Wednesday, October 20, 2010

An honest assessment of Sola Scriptura

After 163 posts, the Back to the Bible thread is finally winding down. Before proceeding onto the more detailed look at Psalm 110:1 that I hinted at in the combox, I would like to bring to the attention of AF's readers some recent reflections from the pen of the highly respected Evangelical scholar, Roger E. Olson:

I admit it. I am a fallibilist–with regard to human beings (except when being infallibly inspired by God). My definition of “theology” is human reflection on God’s infallible revelation. (Or, in the case of philosophical theology–human reflection on God insofar as unaided reason is able to know something about God.) In other words, I assume that all theologies (outside Scripture itself) are fallible because they are created by finite and fallen human beings.

Unless a person is quoting Scripture in the original language, he or she is humanly interpreting Scripture. There is no such thing as a statement about the meaning of Scripture that is not human interpretation. “It’s interpretation all the way down” applies to every theological system and doctrinal statement. (Roger E. Olson, "Why can't we all just admit our theologies are flawed?".)

Finally, an honest, sober admission from one who holds to the principle of sola scriptura. Any Christian who is not either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, should deeply reflect on Dr. Olson's cogent assessment...


Grace and peace,

David

164 comments:

Ken said...

Yes, David - that is why Protestants never claim that they are infallible or their leaders are; or their systems are infallible.

Olson's reflections include the Roman Catholic system and the EO - so I don't know why you wrote the last part -

Any Christian who is not either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, should deeply reflect on Dr. Olson's cogent assessment...

They are included also; and they should reflect on it also. Their dogmatic claims to be infallible, either the Papal infallibility or the "Seven Church Councils" Infallibility thing - they are wrong also - mixed with human sin and error.

They are just arrogant claims. (especially Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctum - "Every human creature must submit to the Pope for Salvation" - one of the most arrogant statements ever uttered by a human being in history; and Pius IX's "I am the tradition!" (like Darth Sideous' in Star Wars 3, the Revenge of the Sith - "I am the Senate!")

The best position is still Sola Scritpura and Luther's famous "Here I stand" speech.

Appropriate for the upcoming remembrance of the Reformation on October 31.

Ken said...

David,
At the "Back to the Bible" thread -

Take note of my comment, no. 164 -
how would you answer that to a Muslim? (like the GV19 ?) -

Typo above:
The best position is still Sola Scritpura and Luther's famous "Here I stand" speech.

Should be:

The best position is still Sola Scriptura and Luther's famous "Here I stand" speech.

Lvka said...

Unless a person is quoting Scripture in the original language, he or she is humanly interpreting Scripture


Lost in Translation again, Dave? :)

Ken said...

Just want to say I appreciate Lvka's defense of the Trinity, and we all agree on the first four Ecumenical councils, (except they are not infallible, but derive their doctrinal truth from the infallible Scriptures)

- except Ephesus in 431 AD was handled wrong (an example of the error of harshness in church discipline) and is a distortion of what Nestorius really believed, as he later agreed with Chalcedon in 451 when he was in exile. Bazaar of Hericlidus vindicated him and the churches of the east. Even today, the churches of the east are in ecumenical discussion with Rome and the Greek Orthodox (I think).

There was not a balance of "truth and love" together. The harshness of the Orthodox (but mostly from the Zoroastrian government of Persia) against the Nestorians in Persia, and against the Monophysites in Syria, Egypt, Armenia created an atmosphere where they at first "welcomed the Arab Muslims as liberators", but were tricked and unjustly treated by high taxes and lack of freedom to evangelize, and later were also persecuted with dhimmi status and much injustice and harshness and wars.

Sola Scriptura is the answer; along with freedom of religion and separation of the church from the government; - but that does not mean separation of Christian morality or talk of God/evangelism from public life - the modern liberal-atheist-secularist take on "separation of church and state".

The iconoclasm controversy contributed to the downfall of the church in the eastern areas also.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

David thank you for the history of the Presbyterians and that brief over view. I was glad you mentioned the Federal Vision controversy and it is something that I am keenly interested in.

I would like to see a debate between James White and Gary Demar on that particular issue.

Something caught my attention in the opening of this new thread.

"Unless a person is quoting Scripture in the original language..."

Sola Scriptura is Latin. I would like to know what is the most literal rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16?

Seems to me that once we start calling a fragment, document, a writing 'Scripture' we have now given a theological importance to this document.

I found it interesting when Christians ask me if I 'believe in the scriptures'. It seems to me that 2 Timothy is talking about writings.

When it says all writings is this just hyperbole? For example are the writings of John Piper scripture? He writes to reprove, to correct, to instruct so that should qualify as scripture.

Ken said...

the key phrase of 2 Timothy 3:16 is the Greek - "theopneustos" =
θεοπνευστος

"God-breathed" or "breathed out by God"

theo = God

+

pneustos = breathed

2 Timothy 3:15 is about the Holy Scriptures, the OT

in verse 16, he includes the NT also, "All Scripture is God-breathed . . .

2 Timothy 3:16-17 in Greek

πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς ελεγμον προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη

17 ινα αρτιος η ο του θεου ανθρωπος προς παν εργον αγαθον εξηρτισμενος

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

17 that the man of God may be competent,equipped for every good work.

Yes, Sola Scriptura is a Latin phrase - because by the time of Luther and Calvin in the 1500s, it was customary for the western churches (Europe, non Greek & east)to write theology in Latin, based on Jerome and Augustine - 400s AD.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

continued...

What about the alternative reading in the RSV and Rheims 'All scripture inspired of God'...To me this less popular reading seems to be more appropriate if we allow context to speak.

If you say all writing is inspired of God that can't be true. Jack Kirby and Stan Lee comic book series in my view is not "God breathed". That is why I think the Catholic translation is not only more faithful to the Greek text it is also theologically more defensible.

Either way we take (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) the contents or canon is not defined.

I also firmly believe (and not just saying this because I belong to the Muslim position) that the New Testament documents themselves do not have a built in litmus test or challenge to determine if it is something inspired of God.


This is why I am always shocked by the Protestant objection to the Catholic and Orthodox position.

John 16:13 "The Holy Spirit" will guide into ALL truth. or most truth I dunno.

In all truthfulness as well as we Muslims begin to analyze this particular theological doctrine of the Protestants:how it was formulated, etc our opponents in the debate platform will easily be shred to pieces.

It's in the best interest of the Protestants or those who hold the view of sola scriptura to balance that with Catholic or Orthodox views or prima scriptura or you will be easy pickings for well seasoned Muslim debaters.

Take for example James White in his debate with Shabir Ally on the Issue of the New Testament being the inspired word of God.

I can't believe how anyone says that James won that debate! He quoted 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21 and than rode the presuppositionalist school bus all the way home!

Did he win another award for toastmaster performance yes! But what else did he do?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

continued...basically the rest of the debate was to shift focus on the Qur'an.

This tactic is done so he could cry fowl (Muslims are inconsistent). Sure that is fine and well, but how about you bring up all that stuff when you actually debate Shabir about the Qur'an? It's called staying focused.

Don't get me wrong as I said if I was a Christian presuppositionalist sitting in the audience I would have loved it up. Yeah! Our faith stood up to the Muslim champion!

But for the Muslim there was no conviction and no testimony given. There was no litmus test for how to know what is and what is not inspired. All the Muslims saw was it says it is so it is-circular reasoning.

It may keep the sheep satiated but it keeps the Muslim wanting.

What is worse is that during Q and A during the 2nd encounter Shabir questioned James again on the issue of how you determine what is and what is not scripture.

I have listened to his debates with Catholics and he didn't do to well. I have read the transcript several times now of the debate with Ehrman. I saw Evans and Ehrman debate.

William Lane Craig avoids the issue with a ten foot pole.

To me Christianity is not necessarily in abandon ship mode (yet...) but the Protestants would do well to adjust their stance to a more traditional Christian perspective or risk looking bad in future encounters with other faiths such as Islam.

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
This is why I am always shocked by the Protestant objection to the Catholic and Orthodox position.

John 16:13 "The Holy Spirit" will guide into ALL truth. or most truth I dunno.

Protestants and RC and EO are in agreement that in context, this promise of Jesus is to the disciples/the apostles, who will write holy Scripture. (if you look at all the verses, they don't mean just any "writing", but the "holy writings" of the prophets and apostles (2 Peter 3:2; 3:16; 2 Peter 1:12-21; I Timothy 5:18 - gospels are included with the law of Moses as Scripture) Paul's gospel and writings are part of that promise of John 16:13 - Galatians chapters 1-2 and Acts chapter 15 and I Cor. 9 and 15 show this.

Where we disagree is that the RCC and EO extends the promise beyond the 27 books of the NT (written by 69 AD or 96 AD) to interpretations and councils and Popes and church history. (they call it "holy tradition") Protestants believe some of this is right and good tradition (the doctrine of the Trinity, because it is theological truth contained in Scripture, but not explicitly said in the exact words, made more clear by good exegesis of texts; but reject tradition that contradicts holy Scripture (Mary as Mother of God; co-mediator; transubstantiation; purgatory, indulgences, penance; NT priests; Mary - IC and BA, infallibility of Pope - there is no such thing as a Pope in Scripture - look at 2 Peter 1:12-21 - if there was, Peter, the supposed "first Pope", would have written about it; see also I Peter 5:1 ff.

Protestants believe that promise of John 16:12-13 and other passages as including the God-breathed Holy Scriptures, written under authority of apostles.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Even if you look at the word 'scripture' it seems innocent enough right?

However one is hard pressed to find a definition of this word even in a standard dictionary that is not already infused with theological projections.

The etymological root of the word for example.

Douay-Rheims Bible
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,....

So the Greek word graphe just simply means writings and that is why it is important to see why Protestants and Catholics would argue on behalf of the different translations they have given to the text.

As I already mentioned above I think the Catholic, Orthodox view is more consistent with the text and more theologically convincing.

Ken said...

GV19-
The NT has many different authors - 4 gospels - 2 eyewitnesses, 3 really, because Mark is writing down Peter's sermons and oral teaching of the gospel, the life and death and resurrection of Christ; Luke interviewed eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4), and was traveling companion of Paul, who is affirmed by all the other 11 disciples (Acts 9-28; I Cor. 15; I Cor. 9; Galatians 1-2)

All NT books were written by the apostles or under apostolic authority.

As I said to the Turks on the streets of Istanbul in 1994, "What is better in Turkish court of law for evidence of a car crash? One witness or 4 witnesses?

They admitted 4 is better.

But with the Qur'an, you have only one man making a claim to be a prophet, 613-632 years after the NT, and contradicting the previous Scriptures - the OT and the NT.

You have a bigger problem in that it is one man's claim - the chains of isnad of the Hadith don't prove anything - they just take it back to one claim - so? What did he do? He was not sure of his own standing with Allah; and you and a billion Muslims are still praying for him (May peace and blessings be upon him). what did he do? Teach legalism - if one burps or passes gas in the middle of the Salat/namaz prayers, you have to start all over. What did he do? Make war against everyone who didn't agree with him; "might is right", etc.

Yet, you admitted that "one who dies for his enemies has greater love" and that is proclaimed in the Scriptures - Romans 5:5-11 - by the apostle Paul, the one Islam rejects even more than the gospels.

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
As I already mentioned above I think the Catholic, Orthodox view is more consistent with the text and more theologically convincing.

As far as Scripture (graphe) - the RC and EO and Protestants agree - that all the 27 NT books are the only "holy inspired (God-breathed) writings" -- you are still forgetting the context of 2 Timothy 3:15

and

you are leaving out the rest of the NT that shows that the "holy Scriptures" are the NT writings - 2 Peter 1:12-21; 3:16 (all of Paul's letters); 2 Peter 3:2, Jude 17; I Timothy 5:18 (both gospels and Law are Scripture).

Do you know what the RC and EO view is?

They agree with Protestants that only the 27 NT books are inspired (for the NT)

they do not extend "God-breathed" scriptures beyond the apostles with John's death and writing of John's Gospel, 3 letters, and Revelation.

They agree with Athanasius - who wrote "in these alone [after his list of the same 27 NT books] are the doctrine of godliness, the fountains of salvation", etc.

I am having trouble what you mean by the RC and EO position. They agree with Protestants on this position.


If you mean the Apocrypha (Jewish books) - they were written in between 400 - 100 BC and are never quoted by NT writers. Jerome (400 AD), Jesus (Luke 24:44; Luke 11:50-52); Josephus (against Apion 1:8) and the Jews agreed (Babylonian Talmud and commentaries) on this.

The RCC did not even dogmatically decide on the Apocrypha books of the OT until the Council of Trent in 1545-1563.

They agree that other books written by gnostics in 2nd century beyond are not "God-breathed". (some that Muhammad got his information for 5:110 in the Qur'an)

So, what do you mean by the RC and EO position that you agree with?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

While on the subject of 'Sola Scriptura' does anyone know on what consistent basis do some conservative Christians allow for the drinking of alcohol and smoking tobacco but take a hard line view on the smoking of Marijuana?

I know that some Christians say it's o.k to drink Jack Daniels, and to smoke Virginia Slim Ultra Menthol Lights; however what about Marijuana?

Seems that in the Netherlands (bedrock of the Dutch Reformed tradition)-Marijuana usage is alive and well.

If I'm fair I guess the only interpretation valid would be quoting some text in Romans that says we should submit to authority (government).

So than if Proposition19 is enacted as law in California could a bible believing Christian smoke marijuana?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

I'm also curious since according to the view of many Christians we are 'no longer under the law' or the Old Testament is seen as archaic and not keeping with our times what does the New Testament teach about war?

Using sola scriptura alone on what consistent basis do reformed Christians press red buttons in under ground bases that decimate entire population centers half way across the globe?

On the basis of sola scriptura would we say that Jesus is pleased with our T1 Abrams tanks, Apache and Scorpion class attack helicopters and our 'Smart bombs' that occasionally (and not so intelligently) kill civilians?

On the basis of sola scriptura am I allowed to vote for and financially support a president who puts economic embargo's on nations that ultimately lead to the starvation of children?

I read material by C.S Lewis (boring and unimaginative) -where is the 'Just War' principle in the New Testament using the Sola Scriptura

Thanks guys!

natamllc said...

Ken,

With David, there is no direct and personal confession. Interesting isn't it?

I just wonder why that is in light of what Paul exegetes from Deuteronomy?

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Rom 10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down)
Rom 10:7 or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."


Just quoting other writers and patronizing those outside the True Confession of Faith is mysterious of him and it lingers with me about that.

Jesus was very forthright in admission that just attaching oneself to Him wasn't what got one through the door into the Kingdom, noted here:

Mat 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Ken said...

GV19,
You didn't answer any of my questions. I wonder if many Muslims can stay on topic or focus; same with most of my friends for the past 26 years - they always change the subject to subjects like you brought up. You do the same thing at your blog - "throw everything in history including the kitchen sink at them". Ahmad Deedat had the same kind of method, always not answering and using trickery and blame the other guy.

Blaming others is a root human problem. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent for their sins. (Genesis 3) The Islamic world needs to grow up and stop blaming the British or USA or "the Zionists", or the Crusades, or colonialism, etc.

Islam does not seem to teach people to be responsible for their own sins -
blame the women for my lust - cover them up! Blame the west for everything else - "therefore fight them!". It always seems selfish about one's pride and honor and how the other guy makes me feel. It seems about "my honor" and "my shame" - "you shamed me" and "you dishonored me", "therefore I qatal you", (Surah 9:29), etc.


Because you cannot answer the tough questions about Islam itself.

TJW said...

"Unless a person is quoting Scripture in the original language, he or she is humanly interpreting Scripture."

Of course, and more importantly, he's also engaging in a fallible interpretation of history when he concludes that what he is quoting is scripture or that 'scripture' even exists.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

"Blogger natamllc said...
Ken,

With David, there is no direct and personal confession. Interesting isn't it?"


Natmallc consider this,

The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."(John 10:24) Seems that Jesus had the same effect on people that David does!

Remember it is you Christians who say that the Jews had it all wrong in their understanding of the Messiah and what his function would be.

Even Mark 10:16-17 which we as Muslims use as a proof text against the deity of Jesus, the Christians have countered that what maybe Jesus was doing was giving a rhetorical question (What do you call me good) -Basically do you really know who I am?

Jesus often spoke in parables and did not answer things in a black and white fashion.

I thought your faith teaches you patience? If you have read David time and time again he tells people he is still collecting data.


This seems more humble in a sea of 1001 competing sects and denominations than for David to come out and say, "As of today I David Waltz am a follower of the Episcopalian faith cross us if you dare!"

Get real! We know what he's not. He's not an Atheist, Agnostic, Deist....

I'm sorry in your little black and white world you want to put everyone in a box.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

I find it amazing that some Christians can't seem to stay on topic.

drum roll.....topic is 'An Honest Assessment of Sola Scriptura'.

It's amazing that certain Christians don't want to answer questions about THE TOPIC.

The 'throw everything but the kitchen sink at them' statement is RICH $$$. It's filthy RICH coming from a person who on any given topic manages to squeeze in the following, (9/11, "unjust wars" against the Persians, Muhammed married a 9 year old, beat the wives, legalism,Aunt Jemima's pancakes, God is deceptive",4 wives, Hamas,Abu Abbas) I mean....that's extremely Rich! So Rich it makes Warren Buffet look like a welfare case.

I'm here to engage and contribute on the topic "An Honest Assessment of Sola Scriptura"

David at least admits that some times he doesn't have a quick fix for every solution. It's called humility folks.

But when I ask how do some people who champion sola scriptura consistently allow drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco but are hard on marijuana some get offended.

When I ask where in the New Testament based upon sola scriptura do we get the 'just war' principle from? Some get a little hot under the collar.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

My objective coming here and posting what I do and learning from the comments is four fold really.

1) See how the various Christian groups understand 2 Timothy 3:16.

2) How did we get from graphe (writings) to scripture (theologically loaded term)?

3) Who or what determines what is or is not graphe (writings) that is theopneustos (God breathed)

4) To see how consistent those who hold to sola scriptura are on issues facing modern man. For example the ones I already mentioned above.

Ken said...

I answered David's issue in combox number 1.

I answered your "graphe" / Scripture question in combox number 6 and John 16:13 in combox number 9.

above

Maybe you need more help.

Look at 2 Timothy 3:15-17

notice verse 15, "the sacred writings" or "the holy scriptures"
? Do you see it?

this answers your question and is on topic. (and I did this before also)

and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

verse 15 is about the "sacred writings" of the OT - the ones Timothy knew as a child.

then Paul moves to "all Scritpure" - all the sacred writings - including his own letters and the gospels and NT -

I Timothy 5:18 - Paul quotes from 2 passages, one from Deut. (the law of Moses) and one from the gospels (Matthew and Luke). This shows the the gospels are holy Scripture.

Peter affirms all of Paul's writings as Scripture - meaning "holy Scriptures" - 2 Peter 3:16

2 Timothy was the last letter written by Paul before his martyrdom by Nero in 67 AD, so it includes all the others before it.

Peter tells the churches he wrote to in Asia that this is the second letter he is writing to them ( 2 Peter 3:1) - and notice the purpose - to stir up their minds to remember truth.

Same in 2 Peter 1:12-21 - his purpose of "being diligent" before he dies is to write this letter to stir them up to remember the truth. If he was the first pope, as the RCs claim, then he would have mentioned such a thing. He doesn't. Instead he writes them "Scripture".

continued

Ken said...

2 Peter 3:1-2 -
1This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, [connect the stirring up your sincere minds by reminder with 2 Peter 1:12-21 – before he dies, Peter wants to leave them something written that they can refer to constantly as their guide, like a lamp shining in the darkness, truth.]
2that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.
2 Peter 3:2 - "in order to remember the words of the holy prophets and the apostles" - how? by reading Scripture - Jude 17 also.

In English theological evangelical jargon, yes, the word "Scripture" has come to mean "the holy writings of the prophets of the OT and the apostles of the NT that are all "God-breathed".

Ephesians 2:19-20
the church is built upon the prophtets (OT) and apostles (NT).

