Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PacMan

Biblical Authority

Recommended Posts

If a reader to studys the Book of Hebrews (which tells us what is behind religious practices and rites) then turn right around and concludes that information about specific religious rites and practices in the New Testament are not adequately described to run Christianity, PhD or what ever, they have missed Pharaoh's cosmic boat.

When we know what was behind rites and practices- we will have no problem understanding the intent, function, and meaning of those practices.

Enough said...

Hick-

Well, that's a nice paraphrase of Sola Scriptura ideology, but, in practical terms the Bible is clearly not sufficient on these matters, as manifest by the wide range of Christian beliefs and practices throughout history, all claiming to be based on the Bible. No one reading the Bible alone, without the Evangelical assumptions and the centuries of historical theological development and debate that inform modern Evangelicalism, would come up with US Evangelical Protestantism as the religion of First Century Christians.

Share this post


Link to post

Tell me about it Dr. Hamblin!

This "disciple" who Rob thinks is a non-disciple is specifically identified in the previous chapter as a "believer in Jesus Christ."

Acts 18

24

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

He sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in me.

So then, I have as much authority to declare doctrine and interpret scripture as you.

I therefore declare that you are wrong on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, that's a nice paraphrase of Sola Scriptura ideology, but, in practical terms the Bible is clearly not sufficient on these matters, as manifest by the wide range of Christian beliefs and practices throughout history, all claiming to be based on the Bible. No one reading the Bible alone, without the Evangelical assumptions and the centuries of historical theological development and debate than inform modern Evangelicalism, would come up with US Evangelical Protestantism as the religion of First Century Christians.

Bill

Note that I am not actually Sola Scriptura in my Identity footer.

And not really a Protestant-- but have a Campbelite underpinning,(restoratonist) once being a Mormons who was a friend of LDS apology efforts of the 1980s.

And I am not a morally degenerated ex-Mormon- but I left the LDS world due to advanced doctrinal differences. I am not an ordinary Evangelical by the usual traditional standard-- so you should we aware that I will say odd things compared to other EVs.

-----------

Sola Scriptura ideology? Nah-- History of the ancient cultures are not emphasized in that ideology. And really Mormonism has certain Sola Scriptura bent to it at the Preparatory Gospel level of doctrine.

For example GAs saying that "offical" doctrine comes only from the Standard Works.

"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. The Bible is not a handbook of Church Order. Nor is it a Handbook of Systematic theology. Trying to make it such inevitably leads to confusion and frustration. It cannot answer the types of questions usually asked of it. We should instead read it for the message it presents: that we should come unto Christ, love God and love our fellow humans. Repentance, discipleship and love is difficult enough message, which most (including me) never master.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. The Bible is not a handbook of Church Order. Nor is it a Handbook of Systematic theology. Trying to make it such inevitably leads to confusion and frustration. It cannot answer the types of questions usually asked of it. We should instead read it for the message it presents: that we should come unto Christ, love God and love our fellow humans. Repentance, discipleship and love is difficult enough message, which most (including me) never master.

Thanks Bill, I appreciate your thoughts -- in all your posts- its educational and at times inspirational.

I got to leave the board soon for a few days-- buz trip.

Later-

Hick-

Share this post


Link to post

I am not an ordinary Evangelical by the usual traditional standard-- so you should we aware that I will say odd things compared to other EVs.

-----------

Hick-

I think it important for people to know this. I will state that I gladly welcome the difference and think it will go a huge way in bridging the gap.

Share this post


Link to post

I got to leave the board soon for a few days-- buz trip.

Later-

Hick-

It takes you a few days to get a hair cut? :P

Share this post


Link to post

Tell me about it Dr. Hamblin!

This "disciple" who Rob thinks is a non-disciple is specifically identified in the previous chapter as a "believer in Jesus Christ."

Acts 18

24

Share this post


Link to post

Irrelevant, since the burden of proof is not on me to show that the ritual of laying on of hands is required to receive the Holy Spirit. Rather, the burden of proof is on you to show that it is required. Citing a couple of texts in which laying on of hands is mentioned does not demonstrate the necessity of that ritual.

Does this mean that the burden of proof is on you to show that the doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers" wasn't fabricated by Martin Luther? This, of course, would include providing pre-Luther documents that clearly connect "the priesthood of all believers" to that one lone verse in Peter.

Share this post


Link to post

It takes you a few days to get a hair cut? :P

Yeah my son in law-- pictured with the completely shaved head is going to administer it Marine style delegated to my grandson. This pic is a phone upload from the Middle East. He is 1stSgt USMC 2/6 in the field.

JohnWybleAfgan.jpg

These Marines have Authority!

Share this post


Link to post

These Marines have Authority!

Indeed they do.

Have you seen the new weapon being deployed? Awesome firepower!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah my son in law-- pictured with the completely shaved head is going to administer it Marine style delegated to my grandson. This pic is a phone upload from the Middle East. He is 1stSgt USMC 2/6 in the field.

a href=

These Marines have Authority!

I thought you were leaving for your trip?

Can't get a hair cut if you don't get goin. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Bill,

Here is PacMan's first sentence opening this thread:

If there is a clear doctrine in the bible, I believe it is the importance and process of ordination and callings.

