Donations for the month of July


We have received a total of $123 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Posts: 2,826
Joined: September 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,447
Posts50,341
Members911
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,210
Tom 3,184
chestnutmare 2,826
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,732
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 35
Tom 28
Johan 4
John_C 2
Recent Posts
"Hell's Best Revealed Secret" book review
by Pilgrim. Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:07 PM
4 Blood Moons Video
by Tom. Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:05 PM
Ad Hominen Attack?
by Pilgrim. Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:05 PM
Offertory Dance at Church of the Redeemer, NYC
by Tom. Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:22 AM
cosmic meatball experience
by AJ Castellitto. Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:57 PM
A Discussion...
by Tom. Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:36 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
#22267 - Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:26 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! *****  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hi, and welcome.

Quote
To simply declare the FI out of bounds because it doesn't match what you already believe is the essense of closedmindeness.


Unless what we already believe is the truth. Simply claiming a system of belief false does not necessitate closedmindedness.


God bless,

william

#22268 - Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:47 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,210
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,210
NH, USA
Quote
BrianB said:
My paper dealt with what is the best interpretation of the text, not how it has been interpreted historically. The paper is a theory-evaluation work, not a historical work. That said, I do not call the history of interpretation of the passage an 'inferior source' as far as I know. It is important to take account of, but again, it cannot dictate our conclusions.

I guess I'll have to browse your "paper" and see how you exegetically find your Framework view and how the historic Grammatico-Historico hermeneutic fails to interpret the text correctly. grin

Quote
You also remarked:I don't see anywhere in the Bible that indicates anyone believed the creation was in 6 24-hour days. If you'd like to offer texts that you think require the 24-hour interpretation, feel free to do so.

{and questioning the validity of the Sabbath being one day in seven, i.e., one 24 hour day in a 7 solar day week, which is inextricable joined with and dependent upon the 6 24-hour day creation}

I don't see why that is the case. What is your evidence for this claim?

I'll do much better than offering a few texts but rather the Analogy of Faith, which our forefathers relied upon and from which all our doctrines were derived. Since I will need to take the time to go through your "paper" to learn of your hermeneutic and critique your exegesis, if you truly desire to learn how one must hold to a 6 day 24-hour creation since the Sabbath is grounded it upon it, thus proving that ALL of biblical history supports it, go here: The Covenantal Sabbath.

In regard to my assertion that every man woman and child for the last 6000 years, until recent history has believed in a 6 24-hour day creation and thus they have been wrong in regard to this doctrine:

Quote
you wrote:
That's quite a claim you make there. Perhaps you could begin by showing without doubt that Augustine believed that God created the earth in 6 24-hour days.

I can only guess that you would claim that Augustine's rationes seminales contradicts the historical view and can actually open the door for the theory of Evolution at worst or FI at best? What Augustine did insist upon was creavit omnia simul, God created all things simultaneously, which in itself would disallow both Evolutionary theory and your Framework view.

Aside from Augustine, my comment, albeit admittedly a bit hyperbolic, is a valid one since the overwhelming majority of people since biblical history (I've already challenged you to show me any proof from biblical history that anyone held to anything other than the traditional view of creation) have embraced the traditional view of a 6 24-hour day creation. In fact the entire ceremonial practice and civil infrastructure is grounded upon it.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#22269 - Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:56 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,184
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,184
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
William

In the interest of fair dialogue, I think it is imperative that Brian be allowed to support his claims.
Saying that his view is wrong without giving support is in my opinion telling him that you may not be interested in what he has to say.
I for one because I invited him here (after Joe suggested it), am interested in fair dialogue. Even though I must admit, that any evidence he submits will have to be pretty convincing in order for me to embrace it.

[Linked Image]

Tom

#22270 - Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:12 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Tom]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
In the interest of fair dialogue, I think it is imperative that Brian be allowed to support his claims.


Where have I ever stated otherwise? Although I think the use of the word imperative is a bit strong.

Quote
Saying that his view is wrong without giving support is in my opinion telling him that you may not be interested in what he has to say.


Where did I ever say he was wrong? Where did I ever say I wasn't interested? Why MUST we be interested? Does ones level of interest affect the truth?


God bless,

william

#22271 - Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:30 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!  
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Henry Offline
Enthusiast
Henry  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
Brian,

I'm not going to barrage you with questions here, because I know between myself and the others you'll have a lot on your plate when you get back from the weekend, but...

Quote
BrianB said:
Besides that, you're understanding of sola Scriptura is highly flawed. Nothing in sola Scriptura says we cannot make use of extra-biblical information to help us understand how to interpret the text.

Brian


Sorry, but no. This looks like this is going to be our biggest bone of contention. Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. Period.