All the books of the NT were written between 48-68 AD (if John, 1-3 John, and Rev. were written before 70 AD) and Jude - 80 AD (? no one knows for absolute certainty). other wise John and 1-3 John and Revelation by 96 AD.

Other false teachers like the Gnostics began writing false writings in the second century. the early church clearly discerned and sifted and were guided rightly which ones were true and which ones were false. they were all originally separate, written to seperate areas ( Galatians to Galatia ( churches in Iconium (Konya, home of Rumi's grave now - Acts 14; Lystra, Derbe, Pisidion Antioch - Central Turkey, near Cappadocia; etc. Colossians to Colossea; Ephesians to Ephesus, etc. )

Because of persecution and difficulty of communication and travel; it was only after the persecution stopped that the early church could get all the NT books under one "book cover" - Origen in 250 lists all the 27 books and Athanasius in 367 AD lists them also.

All Protestants, RCs, and EO are agreed on the 27 books of the NT.

the RCs say (later) it was infallibly determined by the infallible church, but no such concept existed for centuries, and even the EO would argue against any kind of infallible Pope, or "bishop over all bishops". The infallibility of the Pope dogma was not declared by the Roman Catholic church until 1870 - very late indeed.

Protestants say that the early church discerned correctly which books were "God-breathed" by God's guidance and providence; and that the internal quality of the books and external and internal evidence of being "God breathed" and written by an apostle or under apostolic authority is clear.

Ken said...

Of course, admittedly, here is where David and Lvka are probably going to disagree with me. I take the Protestant position; David, ? (since he no longer believes the church councils nor the Pope is infallible); and Lvka will take the EO position of the "church of the seven infallible councils" (Eastern Orthodoxy).

We all agree on the first 4 councils - except none of them were about the canon. the early church agreed on the canon (list of books) by 250 (Origen); 367 Athanasius; etc.

Nicea - 325 - about Arius and Deity of Christ - the logos was from all eternity the Son, "begotten, not created" - (and had nothing to do with canon of Scripture)- that is a Divinci Code lie.
Constantinople - 381 - about the heresy of Apollinarianism and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
Ephesus - 431 AD - about Nestorius
Chalcedon - 451 AD - that Christ had two natures, but is one person. 100 % God and 100 % man. Romans 1:1-7

Local councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine in 380s - 393 AD - by 400 AD, the rest of Christendom were agreed on the 27 books of the NT.

Admittedly the Apocrypha (Jewish books written between 400 and 100 BC) question (which I also dealt with earlier) - see I do stay on topic - this was not settled until council of Trent in 1545-1563. But Jerome (400) and Gregory the Great, one of the most famous "popes" in 601 agreed that those books were not "God-breathed".

Jesus indicated this in Luke 24:44 and 11:50-51 - "from the blood of Abel (Genesis) to the blood of Zechariah the priest (2 Chronicles) - Chronicles is the last book in the Jewish Tanakh, written around the same time as the prophet Malachi (430 BC).

Ken said...

By the way, the "just war principle" is based on Romans 13:1-8 - that the government does not bear the sword in vain. Sword = in this context means justice, punishment for evil, so this included capital punishment, death penalty for serious crimes like murder; police work, and military defense, etc. Since you read C. S. Lewis' work on "Why I am not a Pacifist", you should understand it; although you judged it as "boring and unimaginative".

Drunkenness is clearly a sin. Galatians 5:19-21; I Peter 4:3-4; I Cor. 6:9-11; Ephesians 5:3-10 Ephesians 5:18, but having a glass of wine with a steak or a glass of champagne at a wedding celebration (see John chapter 2, Psalms 4) is not sin. (Many Muslims secretly agree and drink – they do not eat pork, but they do drink alcohol. ) But most people unfortunately, don't know how to control themselves. Stronger alcohol is very dangerous and that is a debate that Baptists have with other Christians who "drink". (The Baptists, generally, agree with Muslims more on this, that all drinking is bad; and makes people stumble (the atmosphere of "weekends were made for Michelobe" is just not a good atmosphere and quickly gets out of control.

hope this helps for your understanding; I answered all 4 of your questions and on topic.

Ken said...

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-testament-canon.html

In my opinion, this series of articles by Jason Engwer is the best on line source for the Protestant view of how the NT canon came to be.

You should study it for understanding.

But David and Lvka will probably disagree. (as will other RCs like Rory and others who come here from time to time.)

Ken said...

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/04/historical-roots-of-reformation-and.html

And this is the best series of articles on line that show the historical roots of the Protestant Reformation. Jason Engwer again. (Lots of reading)

Ken said...

Mark 10:17-18

17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, " Good Teacher , what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Yes, Jesus is an easterner; oriental, east; NOT westerner.

Many former Muslims, once they give the NT a chance and stop attacking it, see this clearly.

This is eastern form of conversation and indirect speech and answering a question by asking a question.

Yasser Arafat used to do that all the time with the western media - answer with a question.

Ahmadi Nejad does it today with western journalists.

This is one of the clearest proofs for the Deity of Christ in the Bible -

Jesus is saying - If you recognize Me as good; and since only God is good (sinless, holy, perfect); then you should recognize Me as God incarnate ("in the flesh") - John 1:1-5; 1:14; 1:18

Do you want to be "western" or "eastern" ??

I have been involved with (teaching, evangelism); or met about 200 + Iranians (over last 16 years) who have come to Christ as Lord and Savior from Islamic background - they admit this and say, "as we keep reading the Bible, we see the culture and the eastern quality of it; it is not a western book." For example, Genesis 24 - no dating ( a western concept) - parents are involved in finding a wife for children; also prayer and also they ask Rebecca if she is willing (so she has a choice and is not forced.) She is a virgin also. Eastern, Biblical values.

Ken said...

"writing" = the English meaning of Greek, "graphe" by itself

But,
"holy writings" (2 Tim. 3:15) = special kind of writings, "holy" = separate from common, pure, clean. = OT in 2 Tim. 3:15; later extended to all 66 books of the Bible

"Scripture" - English word based on the Latin word, "Scriptura" and short for "Holy Scripture" - the "holy" = clean, pure; means the "God-breathed" writings of the Law of Moses, prophets, and the Psalms (Poetic books; includes Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon) - see Luke 24:44 and 24:25-27; 11:50-51 - they are the "key of knowledge" ; and the NT writings of the 4 gospels and Epistles, Acts, and Revelation.

Lvka said...

from the blood of Abel (Genesis) to the blood of Zechariah the priest (2 Chronicles)

It is a possible interpretation, I don't deny that,... but --to my knowledge-- it refers to the first and last innocent man killed (in the time of Christ): the righteous Abel, the first human victim; and Zechariah, the father of St. John the Baptist, killed in the Temple, between the Holy and the Holy of Holies, by Herod's henchmen.

Ken said...

it is not Zechariah, father of John the baptizer -

That is not true -
the Zechariah of Luke 11:49-51 and Matthew 23:34-35 is in

2 Chronicles 24:17-21

Ken said...

Based on 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 - I think smoking is wrong; but so is gluttony. They do not "glorify God in our bodies".

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Sincerely appreciate your responses. In your opening post in this thread you wrote:

>>Olson's reflections include the Roman Catholic system and the EO - so I don't know why you wrote the last part -

Any Christian who is not either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, should deeply reflect on Dr. Olson's cogent assessment...

They are included also; and they should reflect on it also. Their dogmatic claims to be infallible, either the Papal infallibility or the "Seven Church Councils" Infallibility thing - they are wrong also - mixed with human sin and error.>>

Me: Right or wrong, the fact that the RCC and EO churches accept infallible tradition/s, places them outside the parameters of those who hold to the principle of sola scriptura; as such, "Olson's reflections" do not " include the Roman Catholic system and the EO".

>> They are just arrogant claims.>>

Me: You may be right; however, I would argue that their claims, functionally speaking, are no more "arrogant" than those Protestant sects who require their members to submit to confessions and/or catechisms—the claim that their confessions and/or catechisms are fallible is a bit of a dichotomy for those very confessions and/or catechisms FUNCTION as if they were infallible. (I suspect Lvka would argue that his position is more consistent.)

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. Ken, will get to your "comment, no. 164", after I have responded to the comments in this thread; thanks much for your patience in advance.

David Waltz said...

Hi Lvka,

You posted:

>> Lost in Translation again, Dave? :) >>

Me: There is certainly a dose of truth to this, and is but one of the reasons why I look to the Hebrew/Aramaic OT over the LXX.

I would also add that not only are translations fallible, but also the collection of books accepted as canonical (at least in the Protestant tradition) is fallible. R.C. Spoul, in his "Hath God Said?" lecture series stated that the Protestant canon is a "fallible collection of infallible books" (tape TH 11.23/24 side A "Inspiration and the Canon of Scripture"; see also page 58 of the study guide). [The inherent difficulties with such a view would need another thread to adequately address.]

And there is also the question of textual variants; the method/process by which one chooses a particular variant over others is without question also fallible.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

You posted:

>>Just want to say I appreciate Lvka's defense of the Trinity, and we all agree on the first four Ecumenical councils, (except they are not infallible, but derive their doctrinal truth from the infallible Scriptures)>>

Me: Does this mean that you now reject the autotheos of the Son and Spirit? Do you also accept Mary as theotokos?

For an excellent treatment on theotokos, and its comparison to the competing view Christotokos, see the following link:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi GV19,

Thanks much for taking the time to contribute to this thread; you wrote:

>>David thank you for the history of the Presbyterians and that brief over view. I was glad you mentioned the Federal Vision controversy and it is something that I am keenly interested in.

I would like to see a debate between James White and Gary Demar on that particular issue.>>

Me: I don't think James would be interested in such a debate; the Federal Vision 'controversy' is pretty much limited, at this time, to the conservative Presbyterian denominations found in North America. I don't think it has been an issue among Reformed Baptists (perhaps Ken could weigh in on this).

>> I would like to know what is the most literal rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16?>>

Me: There are two' major' positions among conservative Protestants on this issue. I see that Ken has delineated one of those positions in a subsequent post; I will present the second in a bit...


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

Thanks for responding to GV19 concerning 2 Tim. 3:15; in your response you posted:

>>the key phrase of 2 Timothy 3:16 is the Greek - "theopneustos" =
θεοπνευστος

"God-breathed" or "breathed out by God">>

Me: Correct me if I am wrong, but you are probably relying on Warfield's analysis of "theopneustos", right? Warfield held that it was the Scriptures/writings (extending to the actual words themselves) that were "God-breathed". This view has been termed, "plenary verbal inspiration".

Roger E. Olson, in his The Mosaic of Christian Belief, touches on this view, and presents an alterative view; note the following:

==Some conservative theologians affirm what they call "plenary verbal inspiration"" (plenary means "full, complete, entire") of Scripture and insist that the Greek theopneustos ("God-breathed") in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the very words of Scripture and not only or even primarily to the human authors. They also believe that all the words of Scripture (i.e., all of the Bible's affirmations) are inspired. Other conservative theologians believe and teach that inspiration refers not to the words or propositions but to authors. The authors were inspired as the as they wrote. The wording of the Greek in the crucial passage is unclear. It can be interpreted either way. (Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief, p. 102 - bold emphasis mine.)==

For a concise online treatment, see the following link:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_inspiration.html


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello natamllc,

You wrote the following:

>>With David, there is no direct and personal confession. Interesting isn't it?>>

Me: ??? I have stated my credo (i.e. 'what I believe', set of beliefs) that I currently hold, and have held for 40 plus years now, to YOU and others, on more than one occasion. Do you maintain that my credo is NOT a "personal confession"? You are confusing me here natamllc...

Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

Me: Does this mean that you now reject the autotheos of the Son and Spirit? Do you also accept Mary as theotokos?

There is no difference between "homo-ousias" (same substance; ie the Son and the Spirit are the same nature/ousia/essence as the Father) and auto-theos (they were God from all eternity) - they are the same doctrine from the Scriptures - Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14.

If by "Mary as Theototokos" you mean that when Mary was carrying and bearing Jesus, she was carrying God, yes, Jesus was God before the conception/incarnation and afterward. Luke 1:34-35 "for this reason the holy offspring will be called the Son of God"

But, it is a term that meant to say something about Jesus Christ as God eternally past, not meant to say something exalted about Mary, which is what RC and EO exalted her too much after that. I don't use the term except in deep discussions like this; and I would never agree to the English phrase or Latin phrase "Mother of the God" - Mater Deus later form. The RCs in Lebanon and other churches in Middle East say this, and it is a bad testimony to Muslims because of what it seems to be saying to their ears.

Ken said...

the Federal Vision controversy - you are right - it is not an issue with Reformed Baptists / Southern Baptists who are Calvinistic - we find those advocating it confusing and strange (like Doug Wilson) - actually James White already debated Doug Wilson on something that is a fruit of the Federal Vision thing. The reason why it is not an issue with Reformed Baptists or any baptists is that it is based on their view of the covenant in the OT (entry by circumcision into the community/an external sign/not necessarily having internal faith, etc. - infant baptism in the NT as the fulfillment of the OT circumcision (Genesis 17, Colossians 2:11 - but see verse 12 - "through faith in the power of God to raise Jesus from the dead" (something infants cannot do)

and Wilson kept saying - "grap people by their infant baptism" (as a child) but they are not believers now (like Roman Catholics who knowingly reject justification by faith alone, or are relying on prayers to Mary to get them to heaven, etc.,or others who were baptized as infants but are not going to church anymore or walking with the Lord or have active faith, etc.)

I may not be representing it very well - I admit that - I don't understand it. It is goofy to me! (Again !)

The whole explanation of it is hard to understand.

You can Google Douglas Wilson on the Federal Vision and read up on it. I don't have time - when I tried to understand it; it was not comprehend-able to someone who already cannot see infant baptism anywhere in the Bible.

You can find James White's and Douglas Wilson's debate on it at www.aomin.org ("Are Roman Catholics our Brothers and Sisters in Christ?")

Gary DeMar is not Federal Vision at all, but he is Post-millennial and theonomist. Yet both Gary DeMar and Douglas Wilson are brothers in Christ, and I respect them greatly, even though I disagree with those things.

Lvka said...

Hi there, Ken!

Thought this might perhaps interest you a bit..

Ken said...

On "theo-pveustos"

Warfield was right. 2 Tim. 3:16 says the "graphe" is God-breathed.

Grandverbalizer19's question was not about that (Theopveustos and the different ways Conservative Christians have interpreted it) specifically, but it was about the words, "writing" and "scripture"

He is missing the fact that 2 Tim. 3:15 says, "Holy Scripture" or "holy writings".

And he is trying to ask about the canon and "who decided", etc.; which I answered.

He also doesn't seem to realize that RCC and EO and Protestants are agreed on the 27 inspired/God-breathed NT books.

Ken said...

Lvka -
Even though they found a piece of a leg of an icon (?) from the Nestorian churches in China from 700s AD; the whole icon thing was wrong / unbiblical and not in the earlier centuries.

I can understand how it started for education and teaching (especially for those that could not read, etc.), but the worship and kissing of them is just ridiculous and unbiblical and looks like idolatry.

Nick said...

If anyone is looking for an honest assessment of Sola Scriptura, check this out:

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/04/sola-scriptura-is-unscriptural.html

I can't find a single Protestant willing to take on this argument, namely the first two words of 2 Timothy 3:16, "pasa graphe".

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Great article Nick! That is exactly along the lines I'm thinking.

This is why I said I think the Orthodox and the Catholic have the stronger leg to stand on in this issue.

There is a huge difference grammatically in the English language if I say 'All the apples in this basket are good to eat'.

Than I turn around and say 'Eat all the apples in this basket that are good.'

The second one states clearly one must sift through the basket.

Btw I'm not saying that Nick is saying the New Testament writings are not good. Obviously he isn't. I was simply illustrating an example that there is a theological point to be made in how one translates 2 Timothy 3:16.

Nick also makes another great point here.

"Or what about the 'lost letters' of Paul (e.g. 1 Cor 5:9; Col 4:16) which either were uninspired (yet obviously of some worth) or are speaking of some other NT work?"

"He also doesn't seem to realize that RCC and EO and Protestants are agreed on the 27 inspired/God-breathed NT books."

I know full well that they are. What I am stating which is an irrefutable fact is that the issue of the Christian canon (for all Christians) is still an unsettled issue for both the New Testament and the Old Testament.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

By the way on second thought one should say the following carefully,

"He also doesn't seem to realize that RCC and EO and Protestants are agreed on the 27 inspired/God-breathed NT books."

because even this is not true. There is not agreement upon what is contained within that canon.

How is someone going to tell me that the KJV only have thrown out Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11, 1 John 5:7 and if you were to collate a percentage of all the times you hear 'some witnesses leave this out, and some text add this/leave that' I am not quite sure what the percentage of uncertainty would be.

Now I guess my question to Catholics and Orthodox would be is how does one include The Shepherd of Hermas in the Codex Sinaiticus and than take it out?

What is the duration period for being moved by the Holy Spirit? (I know that looks sarcastic but not trying to be).

I mean for us as Muslims it's troubling that some books would be included as canon and than taken back out.

I also appreciate Nicks insight here,

"Scripture is *profitable* towards Four Ends (i.e. teaching, correcting, rebuking, righteousness), and (v17) these Four Ends equip Man of God."

So would these four ends be part of the criteria for determining if something is scripture?

Thanks all.

Peace be unto you.

Lvka said...

I mean for us as Muslims it's troubling that some books would be included as canon and than taken back out.


Why? I don't understand. Mahommed himself abrogated two former verses from the Qur'an. Mircea Eliade (a historian of religions) appreciates this in a positive light (as Islam being the only revealed religion to accept improvements or modifications of its teachings) -- was he wrong to believe that?

Lvka said...

I can understand how it started


Ken you? Really?

Rory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rory said...

I want to speak briefly to Ken's accusation that it is arrogance that is at play since Catholics believe it possible that God can speak infallibly through His Church.

"God alone is absolutely infallible. The infallibility with which he endows His Church has limits and conditions. Infallibility is concerned primarily with certainty rather than with truth...The Church is infallible in her office of teaching owing to the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to her by Our Lord..."
---Pope John's Council, Michael Davies, p.223

The Catholic believes that with Christ as Head of His Church, He can impart certain gifts to His own Body by means of the indwelling Holy Ghost. What we are sometimes taught about the Holy Ghost is that by analogy and literally, the Spirit of God is the true Soul of the Church.

It seems to us Catholics like it would be a sinful temerity, a denial of faith in the Son of God and the Spirit of truth to be so "humble" as to proclaim that even with the Divine assistance, the Church is still incapable of imparting certainty as to teachings that have been declared to be true by means of a very infrequently used gift of infallibility.

If Ken accuses Catholics of arrogance, I accuse his bunch of temerity and cowardice. He is affiliated with church groups that possess such a low view of belief in God's assistance that under no circumstances could they ever think that any belief at all can ever be proposed that is held with infallible certainty. They are certainly not guilty of arrogance. How about simple infidelity?

This is to say nothing about verbal inspiration. I don't understand how it is arrogance to believe that less than every one hundred years, that God can lead His corporate Church to a faith that is so certain as to be for them, infallible. It seems to me that if this is arrogance, what is it to think that God took twelve sinful individuals and gave them the ability to not only propose truths that were infallibly certain and inspired, but at the same time provided inspired formulae by which to communicate them to His Church? Which seems more "arrogant"? I would say neither, but it seems useless to me to suppose that God gave these inspired writings to a Church that can with certainty interpret them, than that He would go to all the trouble of giving inspired, infallible writings to a bunch of "humble" anti-Catholics who would divide and split into a thousand pieces for lack of ability to understand.

Rory

Rory said...

Edit above...

"...but it seems useless to me to suppose that God gave these inspired writings to a Church that can with certainty interpret them..."

useless should read "more reasonable".

Ken said...

Nick,
The main problem with your paper is that you are isolating "all Scripture" out from the context of verses 14-17, in 2 Timothy chapter 3.

