Baptist Preachers and Worldview

[Baerly]

The bible says when you read it you will undersand it according to (Eph.3:3,4).

There is a truth which is absolute (John 14:6).

WE can either accept it (Acts 2:41) or reject it (Acts 13:46) the choice is ours.

I care not what the scientist come up with (Jer.10:23). I get my knowledge for the book of books (the bible) (1Peter 4:11) (1Peter 1:22).

As time goes on more and more scientist are finding our how much truth is found in the bible (John 17:17). And the scientist theories are crumbling as time goes on.

The church of Christ teaches bible alone (John 12:48).

If one believes what the scriptures instead of what men who were not inspired write
A person can see that the early church did teach bible alone (Sola Scriptura).The problem is people refuse to accept the evidence (2Thess.2:10-12) (Acts 13:46).

Please do not blame it on the bible or the early church because you do not believe Sola Scriptura. The first century church did believe such a doctrine and still does (Rom.16:16).

in love Baerly

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A person can see that the early church did teach bible alone (Sola Scriptura).The problem is people refuse to accept the evidence (2Thess.2:10-12) (Acts 13:46).

Please do not blame it on the bible or the early church because you do not believe Sola Scriptura. The first century church did believe such a doctrine and still does (Rom.16:16).

in love Baerly

Bearly,

Can you use the earliest documents of the church to prove that they believed in a doctrine that was created in the 16th century? We have letters from Christian bishops - some pre-date the writings in the New Testament - that indicate that the church did in fact teach both the writings that would later be canonized into the NT and other teachings as well (now referred to as Holy Tradition).

This Holy Tradition is where we get doctrines like the Trinity.

The Reformation, in the 16th century, is where we get the doctrine of sola scriptura.

 

[sojourner]

Maybe because your a christian you don't see it, for those of us on the otherside we see it more. Regardless there are those in every religion who give thire own religion a bad name.

Oh, I see it, all right! It's extremely frustrating, too. My point is that it's not most Christians that do that...it's only the very-visible-and-loud minority that make it seem like "most of us." Trust me: There are many, many more reasonable and kind Christians than there are unreasonable and unkind Christians.

 

[Baerly]

Well I don't really agree with any of you. The bible is the verbally inspired word of God. It is innerrant . We as members of the church of Christ believe it is possible to interpret the word of God as God intended it to be. There is no, you have your interpretation and I have mine. Either you get the interpretation of the Lord or you do not. The way one checks to see if there interpretation is correct is to make sure what they believe harmonizes with all other scriptures (the bible).

There are many problems with the Baptist church.They do not teach according to the bible and in fact they teach contrary to many bible doctrines. As for Max Lucado, he does not teach what the bible teaches either. I pray all people eveywhere would listen to what the bible has to say and be obedient to the scriptures (Heb.,5:8,9).

I would be glad to discuss these things with anyone anytime in light of the bible.

Baerly

 

[Katzpur]

There is no, you have your interpretation and I have mine. Either you get the interpretation of the Lord or you do not. The way one checks to see if there interpretation is correct is to make sure what they believe harmonizes with all other scriptures (the bible).

That's a cyclical argument if I've ever heard one.

 

[gmelrod]

One of the problems I see in debate like this is a lack of doubt. If more people would admit that it is possible they are wrong I think we could have much more fruitful discussions.

It is possible that you are schizophrenic or delusional and completly wrong about what you believe.

If the Holy Spirit manifestly prevents error when the bible is being read how is it possible then that the accepted Catholic version of the bible has whole books that are not present in other versions. These books, know outside Catholicism as the Apocrypha (sp?) were not removed until the time of Martin Luther.

Since there is clearly a possibility of miss interpretation how can you be sure that your type is correct and if you refer to some kind of emotional responce or divine vision I refer you to my point about being crazy above.

The bible is a complex document filled with myriad potential meanings. It is more an anthology of diffrent texts from throughout history then a single coherent naritive. Why do people think that this work should be immidiatly available to them without any training or study. I once went to a Bible study where there was a girl who, if she did not know how to pronounce a word she would just say "whatever" and yet she was a very devout christian who thought that she was doing serious Bible study. I did not have the heart to tell her that she was almost wasting her time. She was trying but I do not understand. This is the only book in the West that gets treated this way. In the words of Oliver Cromwell "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

 

[Baerly]

Bearly,

Can you use the earliest documents of the church to prove that they believed in a doctrine that was created in the 16th century? We have letters from Christian bishops - some pre-date the writings in the New Testament - that indicate that the church did in fact teach both the writings that would later be canonized into the NT and other teachings as well (now referred to as Holy Tradition).

