Why I am not a theological liberal.

[Quantrill]

Not using tradition to study or understand the Bible is your tradition!

You know you are right because you have set yourself up as your own authority.

Yes, it is a lawyer's trick. You answered a question I did not ask. --> I did not ask if Southern Baptists teach baptism makes one a believer.

I gave you the teaching of the Lutherans and the Southern Baptists on whether baptism is salvific. One says it is, the other says it is not.

---> Who is correct? The Lutherans who use the tradition of using Bible alone, or the Southern Baptists who also use the tradition of using the Bible alone?

Oh please. Your effort to make Protestants guilty of using 'tradition' to interpret the Scripture is lame. In other words you are saying Protestants not using tradition is tradition.

No, the Bible is the authority.

No, it is not a lawyers trick. I answered your question. You asked who is correct and who is in error. Post #(145). The 'trick' is in your court. Neither are in error. Water baptism does save. But water baptism does not make one a believer.

As I said, you need to get another riddle. This one doesn't work for you.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

I suppose Walpole can have his own interpretation (tradition); but he must use the doctrine of R.C. tradition and scripture to form his interpretation. He also must integrate supposed infallible tradition to his doctrine to guide his interpretation/tradition.
If R.C. tradition is infallible, it would be advantageous in comparison to our system. The crux of the matter is whether R.C. tradition is infallible ... we obviously don't think so.

Yes. Roman tradition is not infallible. The pope is not infallible. They want to be. But they are not.

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

Oh please. Your effort to make Protestants guilty of using 'tradition' to interpret the Scripture is lame. In other words you are saying Protestants not using tradition is tradition.

Absolutely. If you believe in the doctrine of sola Scriptura, you are doing so based on...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...

TRADITION

(One that began in the 16th century!)

No, the Bible is the authority.

The Bible is AN authority. It isn't the ONLY authority. If you believe it is, that is your TRADITION.

No, it is not a lawyers trick. I answered your question. You asked who is correct and who is in error. Post #(145). The 'trick' is in your court. Neither are in error. Water baptism does save. But water baptism does not make one a believer.

As I said, you need to get another riddle. This one doesn't work for you.

Quantrill

It absolutely is a lawyer's trick to answer a question not even posed. I didn't ask if water baptism makes you a believer. I asked if baptism saves.

I'll give you one more chance and if you offer another lawyer's trick, I'll accept your de facto concession that the tradition of using sola Scriptura is not capable of determining what is or is not error. Here goes...

Lutherans say baptism saves. Southern Baptists say baptism does not save. Logic 101 teachings the principle of non-contradiction, which states a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. Thus, both positions cannot be right. One says it saves, the others says it does not:

Lutheran doctrine: "This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism)

Southern Baptist doctrine: "Baptism doesn't make you a believer - it shows that you already believe. Baptism does not "save" you, only your faith in Christ does that. Baptism is like a wedding ring - it's the outward symbol of the commitment you make in your heart." (SBC, How to Become a Christian, Baptism)

Both use Scripture alone. Just the Bible, as you say. They teach contradictory doctrine on whether baptism is salvific.

---> Who is correct? The Lutherans who use the tradition of using Bible alone, or the Southern Baptists who also use the tradition of using the Bible alone?

 

[Quantrill]

Absolutely. If you believe in the doctrine of sola Scriptura, you are doing so based on...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...

TRADITION

(One that began in the 16th century!)

The Bible is AN authority. It isn't the ONLY authority. If you believe it is, that is your TRADITION.

It absolutely is a lawyer's trick to answer a question not even posed. I didn't ask if water baptism makes you a believer. I asked if baptism is salvific.

I'll give you one more chance and if you offer another lawyer's trick, I'll accept your de facto concession that the tradition of using sola Scriptura is not capable of determining what is or is not error. Here goes...

Lutherans say baptism saves. Southern Baptists say baptism does not save.