Verse 14 includes the things that Paul has been teaching him (see also 2:2; 1:13-14; I Timothy 1:3-11, 4:11-16), and since Paul the apostle wrote all his other letters before 2 Timothy, the content of his oral teaching is the same as the truth in all his other letters that he wrote to various churches and places. Also, since he already wrote I Timothy to Timothy, that included I Timothy 5:18,which I already mentioned, which quotes from Deuteronomy and Luke / Matthew, and so proves the gospels are called Scripture also, on the same authority and level as the OT and specifically the law. Your dismissal of I Tim. 5:18 and quotes from some scholars does not prove anything against Sola Scriptura. Obviously, if 2 Timothy is Paul's last book, then the principle includes all his previously letters also. Also, obviously, since the final NT books have not been written yet, namely, probably Jude (80 AD), Hebrews (68 AD), the gospel of John, 1-3 John, Revelation (maybe 80-96 AD, but it is also possible that all of them were written before 70 AD also; they do not have to have been written before 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in order for the principle of Sola Scriptura to be true. 2 Peter 3:16 includes all of Paul's letters. ("in all his letters")

2 Timothy 3:15:
και οτι απο βρεφους 'ιερα γραμματα οιδας τα δυναμενα σε σοφισαι εις σωτηριαν δια πιστεως της εν χριστω ιησου

'ιερα γραμματα = holy/sacred scriptures

obviously here it is the OT Scriptures that Timothy was taught as a child.

But Paul all through his letters to Timothy exhorts him to "continue in the things he has learned from Paul". Since Paul already wrote Galatians, Romans, I Cor. 2 Cor. 1-2 Thess., Phil., colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and he would not contradict himself, and even you and your church agree with that, the "all Scripture" of verse 16 includes all of his previous apostolic teaching.

The reason he says "all Scripture" and that included the NT is because he moves from the OT in verse 15 to include the NT in verse 16.

16 πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς ελεγμον προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη

πασα γραφη

check your article - I think you have left off letters from the Greek word "all" ("pas" or "pasa")

Paul is clearly saying in verse 15, the OT, but then in verse 16, it is as if he is saying, "in fact not only the OT, but all (holy) Scripture is God-breathed . . . and profitable, etc.

17 'ινα αρτιος η ο του θεου ανθρωπος προς παν εργον αγαθον εξηρτισμενος

the Greek words for being "adequate"/sufficient and "thoroughly furnished" and "equipped" are stronger than profitable and the 'iva (hina) "in order that" purpose clause sums up his whole argument.

When I have time I may write a more thorough rebuttal to your article.

Athanasius used strong terms for the sufficiency of Scripture -
I will try to post those quotes later.

In short, you did not defeat Sola Scriptura at all, no matter how much a Muslim likes your argumentation.

Ken said...

Rory,
All through history, examples can be found of others accusing and rebuking the Roman Bishop of being arrogant.

225 AD -Tertullian rebukes Callistus, bishop of Rome for claiming to be “supreme pontiff”

189-198 AD - Irenaeus rebukes Victor, bishop of Rome, on the Easter controversy.

255 AD - Cyprian and 86 Bishops from N. Africa and Asia (especially Firmillian) rebuke bishop Stephen of Rome for claiming to be "bishop of bishops". Cyprian taught that all bishops in their local area held the “chair of Peter”, the unity of the faith, based on Peter’s declaration of truth in Matthew 16:16, and Christ’s response in verse 17. Every church, when they follow the doctrine of the truth of Matthew 16:16, has unity with the right doctrine. That is what the early church meant, not some kind of “Pope” (some kind of “holy father over all other spiritual fathers”.)

Gregory, in 601, bishop of Rome, rebuked John of Constantinople for such a thing. Even Gregory did not claim, I don’t think, that he was “bishop of bishops”, did he?

Up to this time, there is no formal doctrine that the bishop of Rome is "bishop over all the other bishops". This develops more after the East – West split in 1054.

Ken said...

the east and west anathematized each other in 1054 AD - more arrogance.

Boniface VIII - 1302 - Unam Sanctum - "It is necessary for every human creature to be in submission to the Roman Pontiff in order for salvation."

That not only very arrogant, but so untrue because it contradicts Scripture at every place.

etc.

the dogma was not proclaimed until 1870 - this proves it is not historical, let alone not Biblical.

Pure arrogance.

When Pius IX (1846-1878) said, "I am the tradition", when Von Dollinger said something like, "there is no historical precedent for the infallibility dogma in tradition"; that was very arrogant. He pushed for the infallibility dogma, even though scholarly historians like Von Dollinger rebuked him for this. Von Dollinger was excommunicated.

And John Acton, 1887, said the famous statement in the context of the infallibility dogma of 1870:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely"

Acton was right.

Nick said...

Ken,

Thank you for interacting with my argument. Here are my thoughts on your analysis:

You said: "The main problem with your paper is that you are isolating 'all Scripture' out from the context of verses 14-17"

The truth is, context doesn't really help in this case since there isn't much to suggest one way or the other.


You said: "Verse 14 includes the things that Paul has been teaching him"

True, but this doesn't tell the extent of what Paul means by "pasa graphe". If anything, this verse goes against the idea of wholly written since Paul is speaking of his oral teaching to Timothy.

You said: "and since Paul the apostle wrote all his other letters before 2 Timothy, the content of his oral teaching is the same as the truth in all his other letters that he wrote"

There are two serious assumptions here: (1) that 2 Timothy was his last letter (and even inspired), and (2) the content of his oral teaching is the same as his written.


You said: "I Timothy 5:18, which quotes from Deuteronomy and Luke"

That's not quite accurate, as my article shows. It was none other than John Calvin who pointed out it probably isn't a quote from Luke. It's really a toss-up.


You said: "Also, obviously, since the final NT books have not been written yet, namely, probably Jude (80 AD), Hebrews (68 AD), the gospel of John, 1-3 John, Revelation (maybe 80-96 AD), but it is also possible that all of them were written before 70 AD also; they do not have to have been written before 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in order for the principle of Sola Scriptura to be true."

The problem with that logic is that if there were still books left unwritten, which you admit is highly likely, then Timothy couldn't have been practicing SS, and neither could Paul have been commanding it in 2 Tim 3:16f.


You said: "2 Peter 3:16 includes all of Paul's letters."

I commented upon this in my article as well.

You said: "2 Timothy 3:15:
obviously here it is the OT Scriptures that Timothy was taught as a child."

Yes, which is why (immediate) context doesn't help one way or the other when it comes to "pasa graphe".

You said: "Since Paul already wrote Galatians, Romans, I Cor. 2 Cor. 1-2 Thess., Phil., colossians, Philemon, Ephesians..."

That's irrelevant to determining what "pasa graphe" means in this context.

You said: "The reason he says "all Scripture" and that included the NT is because he moves from the OT in verse 15 to include the NT in verse 16."

There is no good evidence for this; there simply isn't. It's possible, but based on strict exegesis the question cannot be answered as firmly as that.

You said: "When I have time I may write a more thorough rebuttal to your article."

That's really what I'm looking forward to.

You said: "In short, you did not defeat Sola Scriptura at all, no matter how much a Muslim likes your argumentation."

Well, you really didn't refute anything I said, so my argument pretty much stands. You approached the situation with many assumptions, rather than letting the text itself speak.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Lvka said,
"Why? I don't understand. Mahommed himself abrogated two former verses from the Qur'an. Mircea Eliade (a historian of religions) appreciates this in a positive light (as Islam being the only revealed religion to accept improvements or modifications of its teachings) -- was he wrong to believe that?"

I don't know if you had the following verse in mind?

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?" (Holy Qur'an 2:106)

The concept of naskh is self evident with in the Qur'an. I would be more than willing to address this when and if David decides to open a post on that topic.

It's hard to say because for a person who loves to leave links you didn't link to any information about Mircea Eliade -the person is unknown.

As far as the two verses you had in mind also there is no mention as to what you are speaking about.

Lastly, so am I to take it than that the The Shepherd of Hermas is not a case of improvement or modification of the teachings.

What other books in the New Testament do you think we could safely throw out of the current canon and still have the core Christian teachings? (Revelation, James, Jude) perhaps?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

In fact Lvka if your interested we already discussed the fact that the Shi'a and the Sunni have the same Qur'an.

That is here: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-shiites-believe-that-there-are-lost.html

As far as the old Uthman burned all the extant manuscripts of the Qur'an argument goes...it never fails to address the fact that the masses had the Qur'an through verbal recitation (as is still done today) so where are these different surahs, missing ayats that this or that Muslim is adding or subtracting through recitation?

Hence the Christian apologist today move away from attacking the Qur'an (we say bring everything you got against it) and now they focus on the usual (Muhammed and wars, 9/11, dhimitude, face veil, four wives,)

Basically the tactic today is if we cannot convince the Muslims to become Christians at least we can dissuade Christians from thinking about Islam.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Lastly I want to say that when Ken says to Nick,

"You said: "In short, you did not defeat Sola Scriptura at all, no matter how much a Muslim likes your argumentation."

How typical! This is very desperate indeed! That's a tea party tactic if I ever saw it.

As I simply said there is a difference between saying 'all the apples in the bucket are good' and saying 'all the apples in the bucket that are good'.

I agree with the Orthodox and Catholic position on this as I see it as more consistent and theologically sound. However, I am no cheerleader as I posed a question to them (see above) about Shepard of Hermes.

I also agree with Nick's assertion that basically the edifice of Protestant Christianity rest upon your translation of 2 Timothy 3:16.

If the Protestant understanding of this is shown to be flawed it strengthens the argument for tradition.

It's the same thing I get into when I deal with the Qur'an Only Muslims (and their now five divisions).

They try and divorce the Qur'an from history. It had to come from some where. There was a process.

This is why my follow up questions to know what are the internal mechanism to define what is and what is not scripture. How do we decide what gets chucked and what stays.

Lvka said...

No. I was speaking about a famous (abrogated) passage of the Qur'an [Sura 53, the two now-deleted ayat between ayat 19-20 and ayah 21], in which intercessions of three Arabic godesses was not only permitted, but even encouraged:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses

[The abrogation took place within the Prophet's life-time, so all branches of Islam possess the same Text].

Ken said...

Nick wrote:
The truth is, context doesn't really help in this case since there isn't much to suggest one way or the other.

I think it does, since Paul's earlier writings are just that, earlier writings, and the bottom line, we just don't have anything else, history and evidence all point to the pasa graphe as the OT in verse 15 and the 27 NT books included in verse 16.

It doesn't matter if a few NT books have not been written yet, when Paul writes 2 Timothy. It is his last letter, so all of his letters have already been written so includes all of his.

Peter affirms "all of Paul's letters". Both Peter and Paul were martyred by Nero in 67 AD. Most all of the Books of the NT were written by then; only Jude and Hebrews and John's writings are left, but even those are were all probably written before 70 AD, with Jude maybe the only one written later, in 80 AD. Personally, I think Gospel of John and his 3 epistles and Revelation were all written before 70 AD. For sure, Hebrews was, we just don't know if it was written before Paul's martyrdom or a little afterward.

Bottom line, we have nothing else but these as the pasa graphe - all Scripture, all sacred, holy Scripture, on par with the OT in verse 15.

Paul is saying whatever is "God-breathed" is holy Scripture.

Anyway, only a few early writers thought Shepherd of Hermas was scripture; but most said it was profitable to read, but not inspired/God-breathed.

Anyway, my assumptions are good ones, for they reflect the reality of the writings and nature of the historical circumstances (letters and NT books written individually and sent to different places and different churches, and since Paul is teaching the gospel, and God does not contradict Himself, the oral teachings and the written scriptures are the same; the Scriptures are the only evidence we have of the oral teachings at the different churches.

Nick said...

Ken,

You are missing an important point: you cannot approach this situation with guesses, for that undermines the whole purpose of appealing to the verse. At that point it becomes man-made tradition interpreting the verse, not strict exegesis.

Paul is certainly free to mention "scripture" in a limited context. Only if he were talking about Sola Scriptura would he be mentioning Scripture as a whole. As I noted in the article, "graphe" is in the singular, and almost always is referring to an individual book or passage - this is precisely what the TDNT affirms as well.

You're not making a case from the actual context of 2 Tim 3:16f, but rather padding it with all kinds of external assumptions.

The most evident logical blunder you keep affirming is that not all the NT books were written at this time, making SS functionally impossible.

Let's say the 66 book canon is the correct one, but at the time of writing 2 Tim 3:16, six of the books were not written. The following reading is utterly false, even by Protestant standards: "all 60 books we have are sufficient". Impossible! It's like saying "20 letters of the alphabet are sufficient for writing any word".

Another blunder is assuming what Paul must be including by scripture, especially his private correspondence to Timothy and Titus. The notion that EVERYTHING Paul wrote in his lifetime as an Apostle was inspired is a dubious argument.

You said: "Anyway, my assumptions are good ones, for they reflect the reality of the writings and nature of the historical circumstances"

I'm not saying your assumptions are bad, and in fact I agree with them in general...the PROBLEM is you're dogmatizing your assumptions and projecting them on 2 Tim 3:16 to come up with Sola Scriptura...but this is nothing short of traditions of men.

This demonstrates why Sola Scriptura is a bankrupt doctrine, because of the desperation with which Protestants cling to 2 Tim 3:16, as it is the only verse that comes anywhere close to teaching Sola Scriptura.

People need to step back and realize that if God wanted his Church and Christians throughout the ages to be guided by Sola Scriptura, He would have made the doctrine abundantly clear in Scripture. How could God base one of the most important doctrines on the most meager (and eisegetical) evidence?

Ken said...

And here is a good argument against your “strict exegesis”:
http://bible.org/article/relation-qeovpneusto-grafhv-2-timothy-316

The only problem with reading the document is with the Greek renderings on English keyboards; for example on the English keyboard, the θ is q and “ = ς, vp = π, etc.

( I have never figured out how to change the “Unicode” of English keyboard into Greek letters. I would need a “techi” to walk it through for me. Since I can read Greek, with the help of grammar books, etc.; I usually manage with the Greek itself, rather than the English Unicode.

πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και
all Scripture (is) God-breathed and . . .

qeovpneusto" = θεοπνευστος = “theopneustos” (English phonetics of the Greek word)

Daniel Wallace shows that it is good exegesis based on the grammar and study of other passages with similar construction that it is a predicate construction.
The title should look something like this; let’s see if it comes out in “Blogger”.

The Relation of
s to  in 2 Timothy 3:16

I see some of this did not come out.

Ken said...

You said: "Since Paul already wrote Galatians, Romans, I Cor. 2 Cor. 1-2 Thess., Phil., colossians, Philemon, Ephesians..."

Nick wrote:
That's irrelevant to determining what "pasa graphe" means in this context.

I disagree, because Paul's whole letter must be put in the context of when it was written, and then in the context of the rest of Scripture, when the books were written. "All Scripture" would definitely include all his other books he wrote before 2 Timothy. And by principle, it includes also the few written afterward, since they are God-breathed/inspired.

You said: "The reason he says "all Scripture" and that included the NT is because he moves from the OT in verse 15 to include the NT in verse 16."

There is no good evidence for this; there simply isn't.

The evidence is enough there; that he includes all the OT in verse 15 and moves to say "all" in verse 16, and since there are other letters before this, and the for sure the synoptic gospels were written before this, then that is good enough evidence.

It's possible, but based on strict exegesis the question cannot be answered as firmly as that.

By saying "strict exegesis", you are limiting the meaning of exegesis and actually going against valid and good and proper exegesis; because good and proper and right exegesis includes the historical background of a document, its date and author, circumstances, etc. For example here is a good introduction to with historical background information and outline of the whole book of 2 Timothy.

http://bible.org/seriespage/2-timothy-introduction-argument-and-outline

I don't know how Daniel Wallace comes up with 64 AD for 2 Tim. right before his death, I have seen anywhere from 64-67 AD, before his martyrdom by Nero. No matter; it is still the last letter he wrote.

Also, for another example, background of the gospel of Matthew

http://bible.org/seriespage/matthew-introduction-argument-and-outline

Ken said...

The most evident logical blunder you keep affirming is that not all the NT books were written at this time, making SS functionally impossible.

No; it is a general principle that whatever is "God-breathed" (inspired by God) is holy Scripture and should function as the final arbiter and only infallible rule of faith and practice for the church.

It does not matter if some books were not written yet; it would be the same principle of
Deut. 4:2 - do not add to God's word

"You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you."

and Proverbs 30:5-6 - do not add to His words

"Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar."

and
Rev. 22:18

each one is strictly (the term you like) about the revelation up to that time; but we both agree that God was revealing holy Scripture, revelation beyond those times until the last apostle's writings, whether it was Jude or Revelation. Jude 3 seems to indicate that it was the last revelation. This principle is also based on John 17:8 and John 13-16, that Christ promised to give more revelation through the Holy Spirit; and Hebrews 1:1-3, which teaches that Christ is the final revelation (the apostles writing down the doctrines/revelation we need.

Ken said...

The title of Wallace's article should look like

"The Relation of
θεοπνευστος

to

γραφη "

Nick said...

Ken,

Your link from Wallace doesn't touch upon the pasa graphe issue, but rather on the relation of graphe to "God Breathed". Two different issues.

As for the issue of context, you keep misunderstanding me: I'm not ignoring all of what Paul wrote or anything like that, only that what precisely is Paul's point in 2 Tim 3:16 doesn't *necessarily* indicate he's speaking of Scripture as a whole. Apostles can be speaking of "Scripture" in limited contexts. As you know, 3:15 is speaking of "holy writings" but is clearly focused on the OT only. Now the question is, in his next verse, is Paul (a) still speaking of OT only, (b) expanding it to the OT and existant NT, or (c) speaking of individual books/passages. All three options are plausible. The only way SS has hope is if Paul is speaking of the not yet fully existant 66-book canon (and assuming the proper exegesis of the rest of the verse).

In short, I'm not denying Paul's earlier works were Scripture, the point is in what sense was Paul using "pasa graphe" at that point. The fact Paul only refers to the OT as "Scripture" in his own writings (and never refers to his own writings as Scripture) is a factor you must also consider but are not.

As has already been noted, you're assuming various things throughout all this, even if the assumptions are good doesn't make them *certain*, as there is still a 'coin-flip' involved in regards to other possible renderings (which you must exclude apriori). For example, saying Paul goes from the OT in particular to "all" Scripture is assuming "pasa" means "all" here rather than "every".

You said: "it is a general principle that whatever is "God-breathed" (inspired by God) is holy Scripture and should function as the final arbiter and only infallible rule of faith and practice for the church."

Where are you getting this "general principle" from? This is making up rules as you go. To say that only Scripture is the final arbiter, even despite the fact not all books had been written, is a major assumption on your part and quite unwarranted. The passages you cite are simply speaking of tampering with God's commands, including adding human traditions (which ironically is what you're doing with some of your assumed premises).

To again prove I'm not making things up or being unfair, the TDNT itself affirms "graphe" is likely speaking of individual books or passages. And the fact I've yet to see any Protestant apologists address "pasa graphe" head on.

Ken said...

πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και
all Scripture (is) God-breathed and . . .


Dan Wallace’s summary and conclusion, with my attempt to explain grammatical terms in brackets, along with Greek words.

To summarize the septuagintal [Greek translation of the OT] evidence: thirty-five of thirty-six pasa ( πασα = all)
noun-adjective constructions in equative clauses [where the clause is seeking to make something equal to another thing with the understood predicate “is”] definitely supported the ‘rule.’ One was questionable, though it in no way viewed both adjectives as attributive. [for example, making “theopneustos an attribute rather than predicate, meaning object of the verb “to be”, so instead of “every inspired Scripture” (as Nick seems to argue), it is predicate “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable”]
All ten adjective-pa'"- ( πασα) noun constructions supported the ‘rule.’ Altogether, in forty-six syntactical parallels to our passage, at least forty-five support a predicate [meaning “is God breatehed”] qeovpneusto"
( θεοπνευστος ) and the one possible exception does not support an attributive qeovpneusto". [ attributing “theopneustos to graphe, meaning “inspired Scripture” = Scripture with the attribute of being inspired]

Conclusion

In this paper I have sought to demonstrate that the structural phenomenon of 2 Tim 3:16 does not create a grammatical impasse. That is to say, we do not need to rely solely on intuition nor quickly move on to contextual factors to understand the relation of qeovpneusto" to grafhv. There is a wealth of information provided by syntactical parallels which bring into sharp relief what appears to be the truly idiomatic nature of the construction.

