Originally posted by Hilston
billwald writes:
The ultras I have met accept Baptist theology on baptism.
That's what happens when one does not do one's own study on matters of doctrine.
billwald writes:
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ"(Gal.1:11,12).
An ambiguous statement. A person who claims to have received an illumination of scripture from the Holy Spirit can honestly make the same claim.
That's just it, billwald. Paul is claiming more than mere "illumination." He received an entirely different gospel, nothing that could be found in the Law, prophets or writings, for it was held in silence from the foundation of the world. In the Arabian desert Paul was tutored by Christ and received the Mystery (Eph 3:3,9), the uncircumcision gospel (Gal 2:7).
billwald writes:
Fundimentalists who make a big deal out of the infallibility of the Bible are making this claim - that every factoid in the Bible was received from Jesus Christ. None of what they learn by reading the Bible is received from man or were they taught it by man.
Exactly. So, because you automatically assume that Paul does not have a good reason to make such a statement, you are forced to question the actual verity of scriptures.
Jim wrote:
"Each and every individual should force themselves to slog through every doctrine of scripture to prove it for themselves."
billwald writes:
You gots to be kidding! 90% of the adults in the pews are not capable of even critically reading the newspaper.
This is a pattern with you billwald. You place more confidence your sociological assessments than you place in God's word. Does it make any sense to reason this way? You are in effect saying God's word is too hard for most people, therefore people should rely on other smarter people to explain it to them. Yet, the same Bible tells us to beware of deceivers. How can these both be true? Either the common man is able to understand and apply the scriptures properly (in which case he is able to detect and avoid deceivers) or he is not (in which case he might be relying on some smarter theologian who also happens to be a deceiver). Did you forget that the apostles were fisherman?
billwald writes:
The best minds that the human race has produced have studied the Bible for 2,000 years and can't agree as to what it "means."
You are a respecter of men, billwald. I have been instructed in the scriptures by Ph.Ds and trash collectors. As a matter of fact, one of our pastors is a Ph.D. and one of them is a trash collector. It doesn't take the "best minds" to discover what scripture means. It take a humble heart and a desire for truth. Notice what your reasoning is suggesting: Because the best minds of the human race has not been able to resolve the meaning of scripture for 2,000 years, we should therefore rely upon the ecumenical creeds in order to attain doctrinal solidarity. Is such a self-refuting claim something you really wish to assert?
Jim wrote:
"Each and every doctrine I espouse I have proven for myself from scripture."
billwald writes:
Most every doctrine you espouse has been rejected by people of equal competance and industry.
Sure, and most of them will probably wind up in hell. Most every doctrine taught anywhere, patristic writings included, has been rejected by people of equal competence and industry. You've completely missed the point. Scripture is sufficient in and of itself, whether or not my resulting doctrine is correct. If asked to defend a doctrine, I can appeal to scripture, which stands on its own authority and attestation. I do not need to appeal to the opinions and reputations of deceitful, self-aggrandizing, partisan, and fallible men. This is the problem with being a theological moderate, billwald. It's an epistemological dilemma that such thinking is incapable to surmount.
Jim