Lutheran doctrine: "This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism)

Southern Baptist doctrine: "Baptism doesn't make you a believer - it shows that you already believe. Baptism does not "save" you, only your faith in Christ does that. Baptism is like a wedding ring - it's the outward symbol of the commitment you make in your heart." (SBC, How to Become a Christian, Baptism)

Both use Scripture alone. Just the Bible, as you say. They teach contradictory doctrine on whether baptism is salvific.

---> Who is correct? The Lutherans who use the tradition of using Bible alone, or the Southern Baptists who also use the tradition of using the Bible alone?

No. Based upon the Word of God. The Bible.

No. The Bible is the Authority. My faith in that is not tradition. It is my faith.

Your riddle is very boring.

No you didn't ask if 'baptism' was salvivic. You asked 'who is correct and who is in error and which one is the actual Christian faith'. See your post #(145)

And I told you then as I tell you now, both, Lutherans and Southern Baptist's, are correct.

Again, find another riddle. This one doesn't work for you.

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

No. Based upon the Word of God. The Bible.

No. The Bible is the Authority. My faith in that is not tradition. It is my faith.

But the Bible doesn't say it is the authority. The Bible doesn't even define itself, which books belong in it. The Church did that for you! Thus you are violating your own rule by relying on something outside of the Bible to claim the Bible is your sole authority. That thing you are relying on is your...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...

TRADITION

Your riddle is very boring.

No you didn't ask if 'baptism' was salvivic. You asked 'who is correct and who is in error and which one is the actual Christian faith'. See your post #(145)

And I told you then as I tell you now, both, Lutherans and Southern Baptist's, are correct.

Again, find another riddle. This one doesn't work for you.

Quantrill

Yes, I most certainly did ask if baptism was salvific. I gave you each statement from the Lutheran and Southern Baptists. One states baptism saves, the other says baptism does not save. Both rely on the tradition of the Bible alone. But since both teach contradictory doctrines, both cannot be right. One must be correct and one must be erroneous.

You are dodging for the obvious reason and I will accept your de facto concession. The reason you refuse to answer is it exposes the fact that your tradition of sola Scriptura doesn't work for you or anyone. This is why there are thousands and thousands of denominations and sects.

 

[Fastfredy0]

But the Bible doesn't say it is the authority. The Bible doesn't even define itself, which books belong in it. The Church did that for you!

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,

1. The truth of God would thus be subjected to the will of man.
2. 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.
3. It establishes a tyranny in the Church.

Calvin
The Church may bear witness to what she received from the apostles as law, but this is not giving authority to that law but humbly recognizing the authority which rightfully belongs to it whether the Church recognizes it or not.

 

[jasonc]

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,

1. The truth of God would thus be subjected to the will of man.
2. 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.
3. It establishes a tyranny in the Church.

Calvin
The Church may bear witness to what she received from the apostles as law, but this is not giving authority to that law but humbly recognizing the authority which rightfully belongs to it whether the Church recognizes it or not.

I need to ask for a "reformed day "at my reformed church so that members can learn about why we are reformed

 

[Quantrill]

But the Bible doesn't say it is the authority. The Bible doesn't even define itself, which books belong in it. The Church did that for you! Thus you are violating your own rule by relying on something outside of the Bible to claim the Bible is your sole authority. That thing you are relying on is your...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...

TRADITION


Yes, I most certainly did ask if baptism was salvific. I gave you each statement from the Lutheran and Southern Baptists. One states baptism saves, the other says baptism does not save. Both rely on the tradition of the Bible alone. But since both teach contradictory doctrines, both cannot be right. One must be correct and one must be erroneous.

You are dodging for the obvious reason and I will accept your de facto concession. The reason you refuse to answer is it exposes the fact that your tradition of sola Scriptura doesn't work for you or anyone. This is why there are thousands and thousands of denominations and sects.