A pioneer in giving priority to the syntax in 2 Tim 3:16 was J. W. Roberts. Yet, as significant as his study was, it involved certain weaknesses in method which resulted in a rather distorted view of the nuance of qeovpneusto".

Nick said...

Ken,

You're misunderstanding the point: the focus never was on 'pasa graphe' but rather how the term 'graphe' relates to "inspired".

Wallace's very conclusion (last sentece) says:
"Hence, we translate the passage, 'All/every scripture is inspired and profitable'"

This indicates the "all/every" and singularity of "graphe" is not touched upon and left 'open'.

Ken said...

Your link from Wallace doesn't touch upon the pasa graphe issue, but rather on the relation of graphe to "God Breathed". Two different issues.

Ok, different, but related! Once one works through Wallace’s evidence and argument, your point becomes moot, for the issues of grammar and snytax and his point about attributive vs. predicate (where to put the understood predicate, “is”) when there is an equative clause, makes the “pasa graphe” issue that you raise, a non-issue.

As for the issue of context, you keep misunderstanding me: I'm not ignoring all of what Paul wrote or anything like that, only that what precisely is Paul's point in 2 Tim 3:16 doesn't *necessarily* indicate he's speaking of Scripture as a whole.

I understand that point; but we only have Scripture; the written documents that are sacred or holy or inspired or “God-breathed”; we don’t know of any other inspired oral teachings; nothing! The Roman Catholic and Orthodox church claims that apostolic teaching “comes out” in the liturgy and traditions centuries later. This makes no sense. You would have to also include all the other verses I mention to get a fuller orbed view and more complete robust case for Sola Scriptura. One could argue it is a general principle because of how the attitude of Jesus and the apostles kept saying “it is written”, in order to prove their points. Yes, we are applying 2 Tim. 3:16 to all of the 27 NT books, even though a few were not written yet. Why? Because Jesus told the disciples that the Holy Spirit would “lead them into all the truth” (John 14 and 16) and that the words of the Father were given to Jesus and Jesus committed the words to the disciples. John 17:8. The book of Acts and Paul’s letters indicate that it seems that Paul was the one chosen for more revelation beyond some of the 11 disciples. Acts seems to indicate that Paul was the one God chose to replace Judas, rather than Matthias. The early church, trying to figure out the origin and basis of “the rule of faith”, based it always on Scripture. Good “tradition” in the NT meant the authoritative apostolic teachings ( 2 Thess. 2:13-15; 3:6, I Cor. 11:1; I Cor. 15:1, Jude 3) It is not valid for the RC or EO to then centuries later come up with a doctrine or idea and then read it back into those good “tradition” passages. Since the writings are all we have left; Sola Scriptura is valid as a principle.

Ken said...

Apostles can be speaking of "Scripture" in limited contexts. As you know, 3:15 is speaking of "holy writings" but is clearly focused on the OT only. Now the question is, in his next verse, is Paul (a) still speaking of OT only, (b) expanding it to the OT and existant NT, or (c) speaking of individual books/passages. All three options are plausible. The only way SS has hope is if Paul is speaking of the not yet fully existant 66-book canon (and assuming the proper exegesis of the rest of the verse).

I think that a combination of b and c are right; in that Paul is expanding it from the OT to the NT in verse 16 by the word “all” (pasa). But if God gives more revelation after Paul is killed, which he did, and if it is God-breathed, which if from God, it is; then it by principle includes the other NT books also.

In short, I'm not denying Paul's earlier works were Scripture, the point is in what sense was Paul using "pasa graphe" at that point. The fact Paul only refers to the OT as "Scripture" in his own writings (and never refers to his own writings as Scripture) is a factor you must also consider but are not.

He does not have to have the statement, “What I am writing to you now is God-breathed holy Scripture” – you are demanding too much. The fact that all through his epistles he writes with authority and talks about the Holy Spirit and “combining spiritual words with spiritual thoughts and “I have the Holy Spirit”, etc. is talking about the same level of authority.

Here is something I wrote last year at Beggar’s All, and it bears repeating:

Sola Scriptura is taught in principle here in Galatians chapter 1. The fact that the apostle Paul considered his letter, by him writing it, and using these words, " . . . so I say to you now . . . " (v. 9) shows that he is communicating in the same way that Jesus did when Jesus said, "have you not read what God said to you?" ( see Matthew 22:31). The Scriptures are "God speaking". Paul considered his letters, as "God speaking", as "God-breathed". (see also I Corinthians 2:13; 4:6; 7:40; and 14:37) That, and along with the fact that this gospel and his apostleship was not from men or humans or by the agency of man" (verse 1), shows that he knew His letters were authoritative and had the God-breathed quality of Scripture. This demonstrates, in principle, that the canon existed before being called "canon", that is, the historical ontological existence of the books of Scripture was at the time of writing (48-70 AD or 48-96 AD) "canon" (which was a measuring rod that eventually meant, "standard", "rule", "principle", "criterion", "law", before it meant "list". See Galatians 6:16; and a textual variant at Philippians 3:16 for this meaning of the Greek word, "kanon".); and was before the human process of the early church of discerning, sifting, and putting all the 27 books "under one cover", so to speak.

Ken said...

As has already been noted, you're assuming various things throughout all this, even if the assumptions are good doesn't make them *certain*, as there is still a 'coin-flip' involved in regards to other possible renderings (which you must exclude apriori). For example, saying Paul goes from the OT in particular to "all" Scripture is assuming "pasa" means "all" here rather than "every".

Since we have no other evidence for any other inspired writings, which you and your church agree, then it creates less certainty of opening it up to the way you are trying to by your exegesis, that it is possible that there are other “inspired” teachings (oral teachings) that did not get written down, and that came out in the life of the church centuries later. (That is the implication of where the RC tries to take this; by allegedly defeating Sola Scriptura, one need the RC to tell us what is the Scripture and how to interpret it.

If God has spoken, through books, revelation, Holy Scripture, then that is a safe confidence and certainty. If the 27 NT books are “God-breathed”; and you agree that they are; that is enough, sufficient. No need to struggle or be doubtful or have less certainty introduced by “what about Paul’s lost letters?” and “are there other apostolic teachings or words of Jesus (John 21:25) that were not written down that we need for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness? No. Obviously, since they were not written down (John 21:25), God is saying that we didn’t need those. I Cor. 5:9 may be imbedded into 2 Corinthians 6, so the fact that Paul repeats the important inspired part there, is sufficient. The Colossians passage about the letter to the Laodicea is thought by many to be a circular letter that survives for us in Ephesians.


You said: "it is a general principle that whatever is "God-breathed" (inspired by God) is holy Scripture and should function as the final arbiter and only infallible rule of faith and practice for the church."

Where are you getting this "general principle" from?

From the combination of all the verses I have discussed here and the whole system of how Protestants defend this. It is too much for the com boxes as is.

Ken said...

This is making up rules as you go.

No, it is all we have – the evidence of written documents; and the historical process of verifying them by the early church. The early church and Luther were right on this principle.
For example Athanasius wrote, in his famous statement in Festal Letter 39, 6.
“These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone [sola/alone Scriptura] is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.” Matt. 22:29; John 5: 39.’(my emphasis and addition in brackets)



To say that only Scripture is the final arbiter, even despite the fact not all books had been written, is a major assumption on your part and quite unwarranted. The passages you cite are simply speaking of tampering with God's commands, including adding human traditions (which ironically is what you're doing with some of your assumed premises).

Since Scripture is all we have as evidence as to what Jesus said and did and to what the apostles said and taught and did, then it is a good and right and safe and holy assumption. Since the RC had drifted so far from the apostolic doctrine and practice, Luther’s famous speech was right “Unless I am convinced by Holy Scripture or evident reason, I will not recant; for popes and councils have contradicted one another” (my paraphrase from memory)

To again prove I'm not making things up or being unfair, the TDNT itself affirms "graphe" is likely speaking of individual books or passages. And the fact I've yet to see any Protestant apologists address "pasa graphe" head on.

I think that Dan Wallace solved that, by showing the main issue is the predicate verb and where that should go. (“ . . . is God breathed” or “is also profitable” ? ) Once one solves that problem, which he did to me; then your issue becomes moot.

Ken said...

Another good quote by Athanasius, showing the sufficiency of Scripture over church councils, wrong interpretations, etc. Luther sensed this principle from the early church, not just the "spirit" of it in Scripture itself, "for it is written", etc.


"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture. . . . "

On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. (De Synodis) 6

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Lvka I understand it's only natural that when someone ask you a question that you feel challenges your faith that you want to respond by presenting a challenge to their own.

But wikipedia! Goodness Lvka even you could do better than that! I mean seriously my man.

For example if I asked you what was the asbab an nuzul surrounding these verses what would you say to that?

I admit we all get caught up in parroting information without checking the facts

but this is something that you need to look into more and hopefully I will be able to address it more fully in the future.

Now back to the topic of the thread.

Ken said...

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/search/label/Qur%27an%20%28Preservation%29

There is lots of information here about the textual variants/preservation of the Qur'an here. (Better than Wikipedia)

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord,

And here is a little something in regards to the link Ken gave above.

Still waiting for Nabeel to give us that reference....

http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/silence-is-golden-christian-outreach-to.html

But just like the good "Dr" White it may be a long time in the making.

Again notice the Christians like to avoid the obvious.

#1 It's not a surprise by the well informed Muslim that the Qur'an was revealed upon 7 ahrfs.

#2. How are you going to say Muslims have variant readings of the Qur'an, and than turn around and say 'Uthman burned all the manuscripts'....

As I mentioned above that may take care of the manuscripts but what about the Qur'an that was in circulation? After all we say much of the Qur'an five times a day in our daily prayers from the time of the Prophet (saw).

Still looking for that consistent Christian who will use consistent arguments and who will let the masses know from where we can learn this wonderful source material they quote from.

Any way back to the topic...Sola Scriptura....

steelikat said...

It isn't either/or.

In regards to what Protestants mean by scripture being the ultimate authority how could anyone deny it?

And in regards to the traditionalist observation that the bible cannot logically be considered an authority because it is not literally personal, who could deny that, either?

A few stubborn people perhaps but if you stop taking yourself so seriously you'll see that there are two kinds of authority and both are valid and needed as far as they go. You don't have to regard the magisterium as infallible to respect it and subordinate your individual interpretation to it, and you don't have to deny your RC or EO faith to subordinate your individual judgment to the bible.

Ken said...

GV19 -

http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b3010.html

Here is the book by Ibn Ka'b - I confess I don't own this book.

The quote is from volume 2 – it should be easy for both Muslims and Christians to show at least what the English translation says in this book.

David and Nabeel appear to be using the English – if that is all we have, then you cannot fault the Christians for using what is available.

If it is not in the Arabic original, why did the translators (Muslims?, Arabs?, Pakistanis?) include the phrase in the English?

If we don't have the Arabic to look at, (this is the problem, it seems) then he was not being deceptive to say that he saw the English with his own eyes.

The point of the video still stands, there is lots of evidence in the Hadith literature of different parts of the Qur'an missing. And the verse of stoning, and breastfeeding adults, and who knows what other content show that it is more than just the seven “Ahraf” احراف" - plural of حرف (letter of the alphabet, speech, talk, reading) - It means the different ways the different Arab tribes pronounced and wrote the same words. Right?

Gilcrhrist (even you respect him as a gentleman, and I agree with that; and more, he is a scholar also) writes, after addressing this whole issue (again, better than Wikipedia!):

“Uthman never had it in mind to eliminate six divinely authorised readings [ahraf] in the interests of standardising one of them for the purposes of uniformity as the maulana claims. He believed all along that there never was nor should have been more than one single text of the Qur'an and he viewed the evidences that the Qur'an was beginning to be divided up into all sorts of different readings with alarm, fearing that if this continued the original text might be lost altogether. He thus took the drastic step of ordering the destruction of all but one of the codices to outlaw variant readings of the Qur'an precisely because he considered such a practice to be an unauthorised deviation from the original text.”

http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap5.html

Rory said...

Hi Dave.

I thought the subject was sola scriptura as understood by those who use the 66 book Christian Bible. Am I mistaken?

If I was GrandVerb I would grant that his religion for sake of argument is false. I am willing for sake of argument to say that all religions including Catholicism are "goofy", "make no sense", and are "pure arrogance" except the Reformed Baptists and those with whom they are "essentially united".

What if Islam, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Mormonism are false? How is that helpful to the problems inherent with the sola scriptura Christians? What if there weren't these favorite punching bags around? Would that make the problems with sola scriptura that have been evidenced on this blog go away?

They (the sola scripturians) tell us they are "unified in essentials" while they try to steal each others sheep with arguments about why their particular church is true! True in what? Non-essentials? Who in their right mind would change a church over a non-essential? Some of them are even known to start churches over what they try to tell us are non-essentials!

I suggest that they (the sola scripturians) are unified only in despising every religion that rejects the principle cause of their hopelessly divided and scandalous sects...Sola scriptura. If they didn't have Islam, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Bahai's to unite them, they wouldn't agree about anything!

Rory said...

If anyone else is interested in a reset. We started the thread like this:

'Unless a person is quoting Scripture in the original language, he or she is humanly interpreting Scripture. There is no such thing as a statement about the meaning of Scripture that is not human interpretation. “It’s interpretation all the way down” applies to every theological system and doctrinal statement. (Roger E. Olson, "Why can't we all just admit our theologies are flawed?"'

Why do those who believe that only the 66 Books of the Protestant Bible are infallible corrupt it with their fallible creeds and interpretations? It seems like what they need to do is cool it with all the preaching and teaching. What they need to do if they would be united in essentials is hand every person from eight to eighty a Bible, tell them to forget everything they have ever been taught and then they call go to the same church together.

(This question/comment is not made with a view to discuss Muhammed, Bahaullah, Joseph Smith, The Watchtower, or Pope Pius IX. Let's pretend that all those villains are out of the picture). Don't we still have to wonder why there creeds, councils, and sermons? If we have only one infallible authority why does every sola scripturian muck it up with their own fallible ideas.

I know the sola scripturains preach the dogma theoretically in order to be in contrast with the arrogant papists, but in practice, they don't trust the people in the pew.

Ken said...

Rory wrote:
I thought the subject was sola scriptura as understood by those who use the 66 book Christian Bible. Am I mistaken?

Hi Rory,
Well; you make some good points;

I am just glad we have freedom and "separation of church and state", now, as a result of the Reformation and Enlightenment and freedom of religion from government control in the USA. Hopefully, the liberals will not make it a crime to say "homosexuality is a sin"; but it doesn't look good for military men if they repeal "Don't ask, don't tell", (Obama and his liberal/socialist agenda, etc.)

Your church (RCC) was against all heresies officially and killed people until the modern days.

But praise God for the "separation of church and state" from the Roman Catholic days where they burned heretics like Jan Hus, Latimer and Ridley, and Wycliff (just for translating the Bible into English! and some other Protestant like ideas. (post-posthumously - dug up his body and burned him.), and the RCC would have killed Luther, had it not been for Fredrick the Wise in Germany rescuing him.

The many different churches and ideas and religions and freedom of choice - without fear of being tortured or killed - That is certainly one of the fruits of "Sola Scriptura" and "the right of the individual to interpret Scripture" (priesthood of the believer - I Peter 2:4-10) - and I am glad for it. Better than tyranny and injustice and lack of freedom.

Yes, the burning of Servetus was a leftover from that Roman Catholic era and thinking, I will grant you.

I guess you skipped over Nick and my discussion on the subject of Sola Scriptura for some 20 posts (+ or - ).

Lvka brought in Wikipedia and that caused GV19 to have a heart attack and rebuttal, so that needed a rebuttal;
but for the most part, we are still on topic.

And now I see you posted a new one with "reset" for getting the discussion back to Sola Scriptura.

ok . . .

Ken said...

Rory,
If you go back and read Olson's article, his concern is the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate on Free will/election/Sovereignty.

you wrote:
Why do those who believe that only the 66 Books of the Protestant Bible are infallible corrupt it with their fallible creeds and interpretations?

Teaching and preaching and systemetizing/harmonizing does not "corrupt" or change the Scriptures themselves. Plain and simple. Another Reformation slogan was "always reforming" (semper reformata) - always being willing to be shown that our interpretation might be wrong, since they are not infallible. You have to admit that we have that principle; whereas the RCC by definition, made it impossible for themselves to ever admit that they made a mistake with the 1870 dogma.


It seems like what they need to do is cool it with all the preaching and teaching.

Cannot do that when so many verses say "preach and teach these things with all authority" - for example Titus 2:15, 2 Timothy 4:1-5, Matthew 28:19-20; etc.

What they need to do if they would be united in essentials is hand every person from eight to eighty a Bible, tell them to forget everything they have ever been taught and then they call go to the same church together.

That is sort of what happened after 1517, when parts of the world got free to start translating the Bible into other languages without the approval of "Holy Roman Mother Church". They started over and studied and then also came up with creeds like the Augsberg Confession, Heidelberg Confession, the Canons of Dort, the Westminister Confession of Faith, 1689 London Baptist Confession, etc.

The only thing they couldn't do was "all go to the same church" - that would never work; which is I guess your point. Granted. That is why we baptists don't beleive in a state church and defend the Methodists right to have their own church, but still disagree with secondary issues that make their church separate from other churches. Bottom line; that is still better (the disunity and different churches and disagreements) than unity with force and RCC killing heretics.

Ken said...

The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe (on 4 May 1415) a stiff-necked heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was decreed that his books be burned and his remains be exhumed. The exhumation was carried out in 1428 when, at the command of Pope Martin V, his remains were dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.

Rory said...

Ken,

Do you have no intention of making your own beliefs seem to us good, and beautiful, and true without reference to that which you loathe and despise? It would seem that you have no point of reference apart from that which you hate.

I despair of discussing with you what you claim to believe. What does the Jan Hus affair, which was admittedly terrible, have to do with sola scriptura and the observation by the evangelical scholar, Roger Olsen? Do you always take every occasion given you to extol what you love to instead despise and spit on that which others hold to be precious?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Rory that is why I do not interact with Ken. I honestly thought the United States had medication for ADHD but apparently someone hasn't been taken theirs.

I mean let's take a look at what was said to your very relevant post.

"Lvka brought in Wikipedia and that caused GV19 to have a heart attack and rebuttal, so that needed a rebuttal;
but for the most part, we are still on topic."

It's sad that he may wish I had a heart attack as that doesn't seem very loving but than again when I see how Protestants treat each other as an 'infidel' I shouldn't really expect better.

I simply translate aggressive statements like that as "I would love to get off this topic immediately"

Than when he makes comments like

"But praise God for the "separation of church and state" from the Roman Catholic days where they burned heretics like Jan Hus, Latimer and Ridley, and Wycliff (just for translating the Bible into English! and some other Protestant like ideas. (post-posthumously - dug up his body and burned him.), and the RCC would have killed Luther, had it not been for Fredrick the Wise in Germany rescuing him."

Again.....HELP! HELP HELP! So just for the record Rory let me show you how much I loath people like you and Nick with my above statement but it's perfectly cool for Calvin to have people burned alive....

I bet he had a real peaceful sleep that night.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Protestant tactics over the years....

"Preach the gospel to every creature...." 1980s....

"Can't preach the gospel let us dissuade others from joining someone Else's world view..." 1990s....

"I know my ship is sinking but by God I'm taking you down with me!" < 2000 to present.....

Ken said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken said...

Re posting because of bad typos

Rory,
Nothing is meant personally - you know the Protestant movement grew out of the context of the Roman Catholic Church, so, there is no getting around mentioning those things, because if one does ignore that stuff, it is not true to history and context.