If you are wanting to get pedantic, the historical-grammatical hermeneutic does of course take into consideration information not strictly contained in the words of Scripture, in the form of historical background and other things which the author/original readers would have understood, in order to make a proper interpretation of the text. Such as, understanding Palestinian geography when we read the Gospels.

But this is simply seeking to understand Scripture as purely as we can, keeping in mind the author's intent, etc. On the other hand, we are flatly denying the authority and sufficiency of Scripture when we allow wordly Science to tell us that everything we've believed about the Bible all along is wrong. (Before the 19th century, we had no reason to doubt the literalness of the Genesis account.) If I am wrong in this, please prove it to me, don't just dismiss me as close minded.

Last edited by Henry; Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:34 AM.

(Latin phrase goes here.)
#22272 - Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:11 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,184
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,184
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Based on your answer, I misunderstood you. My apologies. blush bash

Tom

#22273 - Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:00 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Henry]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 29
rmwilliamsjr Offline
Newbie
rmwilliamsjr  Offline
Newbie

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 29
Quote
Henry said:
snip
Quote
BrianB said:
Besides that, you're understanding of sola Scriptura is highly flawed. Nothing in sola Scriptura says we cannot make use of extra-biblical information to help us understand how to interpret the text.

Brian


Sorry, but no. This looks like this is going to be our biggest bone of contention. Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. Period.

If you are wanting to get pedantic, the historical-grammatical hermeneutic does of course take into consideration information not strictly contained in the words of Scripture, in the form of historical background and other things which the author/original readers would have understood, in order to make a proper interpretation of the text. Such as, understanding Palestinian geography when we read the Gospels.

But this is simply seeking to understand Scripture as purely as we can, keeping in mind the author's intent, etc. On the other hand, we are flatly denying the authority and sufficiency of Scripture when we allow wordly Science to tell us that everything we've believed about the Bible all along is wrong. (Before the 19th century, we had no reason to doubt the literalness of the Genesis account.) If I am wrong in this, please prove it to me, don't just dismiss me as close minded.


Scripture alone does not mean Scripture by itself.
Anymore than the analogy of faith using the eye:
faith only saves just as an eye only sees.
but faith alone doesn't save anymore than an eye alone on a table sees, both are part of a greater required matrix.

I've seen this idea of Scripture referred to as Solo Scriptura and the problem of the canon is crucial for this misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. For the table of contents of our Bible is not itself part of Scripture but is understand with reference to things outside of Scripture, like church history.

...

#22274 - Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:48 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: rmwilliamsjr]  
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Henry Offline
Enthusiast
Henry  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
Quote
rmwilliamsjr said:
I've seen this idea of Scripture referred to as Solo Scriptura and the problem of the canon is crucial for this misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. For the table of contents of our Bible is not itself part of Scripture but is understand with reference to things outside of Scripture, like church history.


The problem of the canon? Could you explain what you are trying to say here? I'm not following you.


(Latin phrase goes here.)
#22275 - Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:34 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Henry]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 29
rmwilliamsjr Offline
Newbie
rmwilliamsjr  Offline
Newbie

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 29
It's not difficult to understand.
Open up your Bible, where is the table of contents?
internal or external to Scripture?

#22276 - Sun Feb 27, 2005 10:23 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: rmwilliamsjr]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,210
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,210
NH, USA
Quote
rmwilliamsjr said:
It's not difficult to understand.
Open up your Bible, where is the table of contents?
internal or external to Scripture?

I find that not only irrelevant but rather trite! rolleyes2 No one (okay there must have been at least one fruitcake out there) has formulated a doctrine based upon the "Table of Contents", or chapter headings, etc. The issue is, should the conclusions of non-biblical writers derived from anti-Christian/anti-biblical presuppositions influence the hermeneutic used to interpret the Bible and/or the doctrines which result from it?

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#22277 - Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:29 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 29
rmwilliamsjr Offline
Newbie
rmwilliamsjr  Offline
Newbie

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 29
I respectfully disagree, i believe that the listing of books in the table of contents of a Bible is in fact of great importance to the issue. The canon is external to Scripture, that is why there are at least 2 major different listings (Protestant and RC), and why the WCF makes a listing of the canon the first thing it does. But nowhere in Scripture itself does it define this list.

#22278 - Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:59 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: rmwilliamsjr]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,210
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,210
NH, USA
Quote
rmwilliamsjr said:
I respectfully disagree, i believe that the listing of books in the table of contents of a Bible is in fact of great importance to the issue. The canon is external to Scripture, that is why there are at least 2 major different listings (Protestant and RC), and why the WCF makes a listing of the canon the first thing it does. But nowhere in Scripture itself does it define this list.