The Bible carries it's own authority as it is the inspired Word of God. Each book carries it's own authority as the inspired Word of God. Believers and Christians recognized that authority which is how the Canon of Scripture was made. The only books the Roman church and it's tradition were responsible for are the false Apocryphal books they included in the Old Testament.

No. You asked who is correct and who is in error, according to Scripture. I answered you. Both are correct. I'm not dodging anything. As I said, your riddle doesn't work. Get another one.

Scripture alone does work. Just look at the Roman Church today. Many denominations help preserve the truth. One denomination only, such as the Roman church, destroys the truth.

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

The Bible carries it's own authority as it is the inspired Word of God. Each book carries it's own authority as the inspired Word of God.

So I'm told by the Catholic Church. The table of contents did not fall from the sky. The Catholic Church made that decision for you. Without them, you would have no way of knowing that 1st and 2nd Corinthians is inspired, but 3rd Corinthians is not.

Ergo, you violate your own tradition by relying on another tradition (the Catholic Church's), to determine which books are inspired and which are not.

Believers and Christians recognized that authority which is how the Canon of Scripture was made.

You have no way of knowing which books were inspired but for the Catholic Church telling you.

The only books the Roman church and it's tradition were responsible for are the false Apocryphal books they included in the Old Testament.

There is no canon in ALL of Church history which matches the Protestant 66-book canon. It was the Protestants who removed books. Were it not for Luther's former chancellor Andreas Karlstadt, you would have even fewer books, as Luther wanted to take his scalpel to the New Testament canon as well, removing books he did not like such as the epistle of James and St. John's Apocalypse.

No. You asked who is correct and who is in error, according to Scripture. I answered you. Both are correct. I'm not dodging anything. As I said, your riddle doesn't work. Get another one.

Scripture alone does work. Just look at the Roman Church today. Many denominations help preserve the truth. One denomination only, such as the Roman church, destroys the truth.

Quantrill

I'm not sure who think you are fooling. Your posts are here for all to see that you refuse to answer the question. You refuse to answer the question because it demonstrates your tradition of sola Scriptura is demonstrably fallacious and incapable of resolving issues of what is correct doctrine and what is false.

I accept your de facto concession.

 

[Walpole]

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,

1. The truth of God would thus be subjected to the will of man.
2. 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.
3. It establishes a tyranny in the Church.

Calvin
The Church may bear witness to what she received from the apostles as law, but this is not giving authority to that law but humbly recognizing the authority which rightfully belongs to it whether the Church recognizes it or not.

"Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them. What business have I, then, to preach against them as a pupil preaching against his teachers? Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: “Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the Creed: I believe in a holy Christian Church, etc.? Now I find this church in the papacy too. It follows, therefore, that if I condemn this church, I am excommunicated, rejected, and damned by God and all the saints.” - Martin Luther, Sermons on John 16 [LW 24:304]


What Protestants have in essence done is grab the Catholic Scriptures, presume some of it is true, and then try to tell them by THEIR OWN BOOK that they are wrong.

It's an absurdity. At least the Mormons were creative enough to come up with a crazy story!

 

[Fastfredy0]

The Catholic Church made that decision for you. Without them, you would have no way of knowing that 1st and 2nd Corinthians is inspired, but 3rd Corinthians is not.

Well, God must be thankful for the favor the Catholic Church provided Him. God is in the church's debt as they get to determine what God says. Interesting doctrine.

Ergo, you violate your own tradition by relying on another tradition (the Catholic Church's), to determine which books are inspired and which are not.

This is a false premise. You rely on the Catholic Church's tradition which the R.C. claim is infallible. We do not.

You have no way of knowing which books were inspired but for the Catholic Church telling you.

An unproven assumption. I say God selected what is His word, you say man speaks for God and determines what God says. I praise God's selection, you praise man's selection.

 

[Walpole]

Well, God must be thankful for the favor the Catholic Church provided Him. God is in the church's debt as they get to determine what God says. Interesting doctrine.