You asked about secondary issues, church disunity (all go to the same church; start over with just the Bible, etc. - you deserved that answer with you kind of question - as if the disunity and differences have no reasons or history - they are ok to have for churches and denominations, now that we have had that freedom for centuries - the reasons is because the alternative is the heresy trials and burning and killing of the earlier eras. Common on, you have to admit that, just as I freely admit that burning Servetus was wrong and extreme and I freely admit Luther's tirade against the Jews was wrong at the end of his life.

What is good and beautiful is
Sola Scriptura - that God's word has final authority over the human leaders who have claimed infallibility and made mistakes.

the priest-hood of all believers - that individual believers have the right to interpret the Scriptures; but also that they are responsible to interpret rightly - that is they are still supposed to work hard at interpreted according to context, historical backgrounds, etc. with good grammatical analysis, etc.

The freedom of separation of the church from the control of the government is also a beautiful thing.

Athanasius' statements above that I quoted are beautiful; so are many statements by the famous people of church history:

Clement of Rome
Ignatius
Polycarp
Irenaeus
Justin Martyr
Tertullian
Cyprian
The Cappadocian fathers -Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus

Athanasius
Ambrose
Augustine
Jerome

Luther's speech at the Diet of Worms was very beautiful and great!

"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

I find it interesting that the Protestants think they were doing Christianity a favor with statements above like....

"like Jan Hus, Latimer and Ridley, and Wycliff (just for translating the Bible into English! and some other Protestant like ideas..."

I see....

So let us move men away from Church authority and bring them close to God's word by making them dependent upon translations in English, German, Swedish, Danish (basically making them dependent upon the theology of the translator and the language itself)....

RIIIIIGHT.....

Why not do what we Muslim do? You can go into any book store and purchase a Qur'an with English and the Arabic text side by side! German/Arabic.....Spanish/Arabic.....Korean/Arabic....

You would think with all those printing machines that some effort would be made to make sure that every God fearing Christian would have a copy of the original Greek text, Aramaic parchments and ancient Hebrew text right there in the comfort of their own living rooms.

By Allah there is no religion on this planet that puts more emphasis upon learning the original language in it's source text than Islam.

The Protestants remind me too much of the Wahabbies. They tell us Sunni Muslims 'don't follow Malik, Shafi', Abu Hanifa and Ahmad' no brother follow Qur'an and Sunnah!

Than you end up finding out latter that your following (Bin Baaz, Uthaymeen, Sudais, and AL Abani).

Basically, trade in your scholars for these scholars.

So the Protestant motto is 'trade in that tradition for our tradition'. 'Trade in those priest for our clergy'. 'Trade in that hermeneutic for our hermeneutic'.

The truth is the Catholic Church stood against USURY for 1000 years and it was a HUGE obstacle to the bankers.

Guess who coined the term "“Great Architect of the Universe.”

Yeah that's right John Calvin!

http://themagpiemason.blogspot.com/2009/07/he-coined-gaotu.html (check the reference).

So Ken your whole crew is rife with genosian masons! Deist who believe in a cold and indifferent God. People who practice fowl crafts!

Spiritual elect is right up the alley of people who believe in a hierarchical pyramid structures.

So Ken how does it feel to be a pawn on the chess board?

Ken said...

GV19-
I never wished for you to have a heart attack! Your response was an extreme over-reaction - "having a heart attack" over some one posting from Wikipedia (Lvka) was an English idiom - like "getting your panties in a wad" or "getting the heebeegeebees" or "shaking in my boots"

It was just an idiom, my friend; calm down.

Your web-site is filled with much more attack against Evangelical Protestants than anything I have ever done - I mean, get real - that is your main emphasis.

And when you find something that a Muslim does that you think is wrong; you don't hesitate to call them on the carpet for it - that is good - I have told you before I appreciate that aspect about you.

So, you cannot fault me for also doing the same thing to Christians and others in Christendom for the very same principles.

Ken said...

"Great Architect of the Universe"

is very similar to phrases in Surah 1

رَبِّ ٱلۡعَـٰلَمِينَ (٢) ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ (٣) مَـٰلِكِ يَوۡمِ ٱلدِّينِ

Lord of the worlds (universe)
and
Owner of the day of judgment

An Architect is a planner, creator -

So, in context of Calvin's meaning, it was good.

But, Freemasonry is a false religion, a cult, and not Christianity at all.

Can't help if others came later and stole his "phrasing" and created their own false doctrines out of it.

It was Omar Khayyam, that great Iranian poet who, from the context of Islamic fatalism, that said,

"We are all chess pieces on the board that are put back into the box when the master gets through with moving us around."

That is not Christianity, but Islamic fatalism.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Look at what Luther says above,

"I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience."

I think a person should be careful in quoting this as a statement of support for sola scriptura.

Luther is making his own conscious and not scripture his moral compass!

Let's look at what John 16:13 did for the Luther.

"I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it... My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it." ((Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522)

So did the Holy Spirit who guides into ALL truth lead Martin Luther to make the above statement?


Did the Holy Spirit reassure Luther that "Hey I didn't inspire anyone to write that!"

As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse (Reid, George J. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik Canon of the New Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

I'm sure that Luther would put John Calvin in his place on a thing or two. (Both of them being guided into ALL the truth by the Holy Spirit of course)

Ken said...

“We are the puppets and the firmament is the puppet-master
In actual fact and not as a metaphor;
For a time we acted on this stage,
We went back one by one into the box of oblivion.”

The original Farsi of Omar Khayyam's famous lines of Islamic Fatalism:

از روی حقیقتی نه از روی مجاز،
ما لعبتکانیم و فلک لعبت باز
بازی چه همی کنیم بر نطع وجود، افتیم به صندوق عدم یک یک باز

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Luther was inspired by the Holy Spirit to make amendments were necessary.

...Martin Luther would once again emphasize...that we are "justified by faith alone", apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein ("alone") in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther's move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).

"a trace of Marcion" You can consider Luther Marcion re-incarnate! You will never find a "Christian" who has more antagonizing things to say about the 'Old Testament' or the Jews in general but that's for another topic perhaps.

So any way either Luther thought that the Holy Spirit was not clear enough when inspiring Paul what to write, or that he too came under the inspiration of the Spirit.

I mean what is to stop the Holy Spirit from inspiring people to restore 'those original autographs' we keep hearing about?

For an entity that is supposed to guide us into 'All' truth he seems to be a bit elusive in this regards.

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and MY WILL IS REASON ENOUGH. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).


Sheesh!

This guy sure talks allot about 'his conscience' and 'his will' 'For me it is not reason enough' 'neither safe or right to go against conscience'.


Yeah, there is no Sola Scriptura going on there. However, there is emendations, editing, and casting aside material others feel is divinely inspired.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul said: “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.”

So there are two ways to understand this.
1.
That letter is inspired and thus not everything inspired by God is preserved.
2.
That letter is not inspired and therefore everything written by Paul is not inspired by God.

But in my opinion it would be better for her to stay single, and I think I am giving you counsel from God's Spirit when I say this. (1st Corinthians 7:40)

Well are you sure that your giving counsel under inspiration from the Holy Spirit or not?

Another interesting point where Bart Ehrman was smacking James White around during their Q & A session (sorry but White did get annihilated in that debate) James White goes on and on about how P72 'resonates' with him.

When Ehrman questioned him about the other contents of that manuscript White seemed taken a back.

Because the other contents of that parchment contained Protoevangelion
Jacobi.

Actually let me reproduce that segment as it was just too juicy!

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Dr. Ehrman: So let me just say—the point is the earlier you go, the more different they are. So you
just extrapolate that the earliest were probably the most different. Let me ask about
P72 where you resonate with this particular text, you said, that has 2 Peter and Jude in
it. What other documents are found in P72?


James White: There’s some non-canonical documents in P72. My recollection was that 1,2
Peter and Jude were the only canonical documents in it.


Dr. Ehrman: Right, so I’m just wondering about you resonating with this document. Do you think this
scribe thought that what he was copying was scripture?


James White: Well, I don’t think that you can simply jump to the conclusion that because
scribes included books in a single codex that meant that they believed that everything in
that codex was necessarily Scripture. There are all sorts of works that were considered
to be very beneficial for the reading of people that were included in codices that were
not necessarily canonical.

Dr. Ehrman: Yeah, I just thought that it was odd that that particular manuscript was one that you resonate with because it’s the earliest attestation we have of the Protoevangelion
Jacobi.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

So coming back to the issue of sola scripture we can see that some Christians got their wish that Shepherd of Hermes be removed from the canon to the dismay of other Christians.

We can also see that the book of Hebrews was accepted to the disappointment of other Christians who thought it should not be included.

However, differences remained and still do over James, Revelation, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude.

I would say that to be consistent those who reject 2 Peter probably should easily be ready to reject Hebrews as well.

If you look at the reasons for rejecting 2 Peter it would seem that those same reasons could be applied to Hebrews.

It also seems that the reasons for rejecting Shepherd of Hermes could have been avoided though I'm willing to admit I could be in error on judgment here.

James also says here: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3714

"Consider the example of the New Testament. Did the New Testament writers display a modernistic view the validity and transmission of the Old Testament text? Or did they recognize that God had preserved the text in such a way that they could quote from the Greek Septuagint (the text known to their target audience) and still identify this translation as the Word of God? Surely, their use of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament raises all sorts of challenging, difficult questions."

Yeah like on what consistent basis do we accept Isaiah 7:14 "virgin" but reject Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch?

Ken said...

You didn't finish the quote:

There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther's move, but unlike Marcion he possessed and treasured the entire canonical Scriptures." (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65). ( I have this book, it is pages 63-64)

About adding the word "alone"-
adding the German word allein ("alone") in his translation of the Greek text.

It was done because of context, emphasis and it communicated that it was "apart from works of the law" - and he was influenced by at least 3 other previously translated versions, done by the Roman Catholic church - they also had the word "allein" in there - it was supplied by context.

The Qur'an does this also, putting words in brackets for smoother translation into other languages.

Yes, Luther struggled with James and Hebrews and Revelation and Esther at first, [we don't burn our struggles and mistakes (Uthman) and cover up our warts, but are more open and honest about history; we don't have to hide behind "honor and shame" - human pride] but in the end he accepted them and listened to his more gentle colleague, Philip Melanchthon.

don't know where the Roman Catholic got his information on "for 100 years the followers of Luther excluded those books" - he is wrong - Melanchthon and Martin Chemnitz helped the Lutheran doctrinal statements and they never excluded any books. The Apocrypha was never part of the OT canon, until the council of Trent (1545-1563). You are quoting Luther at the beginning of his struggles over some books. And you leave out important details - for example, his struggle was James was not to get rid of it; but he called it "a right strawy epistle" in comparison to Romans and Galatians. (He thought it was dry and uninteresting, lacking flavor; lacking power; lacking focus on Christ.)

James Swan has lots of good information putting Luther in context, if you are willing to study it a lot and read the details. see under his Luther papers at Beggar's All web-site.

You never answered my response to the Ibn Ka'b book. I wonder why?

Ken said...

"I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience."

You separated this quote out from what Luther says about Holy Scripture - his conscience was bound to the Scriptures, not whatever he felt like - you are just wrong on this, my friend, very wrong.

I think a person should be careful in quoting this as a statement of support for sola scriptura.

Luther is making his own conscious and not scripture his moral compass!

Not true, you must include the whole quote, not one part separated from the context and the very parts that are the main parts - the Scriptures. Your method here is مکر and حیله and خدع

Ken said...

Luther's view of the canon:

http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm

Did Luther add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28?

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38);

cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]).

Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Ken said...

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

Lvka said...

TGV,

it's a known fact about the history of Islam, it's hardly a secret. (I always offer Wikipedia as reference, I don't see why you have a problem with that -- don't worry, I didn't find it out from there, if that's what you're so afraid of).

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

They aim to extinguish God's light with their utterances: but God has willed to spread His light in all its fullness, however hateful this may be to all who deny the truth (Holy Qur'an chapter 61:8)

He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over every other religion, even though the idolaters may dislike it. (Holy Qur'an chapter 9:33)

Lvka thank you for letting us know that the 'secret' is out.

Even though the secret comes from Islamic sources...unless you want to prove otherwise.

So Lets see...
We have a guy who is a self professed missionary to Muslims in Iran and he doesn't even know the definition of Ahruf, and he doesn't feel it's important to quote sources.

"If it is not in the Arabic original, why did the translators (Muslims?, Arabs?, Pakistanis?) include the phrase in the English?
If we don't have the Arabic to look at, (this is the problem, it seems) then he was not being deceptive to say that he saw the English with his own eyes."

Yeah making a point based upon a translation and not relying upon the Arabic text is real scholastic indeed! But than again considering 'Christian' standards these days...

James White's cracker jack box doctorate, Ergun Caner's command of Islamic knowledge and our erudite and well traveled Ken making statements like...

( why did the translators (Muslims?, Arabs?, Pakistanis?)

Notice the word Arabs in the mix? Category error anyone?

So as far as me having heart attacks, and being worried and afraid I can assure you both my nerves are allot more calm.

Though I must admit I still nibble my nails ........
from time to time....

Lvka said...

Whom [else?] were you responding to and what were/are you talking about?... :-\

Ken said...

GV19 -

You never answered any of these questions and points (below); I am asking you - if below is not the correct understanding of احراف (Ahraf) then tell us what is. The singular حرف
can mean, "letter, letter of the alphabet, word, speech, talk, statement, “ etc. ( I confess this is based on the Farsi definitions in Farsi dictionaries – but the word does come from the Arabic. So tell us what the nuanced Arabic means!

I asked you - so tell me if you know.

حروف (horoof) is another form of plural for "letters" - at least in Farsi.

If you have this book, then produce the English - if we don't have the Arabic, or / and if even the Arabic is not available; how can you fault the Christians for that? Granted, it is more scholarly to get to the Arabic, but if there is so much doubt and hesitation on your part and others, then it shows that maybe the Arabic is no so clear or not available, etc.

I repeat again --

http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b3010.html

This is an Islamic bookstore – it should be easy for you to get the info from your Imam or Islamic center or Islamic library, or other Muslim friend and show us the English.

Here is the book by Ibn Ka'b - I confess I don't own this book.

The quote is from volume 2 – it should be easy for both Muslims and Christians to show at least what the English translation says in this book.

David and Nabeel appear to be using the English – if that is all we have, then you cannot fault the Christians for using what is available.

If it is not in the Arabic original, why did the translators
include the phrase [about deception] in the English?

Ken said...

(Muslims?, Arabs?, Pakistanis?)

[I am including all Arabs because it is possible than an Arabic speaking scholar, who is not a Muslim; possible to have done the work, in the same way that many of the first scholars in Islamic history were Nestorian Christians (Ibn Ishaq, right? - I think he later converted to Islam); then this is possible, right? But not probable, granted.

Or the translators could have been Pakistanis who are experts in Arabic, I don't know, I am asking the questions.]



If we don't have the Arabic to look at, (this is the problem, it seems) then he was not being deceptive to say that he saw the English with his own eyes.

The point of the video still stands, there is lots of evidence in the Hadith literature of different parts of the Qur'an missing. And the verse of stoning, and breastfeeding adults, and who knows what other content show that it is more than just the seven “Ahraf” احراف" - plural of حرف (letter of the alphabet, speech, talk, reading) - It means the different ways the different Arab tribes pronounced and wrote the same words. Right?


Also, John Gilchrist's point stands; you did not answer that either.

Ken said...

Another thing, - GV19 - you use a lot of "Oneness Pentecostal" type claims in your current series against the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.

One of them is a video by a "Prophesy Channel" and quoting a F.B. Conybeare that Matthew 28:19 is a forgery.

This is ridiculous - if the manuscript evidence was as weak as your piece (and Conybeare and a "Plowman" on the internet) assert, then Bart Ehrman surely would have made an issue of it. As it is, Ehrman never makes that point, he concentrates on Mark 16, I John 5:7 and John 8:1-11 (last verse of chapter 7 with it), etc.

Metzger (who was Ehrman's teacher), never lists any textual variants on Matthew 28:19 in his Textual Commentary on the New Testament.

I wonder why?

1. If the ancient Greek manuscripts had significant textual variants and were lacking the phrase, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, as Conybeare and the Oneness Pentecostals (UPCI) and Muslims claim, Bart Ehrman would have made a big deal about that also, along with Mark 16:9-20, I John 5:7-8, etc. He does not make that argument in the critique below. I wonder why? See:
http://www.biblequery.org/OtherBeliefs/Skeptics/ResponseToEhrman1_TextualVariants.htm

2. Bruce Metzger, Ehrman’s teacher in textual criticism, in his Textual Commentary on the NT, does not make any comment or say there are any textual variants on Matthew 28:19. See
http://codexbezae.perso.sfr.fr/metzger/metzger_matthew.pdf

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
. . . he doesn't even know the definition of Ahruf, . . .

Then tell us what Ahruf means, if you know. I gave you the different meanings. One is the different "reading" or prounciations or the different way the same Arabic words or concepts are written in different dialects among different Arabic speaking areas.

According to Gilchrist, the 7 readings Ahraf - dwindled to 2, the Warsh and Hafs, and the debate between Adbullah Kunde and Samuel Green goes into that. (Google it)

Today, there is basically five kinds of Arabic.

1. Gulf Arabic
2. Iraqi Arabic
3. Egyptian Arabic
4. Levant Arabic (Lebanon/Syria/Palestinian/Jordanian)
5. N. African Arabic - "derije" - Algeria/Tunisia/Morocco


and he doesn't feel it's important to quote sources.

Never said that; I only said if we don't have access to the Arabic original; and all we have is the English, then you cannot fault them.

Many Muslims hide behind the mystery of Arabic, "My friend, Mr. Ken, you don't understand the deep meaning of the Arabic word here; so we cannot continue to have discussion." ( I heard that many times over the last 26 years, and then the Muslim doesn't want to talk anymore.)

Convenient way to shut down communication and dialog.

Again, it should be easy for you to find the English of Ibn Kaab's book from an Imam or Muslim scholar friend, etc. Why don't you?

Can you find the Arabic also and show us the problems?

Ken said...

Another thing GV19 wrote, something about Islam is the only religion concerned about the original language/text of the revelation.

Not true. Protestantism focused on this by it's emphasis on getting back to the sources (ad fontes), inspired by Erasmus, (and his new edition of the Greek NT around 1500 (which Luther used and was inspired by, when he was able to see the Greek for himself, rather than having to go through Latin) and emphasized its ministers learning Greek and Hebrew in order to teach the Bible.

Since Augustine and Jerome (circa 400 AD), Latin had become the main emphasis and Trent (1545-1563) even officially said that the Latin Vulgate was the inspired text of the RCC. Sixtus, a Pope, decreed it "infallible", but they had to change all that; another proof that the RCC is not infallible.

The Latin of "penance" and "iustificare" (to make just) rather than dikiasoune (Greek - to declare righteous/just) and context of imputation was also another big problem that contributed to the problem all the way until Luther(1517-1546).

Although Protestants don't publish all Bibles with Greek and Hebrew parallels, it is possible to get those kinds of books.

We do emphasize the original languages. So GV19 is wrong, again.

Ken said...

Gilchrist on the 7 readings, Ahraf, of the Qur’an:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap5.html


Green on the 7 readings, with good graphics of differences in the Arabic printed versions of the Qur’an:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

Textual Variants in the Qur’an:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/index.html

Ken said...

Another excellent article:

How and why the Qur’an was standardized, by Samuel Green

http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/uthman.htm

Ken said...

Here's a good quote from Theodoret of Cyrus (Syria, 393-457 AD)

that I Timothy 5:18 is quoting both the OT and the NT.

"Let the elders who have presided well be accorded double honor, especially those engaged in preaching and teaching (v.17): so praiseworthy is the profession of teaching. He used the phrase double honor to mean greater honor. He confirms the idea with scriptural testimony: Scripture says, remember, You shall not muzzle an ox that is treading the grain, and Laborers deserve their pay (v.18). He quoted one from the Old Testament, one from the New."

