Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

The Bible Only?


DaveW

Recommended Posts

  • IFB

A slightly different aspect which has spoken around but not directly addressed.

There are those here who seem to be bold in proclaiming that they ONLY use the Bible to study.

That is fine, and it should be our primary source.
And any other material used should be carefully considered in many aspects, of course.

But if you reject all other material, then you are losing out on understanding and depth from the Scriptures that is not available without certain outside information.

IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE BIBLE IN ANY WAY, but can bring a depth and richness to understanding what the Scriptures say.


And that is simply not true.

You understand God's Word in the light of outside information and influence EVERY TIME YOU READ IT.

And that is my point, which is plainly clear.

Show me a definition of snow for instance. You understand what the Bible means by "White as snow" not because the Bible itself explains it, but because the Bible assumes you know what snow looks like. How? From other sources.

Now if you want to continue to misrepresent what I say, then go right ahead, but if you do you will be a liar.


"Material" is now to be considered synonymous with 'OBserving nature'?

" But if you reject all other material, then you are losing out on understanding and depth from the Scriptures that is not available without certain outside information."

You wanna try again?

Your OP was about Commentaries, and such like, and we all know it.
Why lie?
Why not own up to the fact that Scripture really is all we need, that it has a built in teacher to God's children?

I see no need in pretending, mid-stream, that you were referring to OBservations of nature, rather than the words and teachings of other men, and specifically, their exposition of Scripture.

Care to back track, or will you carry on the charade?

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • IFB

My op was precisely NOT about commentaries - but you go ahead and continue to misrepresent and lie.

It was about material - both written and OBserved - ASIDE from commentaries.

I have no prOBlem at all with you continuing to lie and misrepresent me.

You are not the first and won't be the last, and it is not the first time you have done so.

Enjoy your continued deceit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
My op was precisely NOT about commentaries - but you go ahead and continue to misrepresent and lie. It was about material - both written and OBserved - ASIDE from commentaries. I have no prOBlem at all with you continuing to lie and misrepresent me. You are not the first and won't be the last, and it is not the first time you have done so. Enjoy your continued deceit.
If you are now saying, that by "material", you meant exactly "not written study guides such as commentaries, lexicons, Bible Dictionaries, et al", but rather "the sum of one's personal OBservations", then the post I made wouldn't apply to you, and should not upset you. I don't mind if you don't fit this description, we have all met people who do, and the principle is the point. I'm glad that you don't count yourself in the number of people who have to hang whatever they believe on another man's interpretation of it. Anishinaabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

This argument is getting nowhere - we all had to learn to read and talk and so learn the meaning of words. We have listened to sermons, sung hymns, etc. Our understanding is a matter of our educational history.

 

While our ability to READ is common ground, our UNDERSTANDING of what we read is not. Even when we read related Scripture to use the Bible as its own commentary, our religious education and beliefs will affect what we understand by the same readings. Why else should we have these discussions?

 

I have been taught amil covenant theology, and many years of reading has developed and modified my understanding. Years of Internet discussions have given me an understanding of dispensational theology, but I am not convinced. Such discussions did move me to a partial preterist position. [i've had to add "preterist" to the dictionary.]

 

That does not mean I reject dispensational theology because of what I have been taught. I believe what I do because of my reading of Scripture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

 

Have you actually read what I have written, particularly what you have quoted?

 

Your repeated attacks on me are based on your own prejdices, NOT on what I write. You rarely quote relevant Scripture in your attacks, but accuse me of RCC teaching. Do YOU believe RCC teaching, such as the "Apostles' Creed" ? Not that the "AC" originated with Rome, any more than "partial preterism." Both originated with Scripture.

 

Ian, I will reply to you privately.  I think that is the best way to handle it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

Exactly.  He doesn't believe in the pre trib "catching away", but then the church never did before 1800. He does believe that we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, which is what the scriptures actually say.  

 

I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.

 

As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.

As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.