The Church is His bride. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation, continuing the mission of Christ to teach and sanctify. (cf. Mt. 26:26, Mt. 28:20)

This is a false premise. You rely on the Catholic Church's tradition which the R.C. claim is infallible. We do not.

You NOT relying on tradition and being suspicious of it is itself your own tradition. Since the doctrine of sola Scriptura is itself not found in the Scriptures, it is thus nothing more than a Protestant tradition.

An unproven assumption. I say God selected what is His word, you say man speaks for God and determines what God says. I praise God's selection, you praise man's selection.

Throughout salvation history, God's modus operandi is Him using man to convey His message, commandments and truth. This culminates in His ultimate act of using man by His becoming one. God continues to use man to convey not only his message, commandments and truth, but now His grace.

And once again, if you have a 27-book canon New Testament, you too can thank the Catholic Church for that.


As a side note: Will you be honest enough to confirm the other poster (Quantrill) is deliberately not answering the question I have repeatedly posed to him regarding the contradictory teaching of the Lutherans and Southern Baptists on baptism being salvific? He is using a lawyer's trick to avoid answering the question.

 

[Fastfredy0]

The Church is His bride. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation, continuing the mission of Christ to teach and sanctify. (cf. Mt. 26:26, Mt. 28:20)

Agreed, assuming you have the same definition of 'church' as I do.

You NOT relying on tradition and being suspicious of it is itself your own tradition.

You don't define "tradition", so your statement is subjective.

Since the doctrine of sola Scriptura is itself not found in the Scriptures, it is thus nothing more than a Protestant tradition.

You don't define "tradition", so your statement is subjective.

Throughout salvation history, God's modus operandi is Him using man to convey His message, commandments and truth. This culminates in His ultimate act of using man by His becoming one. God continues to use man to convey not only his message, commandments and truth, but now His grace.

Agreed. We disagree as to the source of His message that man now conveys.

And once again, if you have a 27-book canon New Testament, you too can thank the Catholic Church for that.

I thank God's providence. God is not beholding to the Catholic Church.

 

[Walpole]

Agreed, assuming you have the same definition of 'church' as I do.

Which I'm quite certain is doubtful.

You don't define "tradition", so your statement is subjective.


You don't define "tradition", so your statement is subjective.

Because the doctrine of sola Scriptura is not found in the Scriptures (alone), you can call it a tradition, exception to your rule, custom or whatever you want. You just can't call it Biblical.

Agreed. We disagree as to the source of His message that man now conveys.

I'm quite certain you are correct.

I thank God's providence. God is not beholding to the Catholic Church.

"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mt. 18:18)

God's providence involves the Church, which again is an extension of the Incarnation.

 

[OzSpen]

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."

Which "God" do theological liberals believe in?

 

[Quantrill]

So I'm told by the Catholic Church. The table of contents did not fall from the sky. The Catholic Church made that decision for you. Without them, you would have no way of knowing that 1st and 2nd Corinthians is inspired, but 3rd Corinthians is not.

Ergo, you violate your own tradition by relying on another tradition (the Catholic Church's), to determine which books are inspired and which are not.

You have no way of knowing which books were inspired but for the Catholic Church telling you.

There is no canon in ALL of Church history which matches the Protestant 66-book canon. It was the Protestants who removed books. Were it not for Luther's former chancellor Andreas Karlstadt, you would have even fewer books, as Luther wanted to take his scalpel to the New Testament canon as well, removing books he did not like such as the epistle of James and St. John's Apocalypse.

I'm not sure who think you are fooling. Your posts are here for all to see that you refuse to answer the question. You refuse to answer the question because it demonstrates your tradition of sola Scriptura is demonstrably fallacious and incapable of resolving issues of what is correct doctrine and what is false.

I accept your de facto concession.

The table of contents in any Bible is not inspired. They certainly help, but they are not inspired.