This Holy Tradition is where we get doctrines like the Trinity.

The Reformation, in the 16th century, is where we get the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Hi, Let me say that (all) of the tradition which the apostles taught in the first century were recorded in the bible. I am sure you have been taught there were other oral traditions passed down which were not recorded in the bible,but that is not what (John 14:26 ; 16:13) (2Peter 1:3) (Jude 3) teaches us.

Sola Scriptura has been taught since the first century. I think someone has led you down another wrong road on that one also.

Here you can do all the research you wish.

http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura.htm


It sounds like you do not believe in the Trinity. Here is a couple of lessons if you would like to check them out.


http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/godheadTrinity.htm


http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/jehovahQuestion.htm

Baerly

 

[Baerly]

Isn't it possible that the apostles taught about the trinity in the first century?

Isn't it possible that people read the bible and learned about the trinity or the nature of God?

In (Mt 28:18) Someone gave Jesus all authority. It seems to me that anyone studying the bible could see that someone was doing the giving and someone was doing the receiving. That would imply there were at least two involved somehow,would it not.

In (John 3:16-17) in these verses someone is doing the giving and someone is doing the sending. This again implies there are two somehow involved.

In (Mark 16:19) Jesus was received up into the heaven and sat on the right hand of God. This implies someone was in heaven to receive Jesus. Then Jesus sat on the right hand of God. Isn't it possible for people to read the bible and understand the nature of God?

In (Mt. 3:16) Jesus is baptized in water by John the baptizer. Afterwards the Spirit descends upon Jesus,and a voice from heaven says this is my son in whom I am well pleased. Here in this verse it implies that there are three involved in the Godhead, the Spirit , Jesus (the son), and the voice speaking from heaven (God the Father).

Couldn't a person just read the bible and be able to learn this. I think so. I am sure the apostles also taught these things to the people before the revelation was completed in the first century and it was all recorded in the bible for us to study for all time.

Baerly

 

[Katzpur]

In (Mark 16:19) Jesus was received up into the heaven and sat on the right hand of God. This implies someone was in heaven to receive Jesus. Then Jesus sat on the right hand of God.

How did anyone know whether Jesus sat on Gods' right or left hand? I thought the Father was supposed to be invisible. (Yeah, I know... it's all just figurative. )

 

[sojourner]

Hi, Let me say that (all) of the tradition which the apostles taught in the first century were recorded in the bible. I am sure you have been taught there were other oral traditions passed down which were not recorded in the bible,but that is not what (John 14:26 ; 16:13) (2Peter 1:3) (Jude 3) teaches us.

Sola Scriptura has been taught since the first century. I think someone has led you down another wrong road on that one also.

Here you can do all the research you wish.

http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura.htm


It sounds like you do not believe in the Trinity. Here is a couple of lessons if you would like to check them out.


http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/godheadTrinity.htm


http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/jehovahQuestion.htm

Baerly

Herein lies a classic example of the "hermeneutical cloud." :foot:

 

[Baerly]

Bearly,

Can you use the earliest documents of the church to prove that they believed in a doctrine that was created in the 16th century? We have letters from Christian bishops - some pre-date the writings in the New Testament - that indicate that the church did in fact teach both the writings that would later be canonized into the NT and other teachings as well (now referred to as Holy Tradition).

This Holy Tradition is where we get doctrines like the Trinity.

The Reformation, in the 16th century, is where we get the doctrine of sola scriptura.

I would also like to ask you which church your refering too?

I am pretty sure your refering to the Catholic Church.

The church I am a part of had its begining long before the Catholic Church ever began. The church of Christ began on the day of Pentecost as recorded in (Acts 2).

This begining on the day of Pentecost was prophecied in (Isa.2:2,3) (Jer.31:31) (Joel 2:28).

So the documents I would use would be the bible ALONE.

in love Baerly

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would also like to ask you which church your refering too?

I am pretty sure your refering to the Catholic Church.

The church I am a part of had its begining long before the Catholic Church ever began. The church of Christ began on the day of Pentecost as recorded in (Acts 2).

This begining on the day of Pentecost was prophecied in (Isa.2:2,3) (Jer.31:31) (Joel 2:28).

So the documents I would use would be the bible ALONE.

in love Baerly

Bearly,

The church did not end with the Bible, but continually produced authoritative documents. First Clement, the Didache, and Shepard of Hermas are all dated before some NT texts (such as Revelation, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and perhaps 1 Peter) and are included in some biblical canons. So no, I'm not talking about the Catholic church founded in 600, but the Church that produced the NT and other early Christian literature. We also have a collection of writings known as the apostolic fathers that would be instructive here.