And I likewise disagree with your position. Why? Because I am a PROTESTANT and not a member of the Roman State Church. The Canon is and was derived from Scripture itself and not, as the Roman Church boasts, the product of its own doing. If no man ever set forth a list of the inspired writings which make up what we know as the Canon, they would nevertheless exist and all others would be spurious. Likewise, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, although extrapolated by men, is inherently God's revealed will.

In truth the form and extent of the Bible exists independent of any man's determination. It is by the guidance of God Himself; the Holy Spirit Who leads men into the truth and thus enables them to recognize what God has created, formed and revealed.

And it is totally erroneous to attempt to justify a theory of how the universe came to be, which is based upon an unbiblical presupposition, by claiming that it is somehow remotely similar to a Table of Contents that lists the inspired writings; aka: Canon.


"Without absolutes revealed from without by God Himself, we are left rudderless in a sea of conflicting ideas about manners, justice and right and wrong, issuing from a multitude of self-opinionated thinkers." - John Owen (1616-1683)



In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#22279 - Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:41 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: rmwilliamsjr]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
I respectfully disagree, i believe that the listing of books in the table of contents of a Bible is in fact of great importance to the issue. The canon is external to Scripture, that is why there are at least 2 major different listings (Protestant and RC), and why the WCF makes a listing of the canon the first thing it does. But nowhere in Scripture itself does it define this list.

So you are saying that the order of the books in the Bible are man-made and different versions commonly arrange the books in different orders: like the Jewish Bible with its order (the Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim) and our Protestant O.T. Then you are applying this principle to creation saying we can use an outside source (man’s modern logic—science) to interpret Scripture. I must agree with Pilgrim here that this is not even related to the issue.

Modern Science was not even in existence in the days when Moses wrote Genesis. To take modern science and read it upon Genesis will not interpret the “original meaning” of the text. We must understand that Genesis had meaning for the people of Moses’ time and this is the meaning we are after. What would a Jew reading Genesis in Moses’ time have thought it meant?

A common flaw in all of our interpretations “from time to time” is to jump ahead and use “our” experiences and “our” ideas to interpret Scripture. We do it all the time. A while back we were discussing Isa 7:14 and everyone jumped to the conclusion that it was Jesus, but hardly anyone saw it was a prophecy fulfilled in Isa 8:1ff, etc. While the end result is Jesus, it is Him is a more profound and definite way (holy war is inaugurated, etc.) …. Many a Baptist here must admit when they look to Romans 6 and the word “buried” they have read upon it the idea of a “US burial rite.” However, Jesus was not buried by this process … How many times have I heard Jesus was buried all the way and I must be immersed all the way…… However Jesus was also buried in a tomb sideways and I have yet to see anyone baptized sideways. scratch1 These are common interpretative flaws and if not governed by Scripture they get us into much error.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#22280 - Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Henry Offline
Enthusiast
Henry  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
Well, I of course take issue with the Baptism example, but if I'm not wandering too far off topic, one further example that springs to mind is 2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land." I don't know how many times I've heard that verse applied to the US or Canada, saying that if we Christians all repent, then "our land," that is, our modern, secular countries and governments, are somehow going to get "healed." Whether that means revivial, English/French reconcilliation (in Canada), or health care reform, it's hard to say. The blatant misuse of Scripture is sad.

Last edited by Henry; Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:37 AM.

(Latin phrase goes here.)
#22281 - Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:56 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 29
rmwilliamsjr Offline
Newbie
rmwilliamsjr  Offline
Newbie

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 29
You are drawing too much out of my statement.
In this thread, it has been stated that using anything external to Scripture, for example, modern science, to help understand Scripture is not Sola Scriptura. My point is that this idea is wrong because the very listing of the books, not the order, but which books are included and which books are excluded, ie the formation of the canon, is a problem not internal to Scripture, but is a problem of history. To even print a Table of Contents for our Bibles requires the introduction of history, not the chapters and verse divisions, not the order of the books, but the ever essential which books are in the Bible. My only point is that the canon is meta-to-Scripture. It does not exist inside of Scripture, there is no listing of the canon anywhere in the Bible, it is in fact on a different level than Scripture. Where the canon is intellectually, how this relates to modern science, etc etc is well beyond my modest attempts to distinguish between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura. I've made no analogy to modern science nor to i desire to, my only desire is to understand that Scripture alone, by itself, ie just me and my Bible, is not the historical understanding of Sola Scriptura but is a deformation of the crucial idea.

Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 16 guests, and 126 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
TruthSeeker, BaptistCalvinist, Milan, earl40, larsonka
911 Registered Users
Shout Box
July
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
Today's Birthdays
GottseiEhre
Popular Topics(Views)
589,294 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.054s Queries: 15 (0.002s) Memory: 2.7253 MB (Peak: 3.0411 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-07-22 08:56:24 UTC