No, the early church, the Christians were already were using and reading in their assemblies certain letters and books they knew to be inspired by God. Each book of the New Testament carries it's own authority of inspiriation from God. They would always be the ones that made their way into the canon.

I don't trust the Roman Church to determine the books. Ergo, their violation of adding books to the Old Testament. Luther could no more remove a book from the canon then you or I. There were several books that some people didn't like for various reasons. But, it didn't matter because the books carried their own authority from God. And they could not be denied.

No. You accept your explanation of my answer. I answered your question. According to Scripture. Both Luther and Southern Baptist's are correct. Just because you assume one is wrong, doesn't make it so. Hence the weakness of your riddle. Find another.

Quantrill

 

[jaybo]

Which "God" do theological liberals believe in?

I have no idea what you're asking. Which "God" do theological conservatives believe in?

 

[Consecrated Life]

Absolutely. If you believe in the doctrine of sola Scriptura, you are doing so based on...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...

TRADITION

(One that began in the 16th century!)

The Bible is AN authority. It isn't the ONLY authority. If you believe it is, that is your TRADITION.

It absolutely is a lawyer's trick to answer a question not even posed. I didn't ask if water baptism makes you a believer. I asked if baptism saves.

I'll give you one more chance and if you offer another lawyer's trick, I'll accept your de facto concession that the tradition of using sola Scriptura is not capable of determining what is or is not error. Here goes...

Lutherans say baptism saves. Southern Baptists say baptism does not save. Logic 101 teachings the principle of non-contradiction, which states a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. Thus, both positions cannot be right. One says it saves, the others says it does not:

Lutheran doctrine: "This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism)

Southern Baptist doctrine: "Baptism doesn't make you a believer - it shows that you already believe. Baptism does not "save" you, only your faith in Christ does that. Baptism is like a wedding ring - it's the outward symbol of the commitment you make in your heart." (SBC, How to Become a Christian, Baptism)

Both use Scripture alone. Just the Bible, as you say. They teach contradictory doctrine on whether baptism is salvific.

---> Who is correct? The Lutherans who use the tradition of using Bible alone, or the Southern Baptists who also use the tradition of using the Bible alone?

The answer is yes.
You are obviously confused as to which manner of biblical baptism is being referenced in each instance .
There are two types of Baptism referenced in scripture, and only one of those referenced in scripture is said to be superior to the other in having the power to save in and of itself .
This is the baptism by the Holy Ghost and by fire that John referenced as to being the real deal :

" ......He shall Baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire ( Luke 3:16 )

The only denomination I have ever heard claim that inferior water baptism had the ability to save was Roman Catholicism .
Fairly straightforward mystery to solve for yourself when you do more than just nibble around the theological edges .
Lutheran church I attend teaches the Baptism by this Jesus who is the Christ is the only Baptism that Saves :
" ......He shall Baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire
And this baptism can only come through belief.
Baptism by water only takes place post- public confession of the baptism by fire & Holy Ghost having occurred .

 

[jaybo]

Sola scriptura is one of the five solae, considered by some Protestant groups to be the theological pillars of the Reformation. The key implication of the principle is that interpretations and applications of the scriptures do not have the same authority as the scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is viewed as subject to correction by the scriptures, even by an individual member of the church.

If you don't agree with the concept of sola scriptura, then you should read the above definition (from wikipedia) before you make erroneous comments about it.

What other mechanism do you think there is to judge the validity of of ecclesiastical authority?

 

[Serving Zion]

[ACMP=reminder]
Please keep in mind the Terms of Service, stating:

Grant others the courtesy to be understood and acknowledge their views. As best as one is capable, speak truth in love.

If one person believes they have answered the question but the one who asked the question believes that the question hasn't been answered, then it is clear that the love is not prevailing.

Preserving Sanctity in God’s Living Temple​

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14, TLV)

“Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet, then turn and rip you to shreds. (Matthew 7:6, TLV)

[/ACMP]