Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

So then the all sufficient self interpreting Scriptures require preachers and teachers in order to be understood?

How exactly does one qualify as a preacher or teacher?

How can I trust that you are teaching the proper interpretation?

Sounds like you are setting up your own magesterium.

Ron

 

Why can't one have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit from reading Scripture?

Why is a preacher or teacher necessary?

I thought that there was only one intercessor.

You seem to be setting up a preacher or teacher as the intercessor between the unsaved and the Holy Spirit.

You are sufficient for the unsaved to receive the Holy Spirit while all sufficient Scripture is not?

Ron

 

Why can't one have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit from reading Scripture?

Why is a preacher or teacher necessary?

I thought that there was only one intercessor.

You seem to be setting up a preacher or teacher as the intercessor between the unsaved and the Holy Spirit.

You are sufficient for the unsaved to receive the Holy Spirit while all sufficient Scripture is not?

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Eph.4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

God uses preachers and teachers because that is the order that He set up. You argument is with God, not with me. He uses men that are indwelt with Spirit of God, preaching the Word of God, as their final authority.
DHK

 

No, actually my arguement is with "your interpretation". You confuse "your interpretation" with absolute truth.

How do I know that you are indeed a "preacher" set aside by God for that purpose and not a deceiver?

How do you "really" know that your interpretation is correct? And yes, despite your protests, it is only your interpretation.

Unless you want to claim some sort of special knowledge.

Ron

 

Then everyone who "searches the Scriptures" should come to the same interpretation. But they don't.

In other words, one can't ever know that one has the "correct" interpretation.

If this is not true, please tell me how one precisely knows that one has the "correct interpretation".

Ron

 

Ron, Paul made it clear we would know a false gospel if it was any gospel other then the one HE preached. He preached that we are saved by grace through faith and not by any works. So if the gospel or scripture is interpreted in any manor that conflicts with that teaching it is a false interpretation.

Grant, Logan, etc..., I couldn't post much yesterday and totally lost where we were on the "Eve/ Mary discussion. I will just say this though, Logan made a comment and someone else I think did too that overall Rev. 12 just isn't talking about Mary, it is talking about Isreal. Read in its entirety I don't see how anyone could seriously say that Mary was the woman. Kind of back to my old putting "banana peals over watermelons" theory. Anyway, that doesn't disprove your point it just means that using Rev. 12 as Biblical proof is probably not a good idea.

Logan, This has been a fun issue to think through. I sure have a boat load of questions ready for when I get to Heaven. Something tells me that when I get to Heaven my questions just won't seem to matter much

Grant, Thanks for the compliment that you gave me before. I very much enjoy every "debate" I have with you because I know I can say what I want to say and you will not insult me for my opinion. Many here on the Baptist Board write out of frusrtation and so it comes across as negative when probably the person writing is a real decent person. We all need to check the tone of our posts BEFORE we hit the "add reply" button.

Take care and may God bless your day,
Brian

 

Hi Brian,

To begin with, that would require you to have the "correct interpretation" of Paul's words, would it not?

For instance, Jesus said that if you do not eat His Flesh and drink His Blood then you do not have life in you. Does Paul tell us that Jesus was only speaking symbolicly?

You see my point, it's not as simple as you describe.

BTW, what part of Michigan would be directly across the big Lake from you?

Ron

[ December 06, 2002, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Ron,
Wasn't it an act of private judgement on your part when you decided to submit to the Roman Catholic Magersterium to interpret the Scriptures for you?

Doesn't your belief, in the end, rest on an act of your own private judgement, and can never attain any higher certainty than whatever that may be able to give you?

When you accuse "Bible Alone Guys" of using our fallible minds to interpret Scripture, did you not use your fallible mind when you decided to submit to an infallible church? :confused:

Dont you see the circular arguement when you say:

"The Church is infallible because the Scriptures testify that this is so (Matt 16:18), and the Scriptures testify this because the Church infallibly declares that such is their meaning." :confused:

 

Psalm,

The Church predates the writing of the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, what Matthew wrote, was already held by the early Church believers and adhered to. Thus, the Scriptures being wholly true and inerrant, testify to the beliefs already held.

That's not circular, at least in the way you just insinuated.

God bless you on this chilly Friday evening!

Grant

 

Well, Psalm, that is not my arguement and I do't know that I have heard that arguement before but I will be happy to explain why I believe as I do.

We know what is Scripture because the Church recognized the inspired writings among the many writings of the Apostles. The Church did this by the authority given the Church by Jesus. We find proof of this authority in Scripture. We also have a recorded history of when and where the Church excercised this authority.

If you do not recognize this authority given to the Church, then you have no reason to accept the Canon of Scripture contained in your Bible.

DHK claims that the first Christians merely instantly recognized Scripture as Scripture. Of course, history does not support this theory. And even if it did, by what authority would those particular Christians made such a decision?

You see there exists a complete and logical and historicaly verifiable relationship between the authoritative Church and Scripture.

I have no idea why you believe that your Bible is inspired.

Ron

 

The Mormons make the same claim for their book of Mormon as do believers of the Koran.

No doubt you would not be convinced by that arguement from them, now would you?

Ron

 

That says nothing new. If one is sold out to the idea that the Bible must not have contradictions, then one will believe a contradiction referenced to them can not be a contradiction, no matter how apparent. This is another thing the Mormons and Muslims can say about their 'holy books.'

Both the Book of Mormon and the Koran have pages of historical innacuracies and contradictions.

See above. You can not convince them of that, just as you cannot be so convinced about the Bible.