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Commentary on 1 Timothy, Chapter 5, in Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Volume 2, p. 225-26 (2001), Robert C. Hill translator.

from Turretinfan's "Ancient Voices" web-site. Excellent!

http://voxpatristica.blogspot.com/2009/06/theodoret-of-cyrus-paul-quoted-luke-as.html

More confirmation of Sola Scriptura

Nick said...

Ken,

In Protestantism:
John Calvin >> Church Father

('>>' = much greater than)

John Calvin says 1 Tim 5:8 not (likely) quoting Luke, even backing up himself by referencing 1 Cor 9:9-14.

...but this discussion is already gone in another direction...

David Waltz said...

Hi Nick,

I would argue that John Calvin is certainly THE "Church Father" for those who embrace the Reformed faith. In the most recent issue of The Westminster Theological Journal (Vol. 72.1 - Spring 2010), one of the contributors, Barry G. Waugh, refers to Calvin as, "Master Calvin" and "Master John" over a dozen times.

I noticed that Ken in earlier posts mentioned some incidences of Catholic persecutions against Protestants; I wonder if Ken is aware of the nearly 100 executions in Geneva during Calvin's 'rule' for the 'crimes' of adultery, witchcraft and heresy...


Grace and peace,

David

Nick said...

David,

It's no mistake that Protestants consider Luther and Calvin as sort of super-apostles, it's the natural and logical choice. If everyone before them got it wrong and couldn't understand Scripture properly, then truly these are remarkable men (as any of us would have to admit).

But seeing the absurdities that arise from that, they must "counter-balance" this with yet another absurdity: Luther and Calvin were not infallible, and in fact they erred at times, and (gasp) even part ways with them when you don't think they were "biblical".

In this case, Ken thinks Calvin's interpretation of 1 Tim 5:8 (which is actually quite plausible) simply cannot stand.

Rory said...

Dave, Hi.

You asked if Ken was aware of some alleged executions in Geneva. If you had been more careful in your research would know who is to blame for any executions in Geneva. Here is a clue as to what Ken thinks about these questions:

"...the burning of Servetus was a leftover from that Roman Catholic era and thinking..."

Extrapolating from this I think we have a pretty strong idea as to who is really the culprit behind any Protestant doing. The Catholic Church made the Calvinists burn Michael Servetus. This could be an historical breakthrough to explain how and why Protestants in England and France were duped into killing Catholics. The Catholic Church made them do it.

The more bad things Protestants do, the more guilty the Catholic Church is! That's how it works...historically.

Ken said...

David,
I already acknowledged that the "marriage of church and state" was wrong - by citing the example of Servetus. I am a Baptist, remember?
One of the main issues that caused the "Baptist movement" was to separate the church out from the government.

So, I have heard about the executions of Geneva - but I have not actually studied it closely. But yes, I am aware of that problem.

So, I wrote this earlier when I mentioned the RCC history of burning and executing heretics:

"Yes, the burning of Servetus was a leftover from that Roman Catholic era and thinking, I will grant you. "

Dr. James White did a great job of giving the context of that issue, when people bring up the charge against Calvin; in Dr. White's debate against Oneness Pentecostal Robert Sabin - see on Dr. White's You Tube page.

John Piper also did a good job in his book
The Legacy of Sovereign Joy, not leaving out the warts of some of the actions and ideas of Luther and Calvin, but honoring them for the good things they wrote and did.

Calvin is not a "super-Apostle", etc. - neither is Luther - but they did get many things right -
the bondage of the Will - Luther
justification by faith alone, Sola Scriptura, the Sovereignty of God, etc.

But, the got wrong:
combined the church and state and executed heretics, witches, etc.

Also,
their views on baptism were wrong:
Luther's infant faith and baptismal regeneration was a left over from his RC days and heritage.

Calvin's infant baptism (entry into the covenant community) was certainly better that baptismal regeneration, but it was wrong also - believer's / disciples baptism is the most biblical. It is an outward symbol of inner faith as a picture and testimony of one's faith and commitment to Christ (Romans 6:1-7) and external witness to entry into the body of Christ, expressed in a local church, by joining a local church, one part of the external, universal body of Christ. I Cor. 12:13, etc.

Ken said...

I don't have Calvin's commentary on Timothy, can you give the full quote and context?

It seems to me the Greek phrase is identical to Luke 10:7 and very close to Matthew 10:10, but the general concept is there in I Cor. 9:14.

So, the evidence is more that he is quoting Luke, but including Matthew 10:10 and I Cor. 9 also - that Calvin thinks it is from I Cor. 9 shows that Paul knows his own writings as "Scripture", which is more powerful for our position. It includes all three then, and this is more powerful for Sola Scriptura.

Also, "graphe" without the definite article in 2 Tim. 3:16 points to the quality of being Scripture, not a specific body (the OT books or NT books written up to that time) The lack of article for graphe (scripture) shows he is saying that "all that has the quality of (holy, v. 15) Scipture is God-breathed, and this includes the OT, and all NT books written up to that time, and whatever books are yet to be written, because of Jesus' promise in John chapter 14 and 16 to lead them into all the truth.

Also, the context continues in 2 Tim. 4
preach the word (v. 4) points back to 3:14-17 -
and
"Sound doctrine" in verse 3
and "the truth" in verse 4
and
"the faith" in verse 7

encompasses all the God-breathed Scriptures, both all the ones written up to the time of 2 Timothy and the few are still to be written.

Sorry, but your article, Nick, and all of you (GV19, Rory, David Waltz) are soundly defeated in your arguments against Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura stands.

Ken said...

Rory,
We are just being honest with history -

We all confess that the whole European Culture at that time believed in executing heretics -

Both Protestants and RCS - in fact Servetus had fled his execution in France, and went to Geneva - the RCs were going to execute him anyway.


Calvin did write several letters to him and pleaded with him to "be reconciled to God", etc.

This idea of executing heretics was going on since when? (Justinian ? - 550s ? )

The Protestants inherited that belief from the RCC European culture - the Medieval Synthesis - the Reformation and Renaissance and Enlightenment were blessings, (on this issue of freeing the church from the violence and executing people); although mixed with lots of unbelief and atheism and Deism, and paganism, modern thinking, etc. - but that is the nature of freedom.

When you bring in the problem of different churches, and why don't we all go to one church, and disunity, etc. - one cannot avoid the historical precedents for when there was unity and what happened to cause the disunity and breakup of the western church and the European Medieval Synthesis.

Ken said...

Nick,
I see that you linked to Calvin's commentary; I had forgotten that they are on line. (!) - Well, Calvin is just wrong on this, ( I am surprised he missed this) the Greek is exactly the same in Luke 10:7 and I will more closely at Matthew 10:10 and note how close that is in a future comment box.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Before I begin my musings, I would like to know where in this thread I have presented argumentation against sola scriptura (hereafter, SS). Now, on to my musings...

I suspect you are probably a bit tired of me referring to Dr. Lane's exceptional essay, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, but I can think of no better concise treatment that accurately represents the history of Scripture and Tradition within the Christian paradigm. The form of SS you adhere to is not the SS of the early Church Fathers (material sufficiency, not formal sufficiency), nor that of Calvin. Further, the type of 'Reformed' faith you embrace is for sure a minority position among Reformed folk and speaks to the inherent nature of SS's inability to resolve division and schism (both of which are "sin" according to the NT) among conservative Calvinists, let alone the hundreds of other Protestant sects.

I created this thread because I was impressed with the humility of one of the brighter Evangelical scholars of our day. I sincerely doubt that most (all?) of the professional apologists that ply their 'trade' today will give much credence to Dr. Olson; and that, is a shame (IMHO).


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

For,( γαρ) worthy is the laborer of his wages”
αξιος γαρ ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
Luke 10:7

αξιος ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
I Timothy 5:18

“worthy, the laborer (is) of his wages”

αξιος γαρ ο εργατης της τροφης αυτου
Matthew 10:10

Almost the same Greek phrase
“For worthy the laborer is of his support (food, nourishment).”

So, you are wrong on this.

So, we are on topic and Sola Scriptura stands.

Paul was quoting gospels (Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:10) and including the same ideas and doctrines in his own previous letters ( I Corinthians 9:4-14), so “all Scripture” includes both the OT (2 Tim. 3:15) and the NT, and the other books that will be written in the future of 2 Tim. (Jude (80), Hebrews(68), 2 Peter (65-67) Revelation, Gospel of John 1-3 John (all either before 70 AD, or from 80-96 AD). That 2 Timothy 3:16-17 includes future books is based on Jesus’ promise in John 14:16-17; 14:25-26, and John 16:12-14. It will be “all the truth”, and God’s word is truth (John 17:17), and the Father’s words were giving to Jesus and Jesus committed them to the disciples, (John 17:8), but they couldn’t handle the new revelations yet. (John 16:12). Paul exhorts Timothy to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2), and teaches him to refute false doctrines and false teachers, and to stand for sound doctrine (v. 3) and “the truth” (v. 4) and stand for “the faith” , since he did. (2 Tim. 4:7), which all three references to the word, the truth,and sound doctrine, point back to 2 Tim. 3:16; and "the faith" points to Jude 3, “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” See also Galatians 1:23 – “the faith”.

Also, 2 Peter, written by Peter himself, affirms all of Paul's letters. ( 2 Peter 3:16)

Daniel Wallace showed convincingly that the phrase “all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable” is the right translation, that it is a predicate (is God-breathed) with a equative clause; rather than attributive “every God-breathed Scripture (attributive of Scripture) is also profitable” . the word “graphe” without the article shows the “quality of Scripture”, so that, “not only the OT which you learned as a youth, Timothy, but all Scripture has the quality of being God-breathed, is just like the quality of the OT Scriptures (v. 15)” is the right idea. That it is “holy Scripture” (v. 15) refutes what GV19 was trying to say that is it only saying “all writings”.

Ken said...

Before I begin my musings, I would like to know where in this thread I have presented argumentation against sola scriptura (hereafter, SS). Now, on to my musings...

I guess, technically, you didn't, but indirectly you did, by your seemingly negative opposition to Warfield's view of theopneustos, which is damaging to evangelical faith and the doctrine of SS; in spite of what Olson wrote and the others that Nick quoted.

In addition, just the fact that you are open to Bahai'ism shows you don't believe in historical Sola Scriptura, and doubt Christianity as a whole; whether you understand SS as Athanaisus' statements ("In these alone are the doctrine of godliness" (Festal letter 39); and "holy Scripture is self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth" (Contra-Gentiles 1:3); and "divine Scripture is above all things, even councils" (de synodis 6 - my paraphrase) or Theodoret of Cyrrus, or Luther (speech at end of Diet of Worms) or Calvin or Hodge or Warfield, or Dr. White or Turretinfan or myself.


I suspect you are probably a bit tired of me referring to Dr. Lane's exceptional essay,

yes, but that is ok; we discussed it before; and the results of understanding that are exactly why the issue of disunity, church heresy trials, discipline/excommunication and separation of church and state discussions come up; it is obvious that those discussions are unavoidable. Since we have freedom of religion now, and we cannot control others, that disunity is ok with me. God will sort all that out in the end.

“Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, but I can think of no better concise treatment that accurately represents the history of Scripture and Tradition within the Christian paradigm.

Yes, it is beneficial, but it shows that the Reformation movement also had still to develop into the Baptist movement of holding to SS and Biblical Calvinism (Bunyon, Spurgeon, etc.) but rejecting infant baptism and state churches and marriage of church and state. Along with modern Presbyterians rejecting the execution of heretics; an improvement from the otherwise good and godly folks. That this also opened up everything up for all kinds of other groups - Quakers, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. does not bother me at all. That freedom, along with division; is better than the RCC era before the Reformation and better than the Geneva executions of people that you mentioned and the Salem witch trials. But church discipline is Biblical and should be done - I Cor. 5, Matthew 18, etc. Just with no harsh penalties for the state to carry out, unless someone murdered or raped or robbed a bank, etc. you know what I mean.

The form of SS you adhere to is not the SS of the early Church Fathers (material sufficiency, not formal sufficiency),

I disagree, the quotes from Athanasius and Theodoret and many others, that David King and William Webster and William Goode and Whitaker and George Salmon compiled and have argued for years are convincing and powerful.

nor that of Calvin.

If not, what was his view of SS? All Nick showed was that he didn’t think Paul was quoting Matthew 10:10 or Luke 10:7 in I Tim. 5:18. That still did not show anything pro or against what Calvin’s view of SS is. I suspect that is very close to the Westminister Confession and mine and Warfield’s.

Rory said...

Ken,

You don't believe in sola scriptura any more than I do. If you did you would trust everyone with an infallible Bible instead of confusing people with Reformed preaching and teaching.

You objected to that simple logic by observing that the Scripture records the need for teaching and preaching. But the Scripture records the need to exterminate the Canaanites. Clearly, you do not believe that the Old Testament is applicable today. If you are like most Reformed people you also deny that tongues and other "Pentecostal gifts" were for the Apostolic Age, before the canon of Scripture came.

Your insistence that sola scriptura which is clear and infallible, demands teachers and preachers that are fallible is as easily challenged as the need for other Apostolic gifts. All of the exhortations to teach and preach occur BEFORE the compilation of the canon. Your notion about the Scripture demanding teaching is just your illogical and fallible interpretation. What would would happen if someone came to your church and suggested that the preaching stop in favor of proclamation of the pure Word?

It is just like Dr. Olsen says, as soon as you start teaching instead of reading, you are interpreting with most uncertain fallibly. That your anachronistic and illogical claim that sola scriptura demands teachers rather than Scriptural proclamation in this biblically complete era is logically absurd and cannot even be maintained biblically! Note what St. John says very near the time of the end of the Apostolic writings. No one who believes in sola scriptura should appeal to anything other than pure Scripture reading. You blame the Catholics for Protestant historical atrocities. There are other similarities. You Reformed people are just as "Catholic" as we are when it comes to how you reject sola scriptura with all your corruptible teachers and preachers. You don't have any more faith in sola scriptura than we Catholics do. If you did, you would heed Dr. Olsen and change your ways.

"These things have I written to you, concerning them that seduce you. And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie." (I John 2:27, 28)

Rory said...

Ken,

You don't believe in sola scriptura at all. If you did you would trust everyone with an infallible Bible instead of confusing people with preaching and teaching.

You objected to that simple logic by observing that the Scripture records the need for teaching and preaching. But the Scripture records the need to exterminate the Canaanites. Clearly, you do not believe that the Old Testament is applicable today. If you are like most Reformed people you also deny that tongues and other "Pentecostal gifts" were for the Apostolic Age, before the canon of Scripture came.

Your insistence that sola scriptura which is clear and infallible, demands teachers and preachers that are fallible is as easily challenged as the need for other Apostolic gifts. All of the exhortations to teach and preach occur BEFORE the compilation of the canon. Your whole notion about the Scripture demanding teaching is just your illogical and fallible interpretation. What would would happen if someone came to your church and suggested that the preaching stop in favor of proclamation of the pure Word?

It is just like Dr. Olsen says, as soon as you start teaching instead of reading, you are fallibly teaching uncertainties and causing confusion. That your anachronistic and illogical claim that sola scriptura demands teachers rather than Scriptural proclamation in this biblically complete era is logically absurd and cannot even be maintained biblically! Note what St. John says very near the time of the end of the Apostolic writings. No one should appeal to anything other than Scripture reading. You blame the Catholics for Protestant historical atrocities. There are other similarities. You Reformed people are just as "Catholic" as we are when it comes to how you reject sola scriptura with all your corruptible teachers and preachers. You don't have any more faith in sola scriptura than we Catholics do. If you did, you would heed Dr. Olsen and change your ways.

"These things have I written to you, concerning them that seduce you. And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie." (I John 2:27, 28)

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

I would say that Ken does not follow Sola Sciptura because first and foremost he regards Revelation, Jude, 2Peter, 2nd John and 3rd John as scripture!

I hope he doesn't come along with arguments about Church fathers saying this or that. I'm sorry after the way he puts Calvin on a horse only to knock him down in the very next breath you have already scuttled your own boat.

It it's sinking fast.

If Calvin can be left to every wind of doctrine on issues like infant baptism than the early Church fathers can't help us out.

In fact the age of baptism of baptism is no where in the Bible is also a case in point. Man made tradition or reason is used.

He than uses 1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,"[a] and "The worker deserves his wages.

However, than Ken is very liberal leaning to his own understanding and makes this apply to Luke as well.

Pay him his wages each day before sunset, because he is poor and is counting on it. Otherwise he may cry to the LORD against you, and you will be guilty of sin. (Deuteronomy 24:15)

So whats the point? Did Paul say Luke was scripture? No!

If Luke like Paul also quotes Deuteronomy 24 whats the point? Does that make them scripture? No! Only your imagination makes it so.

Ken said...

Rory,
that is a very strange and strident and absurd argumentation.

Goofy !

You don't even know the definition of Sola Scriptura, as is obvious by your illogical tirade.

Since when did the doctrine of Sola Scriptura ever say, "Only quote or read the bible out loud and then sit down" ???

What do you think I John 2:27-28 means? even from a Roman Catholic Perspective ?

Your screed shows me you have no argumentation and that I made a good case.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

8 I'm not just sounding off because I'm irritated. This is all written in the scriptural law. 9 Moses wrote, "Don't muzzle an ox to keep it from eating the grain when it's threshing." Do you think Moses' primary concern was the care of farm animals? 10 Don't you think his concern extends to us? Of course. Farmers plow and thresh expecting something when the crop comes in. 11 So if we have planted spiritual seed among you, is it out of line to expect a meal or two from you? (1 Corinthians 9:4-14)

Paul was basically taking a literal text and giving it an allegory to his current situation.

To me he is using scripture for his own ends. I'm not saying that the point he is making in and of itself is wrong here I'm simply saying that the way he argues his point to people doesn't sound to authoritative.

If this is the case, than I wonder if Ken would be willing to submit that any document that is not now included in any of the competing Christian canons that quotes the Old Testament should be considered scripture?

For example would Ken be willing to submit that if this particular phrase, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,"[a] and "The worker deserves his wages"

Were to be found in Clement, or the Shepard of Hermes that it would make them scripture?

Ken said...

GV19:
I would say that Ken does not follow Sola Sciptura because first and foremost he regards Revelation, Jude, 2Peter, 2nd John and 3rd John as scripture!

?? huh ??

this just proves you don't know what Sola Scriptura actually teaches and that you did not read my very thorough answers above.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Ken says above,

"I Timothy 5:18 - Paul quotes from 2 passages, one from Deut. (the law of Moses) and one from the gospels (Matthew and Luke). This shows the the gospels are holy Scripture."


Paul quotes from 2 passages? ONE from Moses and ONE from Matthew AND Luke? Ermmm isn't that like three passages?

And by the way your assertion that he is quoting from Deuteronomy and the New Testament is just plain goofy! The fact that this is all you got in a desperate gambit to save face for the SS doctrine shows me just how unstable is your position.

Ken says,

Peter affirms all of Paul's writings as Scripture - meaning "holy Scriptures" - 2 Peter 3:16

Peter affirms all of Paul's writings? Really? I think that is imagination at work! More goofiness!

Ken than says,

"2 Timothy was the last letter written by Paul before his martyrdom by Nero in 67 AD, so (IT INCLUDES ALL OTHERS) before it."

So than I guess that would include the following....

"1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul said: “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.”.....But guess what Ken? We can't seem to find it.

Unless you mean "ALL" in the same way you Calvinist interpret Jesus dying for "ALL" mankind *cough* *cough* the elect.

I'll let you clarify.

"Peter tells the churches he wrote to in Asia that this is the second letter he is writing to them ( 2 Peter 3:1) - and notice the purpose - to stir up their minds to remember truth."

Sorry 2nd Peter? That's not in my New Testament try again...

More unsound doctrine, more theological musings, and more theological projection into the text.

All this coming from a guy who believed that the Talmud taught that Jesus died and rose form the dead! Than he gave me a link that he himself didn't bother to check!

Very RICH $$$ Indeed!

Ken said...

GV19:
The video you used by Prophesy Channel in your Part 2 of "Is Jesus God?" is bogus and lying.

This is a total and completely bogus citation, showing how dishonest this video is.