You wrote:

The fact that the Bible alone is not sufficient to prove either your position or our position should be obvious after this discussion.

You disagree with your fellow LDS here. He says the Bible clearly teaches the LDS doctrine; you say it does not.

I'll let you two sort this out.

Share this post


Link to post

Bill,

You wrote:

I'm sorry to say, but this is the most preposterous eisegetical misreading of scripture I've seen in a long time.

This, from a guy who defends the claim that Cornelius did not receive "the gift of the Holy Ghost" before he was baptized, even though Acts 10:44-48 explicitly says that Cornelius received "the gift of the Holy Ghost" before he was baptized. Somehow that's not a preposterous interpretation, but my view (and the view of numerous commentators) that the "disciples" of Acts 19:1-6 were disciples of John, not of Jesus, is preposterous.

You wrote:

First, can you show me anywhere in Acts where the term disciples does not mean disciples of Jesus?

Why the limitation to the book of Acts? Because, as you probably know, Luke (the author of Acts) uses the word "disciples" with reference to "disciples of John" in his Gospel (Luke 5:33; 7:18, 19).

You wrote:

Second, and more importantly, in verse two Paul says they are believers? Believers in Jesus. It couldn't possibly be anything else. Your eisegesis is clearly twisting the text to match your theory. Very disappointing.

This is ridiculous, Bill. Paul does not call them "believers." He asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit "when they believed." What, or in whom, they believed is not specified in this verse. To know what they had, and had not yet, believed, we must read the rest of the passage. Instead of engaging the evidence that I presented from verses 2-5 that they had not yet put their faith in Christ, you tried to distract attention from that exegetical evidence by claiming that my interpretation is preposterous.

There is nothing more that needs to be said until you seriously engage the evidence I presented for my view.

Share this post


Link to post

Why the limitation to the book of Acts? Because, as you probably know, Luke (the author of Acts) uses the word "disciples" with reference to "disciples of John" in his Gospel (Luke 5:33; 7:18, 19).

Did you forget that Chapter 18 specifically Identifies them as believers/disciples of Jesus Christ?

Acts 18

24

Share this post


Link to post

Zakuska,

Acts 18 says nothing to indicate that Apollos believed in Jesus until after Priscilla and Aquila had explained the way of God to him. Only after they do so (18:26) does Acts say that Apollos was showing people from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ (18:28). When he "knew only the baptism of John" (18:25), he was not yet a Christian. The people that Paul meets in Acts 19:1 are likewise people who knew John's baptism but did not know about Jesus Christ, as Acts 19:2-5 clearly explains. Apollos is not one of the men whom Paul met in Acts 19:1.

Tell me this: Is it possible for someone to be a "believer in Jesus Christ" who doesn't yet know about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, but who only knows about the baptism of John? Would you recognize someone as a believer in Jesus Christ who was still a follower of John the Baptist?

Share this post


Link to post

Zakuska,

Acts 18 says nothing to indicate that Apollos believed in Jesus until after Priscilla and Aquila had explained the way of God to him. Only after they do so (18:26) does Acts say that Apollos was showing people from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ (18:28). When he "knew only the baptism of John" (18:25), he was not yet a Christian. The people that Paul meets in Acts 19:1 are likewise people who knew John's baptism but did not know about Jesus Christ, as Acts 19:2-5 clearly explains. Apollos is not one of the men whom Paul met in Acts 19:1.

Tell me this: Is it possible for someone to be a "believer in Jesus Christ" who doesn't yet know about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, but who only knows about the baptism of John? Would you recognize someone as a believer in Jesus Christ who was still a follower of John the Baptist?

Let him speak for himself Rob...

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Was he Preaching John the Baptist or the Lord Jesus Christ Prior to speaking with Priscilla and Aquila?

So stop putting words in his mouth that are not there.

Share this post


Link to post

Zakuska,

Since you chose not to answer my question or to address any of the points I made about Acts 19, our discussion seems to have run aground.

Let him speak for himself Rob...

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Was he Preaching John the Baptist or the Lord Jesus Christ Prior to speaking with Priscilla and Aquila?

So stop putting words in his mouth that are not there.

Share this post


Link to post

Zakuska,

Since you chose not to answer my question or to address any of the points I made about Acts 19, our discussion seems to have run aground.

An implicit admission that Rob lost.

And besides that, what is the Baptism of John?

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Acts 13:25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.

Explicit in "the baptism of John" is the knowledge of Jesus!

Share this post


Link to post

I, having as much authority as Rob to declare doctrine and interpret scripture, hereby officially declare that Rob has lost on another point.

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

Only in a fevered or juvenile mind could my observation that someone refused to address my arguments be an implicit admission that I "lost."

An implicit admission that Rob lost.

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

Only in a fevered or juvenile mind could my observation that someone refused to address my arguments be an implicit admission that I "lost."

Oh Rob, you're so mature. Is that why you can't bring yourself to admit that you are wrong?

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

Only in a fevered or juvenile mind could my observation that someone refused to address my arguments be an implicit admission that I "lost."

This is Rob, running away from this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Hick,

In one sentence of how an Evangelical becomes an authorized Leader

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×