The Book of Mormon has Jesus being born in Jerusalem, while the Koran has Abraham going down to Mecca. These things in themselves invalidate these books as being "sacred" books, or God's Word. God makes no such mistakes.

Similarly, because you believe it is the Bible that is the Word of God, then the Book of Mormon and the Koran must be wrong if they don't agree with the Bible. Adherants of the other 2 books would believe it is the Bible that must be wrong. A person believes what a person has been persuaded to believe; if it's entrenched deeply enough, logic will never matter. Your arguments will be unconvincing to someone who does not already believe what you are trying to prove. But note I said "unconvincing"; not 'wrong.'

 

DHK wrote, "There are no contradictions in the Bible. Those who say there are, the ones that they come up with always have a viable explanation."

That's an interesting theory, DHK.

I encourage you to compare Mark 2:25-26 with 1 Samuel 21:1-6.

Who was the high priest when David ate the bread of the Presence? Ahim'elech or Abi'athar?

It looks like, according to your governing criteria, Mark should be excluded from the canon of Scripture.

God bless,

Carson

[ December 07, 2002, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Perhaps I should have responded: Can the Mormon or Muslim convnce others that their book is the Word of God on the basis of its unity, its scientific, historical accuracy, its miracles, its archaeological evidence.

John MacArthur, and many other believers can do so (concerning the Bible). But the Muslim and the Mormon is unable to provide any such evidence concerning their books. Their books are lacking in unity, do not have scientific accuracy, nor historical accuracy; there are no miracles attributed to their founders (i.e. Joseph Smith and Muhammed), and the archaelogical evidence is sadly lacking if not contradictory.

There are more than 5,000 copies of the New Testament, some of which date back to just a few years after the death of John, the last of the Apostles. Though there are some copyist errors, there are no real doctrinal errors in those transcripts that have been passed down to us. No other religion can provide such a massive weight of ancient documentation of their sacred text.

"So, God spoke in the Old Testament to the fathers by the prophets in many ways and in many portions. And God has spoken in the New Testament by His Son in the gospels and then about His Son in the rest of the New Testament. The process by which God gave us that revelation is inspiration and inspiration was God putting His revelation in, as it were, the hands of men to be written down first to be spoken and proclaimed and then written down as they were energized, carried along by the Holy Spirit. Men were used and yet no word of God was ever violated. The totality of Scripture, pasa graphe, all Scripture, every Scripture, is theopneustos, God breathed. It is the breath of God, the writing of Scripture. The totality of it, according to Romans 3:2 is called the oracles of God. When Paul is talking about the benefit of Israel, what is it that they had that set them apart from other nations, he has reference to the Old Testament which he calls the oracles of God...the speeches of God...the words of God.

And Jeremiah is a good illustration of this process. Jeremiah, called by God from before he was born, "The word of the Lord came to me," verse 4 of chapter 1, "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I consecrated you. I have appointed you a prophet to the nations. Then I said, Alas, Lord God, I do not know how to speak because I am a youth." Verse 9, "And the Lord stretched out His hand, touched my mouth, the Lord said to me, Behold, I have put My words in your mouth." What a tremendous statement. I have put My words in your mouth, that was the promise for the writers of Scripture. All Scripture is God breathed. All holy writing comes from God.

We recognize that. We recognize the divine uniqueness of Scripture. The early church recognized it. Even though it wasn't until 393, 397, the Council of Hippo, the Council of Carthage, about that time, that the church sort of officially established the canon of Scripture comprehensively. It didn't take that long for people to recognize it. The church didn't invent the canon of Scripture any more than Newton invented the law of gravity. Newton discovered gravity which God invented and the church from the very earliest discovered inspired documents which God Himself wrote. And though there was some time before some official church laid down some official label on all of it, it was eminently clear to the early church what was the Word of God and what was not the Word of God. And there are all kinds of erroneous books that have been left out. But what was the Word of God was the Word of God. God is the author of Scripture.

In fact, in the scriptures frequently God and the term Scripture are used interchangeably. In Galatians, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, All the nations shall be blessed in you. The Scripture says all the nations shall be blessed in you. If you go back to Genesis 12 you see that God said that. God said, Scripture said, same thing, what Scripture says, God says. What Scripture says, God says." (John MacArthur)

 

Mr 2:25
And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
Mr 2:26
How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

Verse 26. Abiathar the priest. From 1Sa 21:1, it appears that Ahimelech was high priest at the time here referred to. And from 1Sa 23:6, it appears that Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech. Some difficulty has been felt in reconciling these accounts. The probable reason why Mark says it was in the days of Abiathar, is that Abiathar was better known than Ahimelech. The son of the high priest was regarded as his successor, and was often associated with him in the duties of his office. It was not improper, therefore, to designate him as high priest, even during the life of his father, especially as that was the name by which he was afterwards known. Abiathar, moreover, in the calamitous times when David came to the throne, left the interest of Saul, and fled to David, bringing with him the ephod, one of the peculiar garments of the high priest. For a long time, during David's reign, he was high priest, and it became natural, therefore, to associate his name with that of David; to speak of David as king, and Abiathar the high priest of his time. This will account for the fact that he was spoken of, rather than his father. At the same time this was strictly true, that this was done in the days of Abiathar, who was afterwards high priest, and was familiarly spoken of as such; as we say that General Washington was present at the defeat of Braddock, and saved his army; though the title of general did not belong to him till many years afterwards. (Albert Barnes)

Like I said there are no contradictions, only apparent contradictions which can be easily explained by someone who knows the Bible.
DHK

 

How do you know that Jesus was not born in Jerusalem? Are there historical records outside of the Bible which verify this?

Ron