You mean this crowd:

2Pe 3:3-4
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

?

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

You mean this crowd:

2Pe 3:3-4
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

?

Anishinaabe

 

Not sure what you're getting at, but Pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

My op was precisely NOT about commentaries - but you go ahead and continue to misrepresent and lie.

It was about material - both written and OBserved - ASIDE from commentaries.

I have no prOBlem at all with you continuing to lie and misrepresent me.

You are not the first and won't be the last, and it is not the first time you have done so.

Enjoy your continued deceit.

 

Recognize this? -   "The scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse

                              ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity if we be not content with them?

                              ... Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed to these things for bodily good, we may justly

                              and with full measure ascribe unto the scripture for spiritual. It is not only an armor, but also a

                              whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and

                              put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which

                              bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine.

                                It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oil which were for memory only, or for a meals meat or two, but

                              as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were

                              a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts

                              discharged. 

                                 In a word, it is a Panary of wholesome food, against fenowed traditions; a Physicians-shop of 

                              preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect of profitable laws, against rebellious spirits; a

                              treasury of most costly jewels, against beggarly rudiments; Finally a fountain of most pure water

                              springing up unto everlasting life.

                                 And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God,

                              not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the pen - men such as were

                              sanctified from the womb, and endowed with a principal portion of God's spirit; the matter, verity, piety,

                              purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of

                              salvation, etc., the effects, light of understanding stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works,

                              newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the holy ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof,

                              fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled,

                              and that shall never fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the scripture, and thrice happy that 

                              meditateth in it day and night." 

 

Pretty clear that the word of God alone is enough to the writer of this quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

Recognize this? -   "The scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse

                              ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity if we be not content with them?

                              ... Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed to these things for bodily good, we may justly

                              and with full measure ascribe unto the scripture for spiritual. It is not only an armor, but also a

                              whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and

                              put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which

                              bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine.

                                It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oil which were for memory only, or for a meals meat or two, but

                              as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were

                              a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts

                              discharged. 

                                 In a word, it is a Panary of wholesome food, against fenowed traditions; a Physicians-shop of 

                              preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect of profitable laws, against rebellious spirits; a

                              treasury of most costly jewels, against beggarly rudiments; Finally a fountain of most pure water

                              springing up unto everlasting life.

                                 And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God,

                              not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the pen - men such as were

                              sanctified from the womb, and endowed with a principal portion of God's spirit; the matter, verity, piety,

                              purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of

                              salvation, etc., the effects, light of understanding stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works,

                              newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the holy ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof,

                              fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled,

                              and that shall never fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the scripture, and thrice happy that 

                              meditateth in it day and night." 

 

Pretty clear that the word of God alone is enough to the writer of this quote.

I don't know what this is meant to prove by you.  It says that we should read and study the God's word.  It does not say that we have no need for other books. 

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

I don't know what this is meant to prove by you.  It says that we should read and study the God's word.  It does not say that we have no need for other books. 

 

God bless,

Larry

 

Well, let's see...sounds to me like this guy thought that God's word was invaluable to a child of God,

and, to me, it sounded like he thought it fulfilled all our needs in what we need/want to know about...everything.

 

Read the 1611 original printing of the KJV - The Translators To The Reader - 3rd page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

Does Scripture anywhere say that we should not read other books to help us understand the the most important book? Does it say anywhere that we should not learn from people more mature in the faith than we are? Does it say anything about listening to wise counsel and/or teachers? Anything about receiving instruction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

Well, let's see...sounds to me like this guy thought that God's word was invaluable to a child of God,

and, to me, it sounded like he thought it fulfilled all our needs in what we need/want to know about...everything.

 

Read the 1611 original printing of the KJV - The Translators To The Reader - 3rd page.

If it fulfilled all their needs why did they study other books?  They were all "educated men", were they not?

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

If Genevan truly believed that one does not need anything but the Scripture, he would not be posting anything but Scripture.

