; my "liberal theology" doesn't include that kind of judgement of others.

 

[Seasoned by Grace]

Would you prefer, "Please join the defense of the faith"?

OzSpen
I would much prefer that,
and would much prefer you be kind and uplifting, and encouraging with a teaching mindset, and not use some of the sarcasm I detect.
That's not how it's done here anymore.
Be loving or be silent...PERIOD !!!

Romans 12:10, "Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor."

Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity (Of spirit. Kindness. Not necessarily of ideas or opinions)!

-