Look at 4:12 into the video. It is a quote from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4:2637

“Mat_28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula “foreign to the mouth of Jesus”

This is cut from a quote by the very radical and liberal critic Adolf Harnack, and the ISBE was actually making the opposite point. You should not use cultic videos with lies in them.

Here is the full quote, with context.

"Under the article on Sacraments

3. Institution by Christ:
The assumption made above, that both Baptism and the Lord's Supper owe their origin as sacraments of the church to their definite appointment by Christ Himself, has been strongly challenged by some modern critics.
(1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mar_16:15 f occurs in a passage (Mar_16:9-20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Mat_28:19, standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more especially as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narratives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Mat_28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula “foreign to the mouth of Jesus” (see Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given). It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting. "

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Now before I continue I want to apologize to Rory, Nick and David if I was not focused on this topic in any way shape or form.

I'm a Muslim and I don't hide that fact. Ken just can't help himself because of the fact that he got his tail handed to him on several encounters.

He struggles in his pronunciation of Farsi, (I have heard Ken pronounced Farsi and it was forced and he struggled) but he does better than most English speakers. I give him credit.

He than uses Farsi as a basis for exegetical the Qur'an. I've tried to point out to him out unsound this is. It's like using Albanian to do exegesis the New Testament in Koine Greek. But that won't stop Ken.


Most the time when he gets frustrated he reverts in his encounter with me he starts bellowing out (unjust wars, 9/11, 4 wives, God employs deception) etc.

Basically when he has run out of gas.

So I plan not to contribute to the new post that David has put because I would like to watch some of the contributions and interactions of Rory, Nick, Lvka, Ken and the others who contribute.

As soon as certain people see a Muslim than Lord have mercy!

But I am going to take a quick walk down memory lane with my pal Ken just to let him ponder over a few things.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Well, it looks like Ken took off in a hurry.

But let's take a walk down memory lane with Ken.

I can't believe he said the following above,

"As I said to the Turks on the streets of Istanbul in 1994, "What is better in Turkish court of law for evidence of a car crash? One witness or 4 witnesses?

They admitted 4 is better."
October 20, 2010 11:00 AM

This is a condensed version of the same goofy argument that he brought up here:
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/03/bible-prophecy-is-rise-muhammad-andor.html

April 1, 2010 9:43 AM

"As 20 Turkish Muslim men told me on a street in Findikzade, Istanbul during Ramadan in 1994 - after I asked them, "If there is a car accident here, which is better in Turkish court of law, one witness on one corner, or one witness on each of the 4 corners? (seeing things from different angles) They all answered that "Doru!!! Dort tone daha eeyee; Doru!" ( That right!!! 4 of them is better! doru! (that's right!) "We want to read the Injeel now; your explanation has made us open to read in Turkish."


I can't believe Ken is still rocking his 1984 Booger Green Gremlin down the strip of Atlanta thinking this is going to cut it!

I already responded to your argument in that link in the following post I said:

"Now your second post, I'm sorry to say this but it sounds like you did a good job of duping those four Turks! Your analogy is good; however I only wish I could have been one of the four. I would have said very well, but what happens when one of us says it was a Mercedes and a BMW that collided?"

"But the other swears it was two BMW's that collided. The other says in fact it was a car and a motorcycle. Finally there are differences on the colours."

Sounds to me Ken is gonna rock that baby until the wheels fall off! This is what they teach you in mission schools?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

In my very first encounter with Ken in the link above this is how he starts off...

March 18, 2010 10:54 AM

Ken
"Thanks for your good and gracious attitude, Grandverbalizer!"

Than two days latter....

March 20, 2010 9:01 AM

Ken, "So, Grandverbalizer and David W. – several questions are in order –"

Than of course I’ll you will hear from Ken is how aggressive I am. But all you have to do is go back to that first encounter and you tell me who wanted to keep on the topic that David Waltz gave and who first launched an attack on the faith of the other.

Anyone can see it was Ken with his very unoriginal, tired and recycled arguments about the Qur’an getting the Trinity all wrong. So obviously this must mean the Qur’an is not the word of God, and Muhammed (saw) is not a prophet of Allah.

I'll tell you people why this is not only a tired argument used by Ken and James White to no end, but one that is actually deceptive in it's approach.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Ken and James White....

"The Qur'an does not accurately describe the anatomy of a Unicorn!"...

Christian audience "Wow! I guess they showed those Moozlims! Look how articulate they are, they can even pronounce a few words in Arabic!

Muslim audience....huh? The Qur'an does not accurately describe the anatomy of a unicorn? But does the Qur'an even begin to attempt to describe a unicorn to begin with?

So how does the Muslim respond to that?

1) Your right Mr.Temple, Mr. White the Qur'an does not accurately describe the anatomy of a unicorn!

Thus the Qur'an is not inspired and it's not divine!

2) No no the Qur'an does describe accurately the anatomy of a unicorn!

Mr. White and Mr. Temple could you show me where the Qur'an makes any attempt to describe a unicorn?

Mr. White does a somersault and Ken does a back flip through the ring of fire and they respond...

"Well it should accurately describe the anatomy of a unicorn because that speaks to us and what we believe!"

The Muslim responds the Qur'an gives response to a wide range of false ideas about the creator without going into the fleshed out details, besides doesn't your position assume that a unicorn exist to begin with?

Thank God that people like David Waltz are intelligent enough to see that!

Also gone are the days when Ken was more humble when being corrected for example:

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

When David set Ken straight on a particular point about the use of the word Trinity or Trinitas

March 23, 2010 2:45 PM < read this post by Ken very humbling.

"Since I don't know Latin, nor how the grammatical endings work, if your information is correct; that is quite frustrating and disappointing and PAINFUL to have believed some information that turns out to be wrong."

"But, yes, if you are right about the Latin; and the fact that I don't know Latin - I admit this has disappointed and frustrated me."

So contrast the Ken of March/April to the Ken of today who says in the post above.

October 27, 2010 5:17 AM


"Many Muslims hide behind the mystery of Arabic, "My friend, Mr. Ken, you don't understand the deep meaning of the Arabic word here; so we cannot continue to have discussion." ( I heard that many times over the last 26 years, and then the Muslim doesn't want to talk anymore.)"

"Convenient way to shut down communication and dialog."

"Again, it should be easy for you to find the English of Ibn Kaab's book from an Imam or Muslim scholar friend, etc. Why don't you?"

"Can you find the Arabic also and show us the problems?"

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

So what do you say to something like that?

Ibn Kaab's book was not written, or transmitted in English. It was transmitted and written in Arabic.

Why is the translation in Russian, English, French or anything else mistaken?

Simple answer: I don't know. Yet IF a person was being sincere(and not filled with hate towards Muslims and trying to score cheap points instead of retract embarrassing remarks and had a genuine interest in truth seeking) than knowing what the source material said would be VERY IMPORTANT.

I'm sorry Ken I don't buy into that whole shrug the shoulders "well if it Ain't American it Ain't right approach".

It's sad that a man who had a passion to take up Farsi to interact with Persians to bring the truth claims of the Reformed Baptist Church and it's (several thousand adherents) to the people of Iran would shirk away from his responsibility to investigate the source material of another person's respective religion.

As far as not having discussion anymore I can't speak for anyone else who contributes on this blog/website

However, when you begin your greetings to me with.

Peace in the name of Jesus only whom is Lord and Savior (and not deceitful =Allah=Makr (deceptive , cunning, kill the infidels, 9/11, four wives, Muhammed and the wars, Aunt Jemima and Pancakes)...

than yeah sorry to offend anyone here but I got tired of your shenanigans !

All your original comments are still there, as are your links to your blog entries at beggars all and my thorough refutation of your tired spin cycle polemic.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

I wish and hope that when I reach the age of David and Rory that I have the patience and forbearance that you gentleman have.

I believe in being accepting and respectful, however, when I know someone is trying to blow smoke up someone's rear I'm going to call them out on it.

I'm duty bound to do so! I won't mince words.

Ken who cares how many links you post it's a smoke screen tactic.

"I Ken being a missionary of 20 plus years to the middle east have hardly read any books on Islam by my own admission, have a dearth of knowledge on Islamic theology, do not understand the Arabic language" but.......

I got some links that answer all your questions...

Well let's revisit Ken Temple's link game (smoke screen)shall we?

Not only is GOOFY and an admission that you do not know the material it's a save face tactic that is not based upon sincerity.

So going back to our first encounter here:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/03/bible-prophecy-is-rise-muhammad-andor.html

We got on the topic of the 'historical facts' that Jesus 'died'. Remember that Ken?

What did you do? You gave us some LINKS!!! That's right....

April 1, 2010 8:14 PM <Where I take Ken to task for his "information"

Here is a GOOD ARTICLEe on Tacitus:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

An article on Josephus and other extra-Biblical sources:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

So good are Ken's LINKS that he follows that post up with this.

Ken said...
Grandverbalizer19 --

After you had time to see that the Josephus core account and the Tacitus accounts are historical and reliable; I trust you realize that those are extra "icing on the cake".
April 1, 2010 9:43 AM

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

so I went to take a look at the icing on the cake...

and I had some questions for Ken.

Ken was in humble guy mode at that particular time

"Grandverbalizer19 -
Salaam - peace to you!"

"Thanks for those last 3 posts - very nice indeed."

"I didn't mean to avoid answering the Talmud question, I just did not know much about it at the time; but I apologize for not saying sooner, "I don't know, but I will try to do some research on the Talmud question to have at least some kind of an answer. I don't know enough about the Talmud to answer at this time."

"Forgive me for not saying that sooner."

"I guess the issue of Tacitus (and the earliest copy that we have of it is centuries later) vs. the Talmud (being around 600 AD) is a valid point you have in a general way; - ........"
April 12, 2010 10:56 AM


So much for that "Icing On The Cake"......

So here you have it a missionary to Muslim countries of 20 plus years didn't even double check the links he gave me!

He didn't know that the Talmud was silent on the issue of 'Jesus dying'. That it was silent about Jesus period!

And guess what folks? You would be surprised the number of Christian apologist who are still using the Talmud as an extra Biblical proof that Jesus 'died' as 'historical fact'.

Ken even admitted that the following quote from the link he gave me was a bit hard to take.

“The passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in every known copy of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none dates earlier than the 11th century), and the anti-Christian tone is so strong that it is extremely unlikely that a Christian could have written it.”

1100 years latter! Icing on the cake indeed!

So I dunno about you folks but I stopped being impressed by Ken's ability to google along time ago.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Ken said...
GV19:
The video you used by Prophesy Channel in your Part 2 of "Is Jesus God?" is bogus and lying.

This is a total and completely bogus citation, showing how dishonest this video is.

I tell you what Ken...
Why don't you break out your United Bible Society’s Greek Text, 3rd Edition, Edited by Kurt Aland, M. Black, C. Martini, Bruce Metzger, and A. Wilkren.

and tell us all what they have to say about Matthew 28:19

as far as the rest of what you had to say it's goofy!

You want to take a presupposition approach and they want to take an evidential approach.

Besides you and "Dr" James White have already lit the path to excellence in research and source quotes!

I think the modalist Christians deserve to have their case heard against you tri-theist Ken.

Sorry but that's just me.

Ken said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken said...

1. My Greek Text, that you cite above has no textual variants for Matthew 28:19.

So your argument is defeated.

2. Bruce Metzger, does not list any issue with Matthew 28:19, in his Textual Commentary on the New Testament; so your argument is defeated again.

3. Bart Ehrman would have made an issue of Matthew 28:19, if that video had any scholarship behind it in its claims; Ehrman does not make an issue of it; even he knows that argument is bogus. He makes his arguments more from Mark 16; I John 5, and John 8. (We are honest and open about those textual variant issues) If that was as what the prophesy channel claims, he surely would have driven a truck through it; but he didn't.

4. Every manuscript that we have that includes Matthew 28, all of them have the phrase "in the name of the Father, and the son, and the Holy Spirit."

so you simply have no case at all. It was NOT a corruption or forgery or added in. As that particular oneness "prophesy channel" and you are claiming. Your article fails big time.

5. There is one manuscript that the video claims stops somewhere in chapter 26. Well, that is what rotten pieces of ancient documents do, they rot in the ground at the beginning and the end. Duh!

So that argument, based on one fragment of a papyri, is not a good argument. We would expect that when we find an ancient document in the ground, that the edges and front and back parts are missing or disintegrated or rotten.

That is the nature of archeology and fragments found in the ground.

6. Furthermore, we have
Didache (60-100 AD) - baptize in the name of the Father, son, and the Holy Spirit.

Justin Martyr (155 AD)
Tertullian 18-200 AD)
Origen (250 AD)

(and others !)

all say the baptism formula is "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

So, the argument based on Eusebius is bogus also.

7. Now, I can look at the Greek Text in the United Bible Society, 3rd Edition, etc. (as you cite above); and there are no textual variant issues for that.

can you look at the Ibn Ka'ab book or order it or find a friend or Imam who has the one that the Islamic book store sells?

What does it say?

We are still waiting.

Ken said...

I deleted the one above the last one because I had some bad typos.

Hope you all have a good day!

Ken said...

Another thing, if you research the official UPCI (United Pentecostal Church International), and other oneness groups, they even admit Matthew 28:19, "baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit" is Scripture!

They just explain it and interpret it differently. They don't use the "corruption" or not in the ancient mss arguments.

So, your whole argument crumbles to the ground.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

I think I should put right above that video "Dedicated to my good friend Ken Temple" :)

Don't have a heart attack Ken! I know the video and the series itself is frustrating to you but don't worry you can always borrow more arguments from Shamoun, Zwelmer, and "Dr" White.

Calm down my friend you have made your points...I'm sure many people will investigate and evaluate the truth claims of the modalist and the tri-theist and see which side has the better butter.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

btw Ken you can see where your objections and double back flips over this issue has been grounded to powder here:

http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/silence-is-golden-christian-outreach-to.html

Maybe you can tell Nabeel to drop me a line some time? Or better yet maybe I should call in the dividing line and ask the good 'Dr' if he endorses everything with in the video? Would that satisfy you Ken?

Nabeel said,"I have seen the narration from Ibn Sad with my own eyes. If someone wants to argue that a Muslim translator made it up and put it into the English version, that makes no sense to me."

Out of curiosity would you be willing to share with us the source text in English or Arabic that you saw "with my own eyes"?

Next you are also making a presupposing the facts without evidence.

Next Nabeel you say,

"If you can find an ancient MS of Ibn Sa'd (at least a very early one) and show me that the line is missing, then you have an argument."

Wouldn't this pressupose that such a manuscript exist in the first place? So you are using an argument from silence.

I think Yahya has a point, and the fact that James White endorses your video is telling.

I don't know if he endorsed the acting (which I certainly do) both of you have a career in television without doubt.

If he was endorsing your "amazing discoveries" it just goes to show how shoddy White's scholarship truly is."

So what are you failing to understand Ken?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

An Arabic speaker and a noted Islamic debater and apologist has come forward by the name of (Bassam Zawadi) the man who opened up a can of chicken noodle soup on Nabeel in the debate in which Bassam Answered all of Nabeel's attacks.

Islam stands triumphant once again. Nothing new was brought to our attention.

So here is your big chance one that I fail to see that you would shirk away from.

Now no one denies what the English text says, so already the 'damage' is done so to speak correct?

But now you have a native Arabic speaker a well known Muslim apologist and debater telling all of you (Nabeel, White, Wood, Shamoun, yourself) it's simply not there in the Arabic source material.

So here is your chance don't you guys have some Arab Christians or connections in the middle East? Why don't you get on the horn over there in Iran, Morocco, Egypt and the other places and have them dig and show where the Muslims have edited this material out of the sources.

Than you can expose us once and for all Ken (goody goody goody) for being deceptive and treacherous.

So check out your boy Nabeel he doesn't even speak to the source material.

Look at what he says, "If someone wants to argue that a Muslim translator made it up and put it into the English version, that makes no sense to me."

O.K that's fine...and that does make one wonder why indeed would there be such a translation no doubt. However, that does not speak to the objection being raised.

The objection being raised not (by someone) but by the man you debated. He's calling you out on it. Honest and sincere indeed Ken!

Than look at that clever maneuver your boy Nabeel tries to pull.

"If you can find an ancient MS of Ibn Sa'd (at least a very early one) and show me that the line is missing, then you have an argument."

How evil is his heart indeed. Why would he make a response like that? Think about it use your head Ken. Now imagine a Muslim went and brought some 'MS' with the 'line missing' you know what Nabeel would do?

Exactly! Proves my point! You (Muslims) edited the source material.

If you do not see a snake in the grass in that tactic Ken your more hopeless than I could have imagined.

Now it's time for you to stop with the games and Man Up!

Ken said...

It is up to you to get the book at the Islamic book store and find out; and ask your Imam, or other scholarly Muslim friend to see the Arabic and the English.

I don't know if the one on line has the Arabic text with it.

Even if it can be shown that the English translation is wrong, or there are enough variants to show that it is inconclusive either way; the rest of the points of the video is valid and it shows that their are more variants than just the "7 Ahrafs" (readings, dialect differences among different Arab tribes, etc.); and the main point is that most of all the evidence was burned by Uthman; so we will never know. We have those little indications in the Hadith and Sirat literature (Your own sources, that David and Nabeel used very well; obviously not "random" (that part was a joke) that are devastating to Islamic claims.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Ken,

"Even if it can be shown that the English translation is wrong, or there are enough variants to show that it is inconclusive either way; the rest of the points of the video is valid a...."

translation.... "who cares what the source material says, all be damned! Full steam ahead in our campaign against Islam yeee haaaa pork ribs and barbecue!"

Ken (a missionary of 20 plus over years since to the middle east -aka sent to a region with little to no knowledge of it's history, people, culture other than he loves sheesh kebabs, and Turkish coffee has the following to say)

"and it shows that their are more variants than just the "7 Ahrafs"

That is embarrassing! Hey Ken I tell you what. Just so we can know that your not a pretender but someone who actually has some knowledge of the subject what don't you do us a favor pretty please.

Why don't you show us these '7 ahruf variants' and than show us where 'there are more than the 7 ahruf'.

Tell us for example in your extensive research some of the main differences in the Hafs and Warsh text on Surah Al Fatiha.

By the way you just got to love this gem from Ken above

"Today, there is basically five kinds of Arabic.

1. Gulf Arabic
2. Iraqi Arabic
3. Egyptian Arabic
4. Levant Arabic (Lebanon/Syria/Palestinian/Jordanian)
5. N. African Arabic - "derije" - Algeria/Tunisia/Morocco

Mmmm hmmm... I wonder where he got this info from.

Don't get me wrong Ken I know you get incensed when I lump you in with the average Joe from West Virginia (you are clearly not in that category) but your a long way from Stanford.


Your Sola Scriptura points were dismantled. I see you want to get clear away from that topic now.

No problem, bring on your "everything but the kitchen sink arguments" ...heck throw the kitchen sink in there while your at it!

Ooh yeah on point 4 above...

"4. Every manuscript that we have that includes Matthew 28, all of them have the phrase "in the name of the Father, and the son, and the Holy Spirit."

Do tell I pray thee what is the earliest manuscript you have of Matthew 28 that has the phrase?

(sources would be appreciated)

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Also check out that Ken says,

"According to Gilchrist, the 7 readings Ahraf - dwindled to 2, the Warsh and Hafs, and the debate between Adbullah Kunde and Samuel Green goes into that. (Google it)"

Once again "GOOGLE IT"....

Why would I need to Google it when I have the debate right here:

http://www.acommonword.net/2010/01/debatethe-historical-preservation-of.html

Featured since January 22nd I mean where have you been?

I would encourage anyone to go see that debate. Watch the Muslims get blown out of the water! Watch the Christians present the best case against the Qur'an by presenting some textual variants that really knock the wind out of Islam!

Especially interesting to present the case is the co-host of Answering-Islam.org Mr. Samuel Green who has had years of extensive research on the matter and watch him present a very good case against Islam!

Watch him bring forth textual variation one after another!

By the way Green concedes the debate when he says...

