Biblical Theology forum?

[keltoi]

Because there are various forums for different types of theologies and that Traditional Theology encompasses a wide variety of differing points of view I was hoping there could be a forum created that is strictly for Biblical Theology using only the Bible in the discussions.

 

[Dave-W]

Ah - the protestant myth of sola scriptura. Good luck with that.


It can NEVER be just "using only the Bible..." as YOU bring along baggage; even if it is only your own understanding of word definitions. And if you research what the words meant 2000 years ago - you have just left the realm of "bible only."

 

[keltoi]

Ah - the protestant myth of sola scriptura. Good luck with that.


It can NEVER be just "using only the Bible..." as YOU bring along baggage; even if it is only your own understanding of word definitions. And if you research what the words meant 2000 years ago - you have just left the realm of "bible only."

The same can be applied to other works. I prefer to trust the Bible rather than add the baggage and understanding of 2000 years of human fallibility on top of it. I hope that's ok with you.

 

[dms1972]

Ah - the protestant myth of sola scriptura. Good luck with that.


It can NEVER be just "using only the Bible..." as YOU bring along baggage; even if it is only your own understanding of word definitions. And if you research what the words meant 2000 years ago - you have just left the realm of "bible only."

Why would studying the meaning of words 2000 years ago in the writings that make up our Bible take us outside the realm of Sola Scriptura? Surely those meanings would locate us more firmly in the realm of biblical meaning?

I think it is correct to perform additional study as done for instance in books like Apostolic Preaching of the Cross by Leon Morris where key terms in the Bible are probed in terms of what they meant at the time of writing 2000 years ago in order to give the reader a better grasp of what the Bible means. But one is not departing from Sola Scriptura by studying what the words of the Bible actually meant.

'Sola Scriptura' in any case never meant, 'the Bible only', it came to mean that in Fundamentalism, but for the reformed it meant Scripture illumined by the Holy Spirit was the final authority in the life and doctrine of the Church.

 

[dms1972]

Because there are various forums for different types of theologies and that Traditional Theology encompasses a wide variety of differing points of view I was hoping there could be a forum created that is strictly for Biblical Theology using only the Bible in the discussions.

I think it would help to pull some of the strands together that make up Biblical theology as discussed at times in semi-isolation in forums such as Salvation, Christology etc.

But I don't mean using only the Bible, for that would just be a Scripture a Day forum, I mean having a forum were people who actually have studied theology to some extent can discuss all the aspects of Biblical theology in one place, rather than discussing as mentioned above Christology apart from Soteriology and other aspects of a Theology.

 

[keltoi]

But I don't mean using only the Bible, for that would just be a Scripture a Day forum,

I disagree with this assumption. If it were a topical forum, which most are on CF, then people would need to use the Bible to support or not support the topic being discussed. This would encourage people to learn the Bible and to not just concentrate on a couple of verses out of context or just on the OT or NT.

 

[dms1972]

I don't think you can use only the Bible, for people will be giving their own thoughts also (and these at times may be carnal). Therefore I think Biblical commentary and solid resources in the meaning of Biblical terms would also need to be used in the discussions. But Scripture even with these additional resources would be the final authority.

What do you think?

 

[keltoi]

Of course people would use their own thoughts I don't know of any way that could be stopped. What I do think is people who study the Bible should be able to discuss it without using other resources. As for Scripture being the final authority even when using other resources that doesn't happen in reality. I am seeing people rely on the writings of men who not were not alive during the time of Christ or the Apostles to justify beliefs that are not written in the Bible and ignoring the Bible when it states the opposite.

 

[dms1972]

Of course people would use their own thoughts I don't know of any way that could be stopped. What I do think is people who study the Bible should be able to discuss it without using other resources.

But there is a Christian Scriptures forum already.

I have prayed to find good resources by godly believers. These don't contradict each other in anything important as Truth is one, or make a massive problem out of some minor point or other as happens at times with modernist academics.

I have found in several older commentaries, and a more recent study by Leon Morris of the meaning of biblical terms, resources that to me are reliable and I won't be put off using them in my own personal study. Or quoting from if I comment in a thread. I couldn't and wouldn't press these on others but I see no problem citing them. Everything we know we have been taught by someone or other. Such resources can be used by the Holy Spirit

But really I am not sure what it is you want this new forum to be, or how it would differ from Christian Scriptures Forum? I mentioned a Biblical Theology forum first for the purpose of pulling together forums that discussed things such as Christology and Salvation in semi-isolation, but which were all aspects of a Biblical Theology.

I don't feel however I want to spend much more time here, as some discussions are actually detrimental to spiritual health, and there are those who have had a major depletion in their Faith through reading modernist academics some of whom have a form of godliness while denying its power.

http://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-5.htm

 

[keltoi]

But there is a Christian Scriptures forum already.

That's beside the point.

I have prayed to find good resources by godly believers. These don't contradict each other in anything important as Truth is one, or make a massive problem out of some minor point or other as happens at times with modernist academics.

I really don't get the point of this.

I have found in several older commentaries, and a more recent study by Leon Morris of the meaning of biblical terms, resources that to me are reliable and I won't be put off using them in my own personal study. Or quoting from if I comment in a thread. I couldn't and wouldn't press these on others but I see no problem citing them. Everything we know we have been taught by someone or other. Such resources can be used by the Holy Spirit

I see no problem in citing other things in a forum where those other things are welcome. I do, however, see a problem in citing other things and not scripture. It would be nice to have a place were the Bible is the source that is used and not discussing other things like commentaries or websites or what the local preacher said about this last Sunday. These other things show people can read, surf the net, or listen in a pew, they do not show they can use the Bible.