Funny how he makes comments about the Word of God, but is against reading others written commentaries, eh? LOL

 

That is funny. :clapping:

 

Did you know in the 'Translators to the Reader' in the first printing of the KJV, they stated that Origen was

the one who started the New Testament commentaries?

 

You know, the guy who 'originated' the perversion of the scriptures by changing what was said in the text?

 

I just wonder...did his commentaries have anything to do with him deciding to make changes to the text, which produced the ability for later generations to pervert the 'greek' texts and create a basis for 'perverted' English bibles?

 

Here is the quote: "...as it is written of Origen, that he was the first in a manner, that put his hand to write Commentaries upon the Scriptures,..."

(10th page of The Translators To The Reader. 1/2 way down 1st paragraph)

 

I was always taught that Origen was the origin of the 'prOBlem' when it came to the new modern bibles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

That is funny. :clapping:

 

Did you know in the 'Translators to the Reader' in the first printing of the KJV, they stated that Origen was

the one who started the New Testament commentaries?

 

You know, the guy who 'originated' the perversion of the scriptures by changing what was said in the text?

 

I just wonder...did his commentaries have anything to do with him deciding to make changes to the text, which produced the ability for later generations to pervert the 'greek' texts and create a basis for 'perverted' English bibles?

 

Here is the quote: "...as it is written of Origen, that he was the first in a manner, that put his hand to write Commentaries upon the Scriptures,..."

(10th page of The Translators To The Reader. 1/2 way down 1st paragraph)

 

I was always taught that Origen was the origin of the 'prOBlem' when it came to the new modern bibles.

That says to me that the translators read other books.  Maybe some of them might even have been included in the writings of or about the writings of the "Early Church Fathers".  Am I wrong?

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.

 

As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.

 

I really have not studied Augustine, so I cannot comment so can you please give an example of his allegory?  I do know that he wrote The City of God, which I assume referered to the church, , but apart from that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

This argument is getting nowhere - we all had to learn to read and talk and so learn the meaning of words. We have listened to sermons, sung hymns, etc. Our understanding is a matter of our educational history.

 

While our ability to READ is common ground, our UNDERSTANDING of what we read is not. Even when we read related Scripture to use the Bible as its own commentary, our religious education and beliefs will affect what we understand by the same readings. Why else should we have these discussions?

 

I have been taught amil covenant theology, and many years of reading has developed and modified my understanding. Years of Internet discussions have given me an understanding of dispensational theology, but I am not convinced. Such discussions did move me to a partial preterist position. [i've had to add "preterist" to the dictionary.]

 

That does not mean I reject dispensational theology because of what I have been taught. I believe what I do because of my reading of Scripture. 

Our understanding has a lot to do with our Believing what the word of God say's plain and simple that is for sure.

 

some people don't read so well but God's word says,  Ps 119:130 ¶ The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

But also the simple can be led astray very easily,  Ro 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

 

The best is that a simple man just read and believe the words of God just as the are found in the scriptures.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.

 

As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.

 

Please don't mention people such as Irenius and Polycoarp without a direct quote as to what they said.   I have read the early church writers and I see nothing about a pre tribulation rapture in their writings, so if you have found some. let me know and I will look it up.  My studies show that they all taught that the let and hinderance in 2 Thess. was the Emperor and the Empire.  Teretullian puts it clearest and mentions it several times.  He said that Rome persecuted Christians,when they actually prayed for Caesar, because they knew of the evils that would come on the earth when the Empire was removed.  The man of sin would come, (Who the mistakenly thought would be an individual), then the end of all things would come. The did not just believe this, as Tertullian wrote, "We Know."    How did they know?  Paul told them.  "2 Thess. 2:5  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?"

 

They believed that the Emperor had to be removed as there could not be two rulers in Rome at the same time, Emperor and Antichrist.

 
They were not preterists, they held to an historical teaching
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 69 Guests (See full list)



  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...