12 minutes 49 "that the Qur'an 'seems to be a credible record of what Muhammed recited"

This is really a huge admission by Samuel Green and this point by someone who is raising such objections shows that the Qur'an is a historical record of what Muhammed (saw) recited!

Gilchrist basically says the same thing too.

http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/debate-divine-origins-authority-and.html.

Maybe could help explain better the Christian objection. I mean after all Uthman burned all the 'original manuscripts' of the Qur'an right? So why are there all these variants floating around? Why couldn't he stop them?

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

I find it a bit disconcerting that you give more weight to the opinions of non-specialists like Bill Webster, David King and James White over recognized scholars like J.N.D. Kelly, Jaroslav Pelikan, Anthony Lane, et al., when dealing with patristics. To be brutally blunt, it reminds me a lot of the Watchtower's methodology. Anyway, even though you may think Kelly is 'all wet', I would like to provide a quote from his pen:

==On the other hand, the ancient idea that the Church alone, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action and general witness, possesses the indispensable key to Scripture, continued to operate as powerfully as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian. Clement, for example, blamed the mistakes of heretics on their habit of 'resisting the divine tradition', [Strom. 7.16.103] by which he meant their incorrect interpretation of Scripture; the true interpretation, he believed, was an apostolic ecclesiastical inheritance. Athanasius himself, after dwelling on the entire adequacy of Scripture, went on to emphasize the desirability of having sound teachers to expound it. Against the Arians he flung the charge that they would never have made shipwreck of the faith had they held fast as a sheet-anchor to the σκπός εκκλησιαστικός, [C. Ar. 3.58] meaning by that the Church's peculiar and traditionally handed down grasp of the purport of revelation. Hilary insisted that only those who accept the Church's teaching can comprehend what the Bible is getting at. According to Augustine, its doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by 'the rule of faith'; it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyes guaranteed its veracity [C. ep. Manich. 6; cf. de doct. christ. 2.12] .

It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness. (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 1960 ed., pp. 47, 48.)==


Grace and peace,

David

Nick said...

Ken,

Two comments:

(1) The structure of 1 Tim 5:18 need not mean both quotes are Scripture. It could mean that, and nobody denies it, but it's not absolute. Calvin's comments and logic are quite fair:
"He does not quote this as a passage of Scripture, but as a proverbial saying, which common sense teaches to all. In like manner, when Christ said the same thing to the Apostles, (Matthew 10:10,) he brought forward nothing else than a statement approved by universal consent."
And ATRobertson points out that this also depends on when Luke was written, because if it was written after, then obviously Paul couldn't have been quoting it; if before, it's probable that he was.

The real lesson here is really being missed: It's not ultimately whether Luke is being quoted, but the fact that identifying the NT by looking within Scripture is not an easy task at all, and in fact materially impossible.


(2) Ken said: "Also, "graphe" without the definite article in 2 Tim. 3:16 points to the quality of being Scripture, not a specific body (the OT books or NT books written up to that time) The lack of article for graphe (scripture) shows he is saying that "all that has the quality of (holy, v. 15) Scipture is God-breathed, and this includes the OT, and all NT books written up to that time, and whatever books are yet to be written, because of Jesus' promise in John chapter 14 and 16 to lead them into all the truth."

This is quite fair but utterly fatal to your thesis. If Paul is speaking of **quality and not body** in 2 Tim 3:16, then he cannot be ascribing sufficiency to it, lest he make every jot and tittle sufficient.

In other words, it's invalid to say "Scripture in general is sufficient," just as it's invalid to say "alphabet in general is sufficient." How can an *indefinite* body of writings be sufficient? Thus, irregardless of what else was Scripture, Paul's point in 2 Tim 3:16 (as you admit) is *quality* not *body*.

So you've actually refuted your own thesis without realizing it.

Ken said...

David Waltz quoting J.N.D. Kelly:

"==On the other hand, the ancient idea that the Church alone, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action and general witness, possesses the indispensable key to Scripture, continued to operate as powerfully as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
. . . "

I have that book; yes, I understand.

There is nothing in this statement of J. N. D. Kelly's that is necessarily against Sola Scriptura or Protestant principles. We agree with the rule of faith, according to the examples I have seen from Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, and Athanasius (the faith, the tradition), they are all standard Trinitarian doctrinal statements and no Roman Catholic particular doctrine is spoken of in the rule of faith in the early centuries. No Marian dogmas, Papal dogmas, no Marian practices, nothing about indulgences or purgatory or denial of justification by faith alone in the "rule of faith" of the earliest centuries.


the true interpretation,

Athanasius himself, after dwelling on the entire adequacy of Scripture, went on to emphasize the desirability of having sound teachers to expound it.

yes, no problem; I agree. We need good teachers who know Greek, Hebrew, sound theology, and church history; evangelism and missions; holiness, character (I Tim. 3) yes. Athanasius is one of my favorites of the early church fathers.

According to Augustine, its doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by 'the rule of faith';

yes, the "rule of faith" was the Trinitarian doctrinal summaries like the Apostles creed; Nicean-Constantinopolitarian Creed; Chalcedon; Athanasian Creed - it was after that the the church added things into the creeds, dogmas, things that may have started earlier as small things, but grew bigger as time went on.

it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyes guaranteed its veracity [C. ep. Manich. 6; cf. de doct. christ. 2.12] .

He meant one could not get the gospel in a vaccum, all alone in the dessert; "me and my bible in the woods" kind of idea. The church preached the gospel to him, he went to Ambrose, that is the way it is supposed to be.

Yes, the church is God's instrument on earth to preach and teach the gospel; but the church of Athanasius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church today. The "Catholic Church" of the first 500 years is different than the "Roman Catholic Church" of Florence/Trent/Vatican I/ Vatican 2, etc. It changed into something different.

Ken said...

Nick,
Luke had to have been written about 60 or 61, because we know from Acts that it was written later in 62 AD, because of the internal details and abrupt ending. If it was written later, it would not make sense that Luke would leave out Paul's release and subsequent travels and writing 1 Tim. Titus, and 2 Tim. around 64-67.

So, I still disagree and think he is quoting Luke 10:7 as Scripture.

You second point; - well, I am glad you think it is quite fair - I think that graphe wihout the article is key to including future books. As for your point about an "indefinite body of writings" - how can they be sufficient? That is an argument that, it seems to me, fails to see that the principle of Sola Scriptura; that it is a theological principle derived from all the relevant verses, not just one verse alone. I don't think it defeates anything, in the same way that when Jesus kept challenging the Pharisees and Saducees with "it is written" and "what does the Scripture say", etc. and quoting verses to fight the devil's temptation - Matthew 4, Luke 4 - these are Sola Scriptura kind of actions; but the formal doctrine could not be realized until all the books were written, and it was not formally articulated in all its fullness until Luther and Calvin; although the quotes from Athanasius and some others from Gregory of Nyssa and Basil come very close to communicating Sola Scriptura.

Thanks for your interaction, Nick.

Ken said...

David wrote:
To be brutally blunt, it reminds me a lot of the Watchtower's methodology.

As Donkey said to Shrek, "You cut me deep, Shrek!"

Ken said...

David,
Thanks for your opinions -

Except for some minor points and nuances, I sincerely don't think anything I've written necessarily goes against J.N.D. Kelly, or Tony Lane (both protestants); Kelly has passed away in 1997. Anthony Lane is still alive. I am currently using one of Lane’s books, to teach Iranians church history – it has been translated into Farsi.(someone else translated it. (Exploring Christian Thought, Thomas Nelson, 1984.)

تاریخ تفکر مسیحی

My understanding is that Jaroslav Pelikan was Lutheran most of his life, and certainly a respectful scholar; but he did became Eastern Orthodox, in 1998, eight years before he passed away in 2006.

Ken said...

"and it shows that their are more variants than just the "7 Ahrafs"

I meant the other missing stuff from the Qur'an, that the Hadith, Al Bukhari, and Al Muslim and others talk about - the missing parts, goat eating a piece, stoning, adult breastfeeding, etc.

I was not saying there are more "Ahraf"s than 7.


I see you want to get clear away from that topic now.

Not at all; I am still talking to David and Nick about Sola Scriptura and implications in historical theology and church history.

Do tell I pray thee what is the earliest manuscript you have of Matthew 28 that has the phrase?

Good question. I honestly don't know.

I have been trying to find the answer to that question at the websites below.

You could ask these guys at this web-site who are experts in the details of the different manuscripts; they even list many of them.

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/

Be sure to scroll down the right side and you can lots of individual articles on many specific manuscripts and articles on things like reviews of Bart Ehrman's book, etc.

Dan Wallace is very good also - he is devoting his life to collecting and cataloging all of the available manuscripts so that dummies like me can have an answer to your questions like this.

I wish I had had Dan Wallace and Dr. White in seminary for the classes when we touched on these issues.

http://www.csntm.org/

Listing of many of Papyri
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/NTPapyri.htm

Hope that helps.
Everything is out in the open in Christian scholarship.

However, I am not smart enough in a lot of this stuff, I will confess.

And we did not have the stuff like this when I was in Seminary - didn't have the internet and everything was not accessible for average student to look at and study. We had to depend on the experts. Unfortunately, a lot of the experts are liberals and also lacking comepletely in faith at all. They don't believe God can do miracles or give predictive prophesy or even that he exists, but they start with their anti-supernatural presupposition as they approach the text. True that Ehrman didn't start there in his career; but it seems he is angry with God because of his other book on suffering, which he really lashes out at God and His sovereignty in allowing pain and suffering.

Liberals/atheists/agnostics/skeptics like the late Robert Funk (co founder of the Jesus Seminar and very angry man. (who got so angry at Dr. White he hung up on him in the late 80s (I think) during a radio interview); Robert Price, Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, etc. (Jesus Seminar types) - the guys that Muslims love to quote. (smile)

Ken said...

He meant one could not get the gospel in a vaccum, all alone in the dessert; "me and my bible in the woods" kind of idea.

The church preached the gospel to him, he went to Ambrose, that is the way it is supposed to be.

I should add that the church is to send out evangelists and missionaries, who represent their church and seek to make disciples and raise up elders for the new group of believers. Acts 14:21-23

Augustine, after the famous line "our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You"; his Confessions, talks about Romans 10:13-15 - how shall they hear without a preacher?

So, when Augustine says he knows the gospel because of the church, he is not talking about some Roman Catholic thing against Protestant doctrines, he is talking about the Biblical truth that church is important and evangelism and discipleship seeks to incorporate new believers into the church and plant new churches in new unreached cultures.

Ken said...

http://www.kchanson.com/papyri.html#NTP

GV19 - here is another site I found on Greek manuscripts and Papyri.
I wish we had had this when I was in seminary. Fascinating!

Ken said...

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/ManuscriptsPapyri.html

here is a site that gives you lots of information on some of the Papyri. P45 is the one that that Video mentions. ( I think Conybeare mentions it.)

The point is, when there are so many new fragments from 120 AD (P52, John Rylands fragment of John 18), 150, 200, 250, etc. found all the time in the desert (and other places) over and over, and they agree with the Codices (whole books - Codex Siniaticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus; Codes Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Bezae, etc.) [codex means book form rather than scrolls; many people believe the Christians invented the codex, which became basis for modern book forms today (with binding). that we have from Fourth Century (300s AD) and beyond, there is no reason to doubt the parts that have yet to have been found in the desert, when so many different streams in different areas agree - Europe, Egypt, Byzantine/Constantinople/Asia Minor

Remember, for the first 312 years the Christians were persecuted, fed to lions, and their scriptures were burned many times. They were called "traditors" (those that hand over the Scriptures to the Roman authorities).

P45

Location/Catalog Number

Dublin, Chester Beatty Library, P. Chester Beatty I; Vienna, Austrian National Library, Pap. Vindob. G. 31974 (one leaf, containing Matt. 25:41-26:39)

Contents

P45 is surely in the worst condition of any of the substantial Biblical papyri. Even the surviving leaves (a small fraction of the original contents, estimated at 30 of 220 original leaves) are damaged; the most substantial pages are perhaps 80-90% complete, but many others are just small fragments. There are relatively few complete lines; many of the surviving leaves represent only about 20% of the width of the original manuscript. Therefore any list of verses included in the manuscript will make it seem more substantial than it really is; very many of these verses survive only in part (often very small part).

With that said, the verses represented at least partly in P45 are: Matt. 20:24-32, 21:13-19, 25:41-26:39 [this is what the Prophesy channel was focusing on at one point, one manuscript!]; Mark 4:36-40, 5:15-26, 5:38-6:3, 6:16-25, 36-50, 7:3-15, 7:25-8:1, 8:10-26, 8:34-9:8, 9:18-31, 11:27-12:1, 12:5-8, 13-19, 24-28; Luke 6:31-41, 6:45-7:7, 9:26-41, 9:45-10:1, 10:6-22, 10:26-11:1, 11:6-25, 28-46, 11:50-12:12, 12:18-37, 12:42-13:1, 13:6-24, 13:29-14:10, 14:17-33; John 4:51, 54, 5:21, 24, 10:7-25, 10:31-11:10, 11:18-36, 43-57; Acts 4:27-36, 5:10-20, 30-39, 6:7-7:2, 7:10-21, 32-41, 7:52-8:1, 8:14-25, 8:34-9:6, 9:16-27, 9:35-10:2, 10:10-23, 31-41, 11:2-14, 11:24-12:5, 12:13-22, 13:6-16, 25-36, 13:46-14:3, 14:15-23, 15:2-7, 19-26, 15:38-16:4, 16:15-21, 16:32-40, 17:9-17.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Finally back from a trip into the "big" city (Astoria - pop. 11,000 [grin]). You posted:
>>Donkey said to Shrek, "You cut me deep, Shrek!">>

Me: The JW writers of the WT when quoting the CFs to support a position they are attempting to defend ignore any contrary evidence from the Fathers they quote. I find many Reformed folk exercising the same method concerning sola scriptura and and subordinationism in the CFs. You are able to make the claim that the early CFs taught SS only by ignoring aspects of their writings that no post-Reformation adherent of SS would embrace. Two examples: first, the early CFs believed that the regula fidei was infallible; and second, they believed that the Scriptures could only be properly understood by those who embraced the regula fidei (or as Athanasius put it, via the σκπός εκκλησιαστικός).That is why patristic scholars like Hanson, Kelly, Lane, Pelikan, Schaff, Williams et al. state that the early CFs did not adhere to SS (in the post-Reformation sense).

See the quotes I provided in this thread:

Scripture and Tradition...

So, my reference to WT methodology pertains ONLY to your understanding of the CFs, and certainly not in any broad theological and/or ecclesiastical sense.

By the way, picked up a new Reformed sys theo on the Trinity today. Hope to provide some comments on the book after I have read it.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

σκπός εκκλησιαστικός

scope of ecclesiastical or "ecclesiastical scope"

Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians 3:58

And He let His own body suffer, for therefore did He come, as I said before, that in the flesh He might suffer, and thenceforth the flesh might be made impassible and immortal and that, as we have many times said, contumely and other troubles might determine upon Him and come short of others after Him, being by Him annulled utterly; and that henceforth men might for ever abide. Had Christ’s enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognised the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith, nor been so shameless as to resist those who would fain recover them from their fall, and to deem those as enemies who are admonishing them to be religious.

Does he mean "the scope that the church authoritatively says about anything" ? "extended into the future so that whatever the church says goes?"

or

does he mean the "scope of the two nature's of Jesus all through Scripture" ??


Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, 3:28-29

" Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this,-it contains a double account of the Savior; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God, and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, `Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me.' But lest I should exceed in writing, by bringing together all the passages on the subject, let it suffice to mention as a specimen, first John saying, `In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was made not one thing;' next, `And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of one Only-begotten from the Fathers;' and next Paul writing, `Who being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion like a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross.' Any one, beginning with these passages and going through the whole of the Scripture upon the interpretation which they suggest, will perceive how in the beginning the Father said to Him, `Let there be light,' and `Let there be a firmament,' and `Let us make man;' but in fullness of the ages, He sent Him into the world, not that He might judge the world, but that the world by Him might be saved, and how it is written `Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us.'"

Seems to me more the second meaning; in context against the Arians in both passages about Christ have 2 natures.

Michael Gormley said...

Some Protestants have the notion that Catholics do not “believe” in the Bible, so they bring up Second Timothy 3:15-16 to support their belief of Sola Scriptura:"... from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness."

Certainly Catholics believe in the Bible (Catholics put together the Bible!) but this verse does not really support the belief of Sola Scriptura; it does not say that scripture alone is an adequate guide to the faith For that matter, the whole Bible does not say that we should believe in the Bible alone, nor does it say which books are inspired by God. This is only one hole in the belief of Sola Scriptura; there are many more.

David Waltz said...

Hi Michael,

Thanks much for taking the time to comment. There is much truth to what you have said. Back in one of my comments on October 21st, I wrote the following:

==>>Lost in Translation again, Dave? :) >>

Me: There is certainly a dose of truth to this, and is but one of the reasons why I look to the Hebrew/Aramaic OT over the LXX.

I would also add that not only are translations fallible, but also the collection of books accepted as canonical (at least in the Protestant tradition) is fallible. R.C. Spoul, in his "Hath God Said?" lecture series stated that the Protestant canon is a "fallible collection of infallible books" (tape TH 11.23/24 side A "Inspiration and the Canon of Scripture"; see also page 58 of the study guide). [The inherent difficulties with such a view would need another thread to adequately address.]

And there is also the question of textual variants; the method/process by which one chooses a particular variant over others is without question also fallible.==

Despite numerous attempts by Protestant apologists to establish their canon of 66 books, the issue, if one is being honest, is far being settled. At least some Protestants (such as Sproul) are willing to admit such.

A question for you: do you hold to the material sufficiency of Scripture?


Grace and peace,

David

Michael Gormley said...

Is Half of The Story Sufficient For Salvation?

How many sides are there to a story? If you say two, then you are wrong. If you had one side and I had one side that would make two sides. However, there is a third side, the side of truth.

Rule # 1... One half of truth does not a truth make. Neither does one half of a story make the full story.

No intelligent person can hear one side of a story and decide which side has the truth.

Both sides have to be heard, then analysed, and then a decision has to be made as to which side (if either) has a valid story, and after that, the right side(s), or truth side, can be determined.

This thinking holds true for discerning what Holy Scripture tells us.

Throughout the Bible there are double standards, yet the fundamentalist thinking shows only one standard, or one side of the story, or only one half of the truth.

Their thinking is in violation of rule # 1. With only one half of truth, you do not have truth. Anything less than the whole truth is error.

In the following example, side 'A' is the first side, side 'B' is the second, and side 'C' is the right, or truth side.

Sola Scriptura... Only the Bible.

Fundamentalist thinking is that the Bible is sufficient and nothing else is needed for salvation. First of all, in order to believe in the 'Bible Only' philosophy, you have to show that Scripture says it. Is that not true? The doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura' is not to be found in Scripture.

A. Tradition is condemned in many places in Scripture, such as Job 22:15, Mt 15:6, Mk 7:3-13, Gal 1:14, Col 2:8, 1Tim 1:4, Tit 1:14, and 1Pet 1:18. Look at these verses and grasp their meaning. They all address 'vain' human traditions and are rightly condemned. This is one half of the truth.

B. Tradition is supported in more places in Scripture than it is condemned. Study Isa 59:21, Lk 1:2, 2:19,51, Lk 10:16, 2Thes 2:14-15 - "Stand firm and hold the traditions you have learned..", 2Tim 1:13,2:2, 1Pet 1:25, 1Jn 1:1,2:24, 2Jn 1:12, Rev 12:17,19:10.

These are different traditions than mentioned in 'A'. These are the Traditions of GOD, or 'Apostolic' Tradition. Again, this is only half of the truth.

C. The truth is, yes, we do condemn the vain tradition of men, as shown in 'A', and we must keep the Tradition of GOD, as shown in 'B'.

Thus we have half the truth in 'A', and the other half in 'B', and combined we have the full truth. The false doctrine of Sola Scriptura adds A and B together and puts the total in A, rejecting all of tradition. A+B=C.