But really I am not sure what it is you want this new forum to be, or how it would differ from Christian Scriptures Forum? I mentioned a Biblical Theology forum first for the purpose of pulling together forums that discussed things such as Christology and Salvation in semi-isolation, but which were all aspects of a Biblical Theology.

Sola Scriptura is the suggestion which I thought was pretty obvious but obviously it wasn't

I don't feel however I want to spend much more time here, as some discussions are actually detrimental to spiritual health, and there are those who have had a major depletion in their Faith through reading modernist academics some of whom have a form of godliness while denying its power.

You don't have to be a part of any discussion if you don't want to. I made a suggestion, you replied so you joined the discussion of your own volition. I don't understand the point of the rest of your sentence, with regards to depleting faith, as I do not know how using the Bible can deplete faith but rather strengthen it.

http://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-5.htm

Your point here is what exactly?

 

[Dave-W]

Why would studying the meaning of words 2000 years ago in the writings that make up our Bible take us outside the realm of Sola Scriptura?

Because the culture and language are foreign to us in the modern western world, and you have to use resources OTHER than the scriptures to understand that. (like history books)

Surely those meanings would locate us more firmly in the realm of biblical meaning?

I agree. (but I do not hold to Sola Scriptura)

'Sola Scriptura' in any case never meant, 'the Bible only',

That is EXACTLY what it means. The phrase is classical Latin: "Scripture alone." Nothing else, no culture, no language, no definitions. It is not even supposed to include what it means to you or me. (but good luck with that)

 

[dms1972]

Because the culture and language are foreign to us in the modern western world, and you have to use resources OTHER than the scriptures to understand that. (like history books)

Yes.


But I don't really care for definitions (in your comment) that are a reductio to the absurd - when I and others do not reduce it to the absurd.

I think what I said was that taken as a whole the Reformers held a high view of Scripture, but not so high as to leave one without the means of understanding Scripture.

I'm not sola scriptura in the extreme way you define it.

 

[keltoi]

That is EXACTLY what it means. The phrase is classical Latin: "Scripture alone." Nothing else, no culture, no language, no definitions. It is not even supposed to include what it means to you or me. (but good luck with that)

Actually the Bible provide us with a wealth of information about culture, language use, etc.

 

[Dave-W]

Actually the Bible provide us with a wealth of information about culture, language use, etc.

Really? Show me where in scripture it explains HOW the word "pornia" (usually rendered "fornication") was used in the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora communities (as opposed to mainstream Greek society). Since pornia is condemned and forbidden in many places in NT scripture, that is an important point.

 

[keltoi]

Really? Show me where in scripture it explains HOW the word "pornia" (usually rendered "fornication") was used in the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora communities (as opposed to mainstream Greek society). Since pornia is condemned and forbidden in many places in NT scripture, that is an important point.

I said it provide a wealth of information I didn't say it provides everything.

 

[Dave-W]

I said it provide a wealth of information I didn't say it provides everything.

Right. My point exactly. And to understand the rest of that, you need to go to other historical and linguistic sources. That puts you OUT of the realm of sola scriptura.

In another thread, I was talking about the Christian tendency to demonize the Pharisees. If one relies on sola scriptura, that would be understandable. But if you study the history and teachings of the movement and understand there were 2 different schools that trained them (which had big doctrinal differences), you will come away with a very different picture of Our Lord's criticisms of them.

 

[keltoi]

Right. My point exactly. And to understand the rest of that, you need to go to other historical and linguistic sources. That puts you OUT of the realm of sola scriptura.

If all you are interested in in a particuar topic is what is contained in the Bible then the Bible is all you will want to use. Just because you see a need to go and check out historical and linguistics resources doesn't mean others do.

In another thread, I was talking about the Christian tendency to demonize the Pharisees. If one relies on sola scriptura, that would be understandable. But if you study the history and teachings of the movement and understand there were 2 different schools that trained them (which had big doctrinal differences), you will come away with a very different picture of Our Lord's criticisms of them.

This has nothing to do with what I have posted, it has alot to do with what you are posting though because you appear to be demonising the use of nothing other than scriptures in discussions that do not require any other sources.

 

[Dave-W]

If all you are interested in in a particuar topic is what is contained in the Bible then the Bible is all you will want to use. Just because you see a need to go and check out historical and linguistics resources doesn't mean others do.

I disagree. Every topic in the bible has a historical, cultural and linguistic component to it that to the casual reader may not appear on his/her radar screen; but without that, the tendency is to substitute our own modern understanding and linguistic structures. In some cases it may not make a difference; in others it can lead us way off base. But how do you know the difference?

We do as Paul told Timothy: "Study to show yourself approved..." We ignore that command at our own risk.

 

[keltoi]

I disagree. Every topic in the bible has a historical, cultural and linguistic component to it that to the casual reader may not appear on his/her radar screen; but without that, the tendency is to substitute our own modern understanding and linguistic structures. In some cases it may not make a difference; in others it can lead us way off base. But how do you know the difference?

You can disagree, tell me how do you historically analyse Genesis 1?

IWe do as Paul told Timothy: "Study to show yourself approved..." We ignore that command at our own risk.

Yep study the Bible not someone else's oddball interpretation of it.

 

[Dave-W]

tell me how do you historically analyse Genesis 1?

Reading what Jewish sages of the pre-christian era wrote about it.

Yep study the Bible not someone else's oddball interpretation of it.

Studying culture, linguistic and historical understandings is not just "someone else's oddball interpretation."

For an example: I am currently reading George Lamsa's commentary on Matthew. He was raised (pre WW1) in the mountain region between Syria and Turkey and spoke as his native language Aramaic. Linguists confirm that dialect was almost identical to that spoken in the first century, including the idioms and figures of speech. It has made me re-think (even after years of studying other Jewish sources) many of Our Lord's sayings and what He was REALLY trying to say. (how he would have been understood by his initial audience)