Scripture + ____ ?

[Carrye]

I asked a question a while ago here about how important history is to a Baptist. I'm curious also as to the use of natural law, revelation within Creation, and such in the Baptist faith.

I've had discussions with my Baptist friend about how reason or logic shows us this or that, or history does, etc., and she minimizes its importance. I guess that's where my question is coming from.

 

[Cright]

I'm not sure what your asking.. but I'll try to answer anyway.


Baptists believe in scripture + tesimony = a good way to witness.
(when we say sola scriptura, it doesn't mean the Bible is the only way to know God, teach about Jesus or come to know him, however, we believe it to be our only infalliable resource)

I'm not entirly sure what the question was aiming for, so if this doesn't cover it, please expand/clairify a little and I'll be more than happy to answer.

Thanks,
Carina

 

[Carrye]

Baptists believe in scripture + tesimony = a good way to witness. (when we say sola scriptura, it doesn't mean the Bible is the only way to know God, teach about Jesus or come to know him, however, we believe it to be our only infalliable resource).

I can see now that my question wasn't very clear, as I struggled intitially when posting it as well, but you hit on part of it here. I know that Baptists are sola scriptura, and think I have a pretty good understanding about what that means for you. What I'm curious about (and what my original question was intended to ask) is what you have in parentheses above - that the Bible isn't the only way to know God, etc. (This isn't a leading question, I promise).

Catholics place importance on history, natural law, revelation within Creation, logic and reason among other things to explain and come to a knowledge of God. We of course have tradition as well, but that is not what I am asking here. And we recognize that history, natural law, and such won't "save" someone, but that they are important and useful elements of life on this earth.

In my experience with my friend who is a Baptist, she seems to deny many of these methods of knowing God. We've had conversations when I've said "well history says this" or "natural law tells us that," and she says "none of that matters because it's not in the Bible." So I'm wondering the extent to which all of this really does matter to a Baptist? Or is that another thing that's open to individual interpretation/personal use?

Another motive for my question, besides understanding my friend, is that it seems to me these are things that all people (even non-Christians) can recognize and understand; in fact, they're often a good place to start when talking with unbelievers. It would seem strange to me if a whole group of believing Christians would deny this ... so I'm just looking for some clarification.

 

[BT]

I can see now that my question wasn't very clear, as I struggled intitially when posting it as well, but you hit on part of it here. I know that Baptists are sola scriptura, and think I have a pretty good understanding about what that means for you. What I'm curious about (and what my original question was intended to ask) is what you have in parentheses above - that the Bible isn't the only way to know God, etc. (This isn't a leading question, I promise).

Catholics place importance on history, natural law, revelation within Creation, logic and reason among other things to explain and come to a knowledge of God. We of course have tradition as well, but that is not what I am asking here. And we recognize that history, natural law, and such won't "save" someone, but that they are important and useful elements of life on this earth.

In my experience with my friend who is a Baptist, she seems to deny many of these methods of knowing God. We've had conversations when I've said "well history says this" or "natural law tells us that," and she says "none of that matters because it's not in the Bible." So I'm wondering the extent to which all of this really does matter to a Baptist? Or is that another thing that's open to individual interpretation/personal use?

Another motive for my question, besides understanding my friend, is that it seems to me these are things that all people (even non-Christians) can recognize and understand; in fact, they're often a good place to start when talking with unbelievers. It would seem strange to me if a whole group of believing Christians would deny this ... so I'm just looking for some clarification.

an excellent question. Baptists do not rely upon natural laws or history or logic outside of the Bible as a way to know God. You can use natural laws as found in creation and perhaps history as a way to know that there is A God. The only way to know THE God is through His revelation of Himself to mankind, the Bible.

 

[BT]

Sorry I missed a part. On the whole we do not use logic. We find that logic leads to error. I am speaking of logic as a system not "common sense" logic. For example one of the greatest errors has been the use of syllogistic logic, which is Aristotelian, in determining the truth of certain doctrinal suppositions. And then defending a theological stand via the syllogism. While the syllogism may be an effective way of understanding human processes it is not capable of explaining scripture. God's Word is so far above human logic that it probably shouldn't be attempted, and (human logic used on the scriptures) is easily disproven.

 

[ChiRho]

The only way to know THE God is through His revelation of Himself to mankind, the Bible.

The only way to know the [true] God, is through His revelation of Himself to mankind....Jesus Christ.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[Carrye]

The only way to know THE God is through His revelation of Himself to mankind, the Bible.

Ok, one more thing to reiterate my question, and make sure I've got this right -I'm not talking salvation here, just knowledge. A person cannot know God as God except through Jesus as revealed in Scripture? Do I have that right?

For example one of the greatest errors has been the use of syllogistic logic, which is Aristotelian, in determining the truth of certain doctrinal suppositions. And then defending a theological stand via the syllogism. While the syllogism may be an effective way of understanding human processes it is not capable of explaining scripture.

I've seen extensive use of the syllogism - my theological training is in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, but I have never seen it used with scripture. Is that common? If so, pardon my bluntness, but that's dumb. Scripture isn't a syllogistic sort of thing. Duh.

 

[BT]

Ok, one more thing to reiterate my question, and make sure I've got this right -I'm not talking salvation here, just knowledge. A person cannot know God as God except through Jesus as revealed in Scripture? Do I have that right?

I would say that you have that right.



I've seen extensive use of the syllogism - my theological training is in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, but I have never seen it used with scripture. Is that common? If so, pardon my bluntness, but that's dumb. Scripture isn't a syllogistic sort of thing. Duh. [/QUOTE]
Syllogisitic logic is used in Roman Catholic Doctrine, also it is the basis for Calvinism.... this was not a set up.. it is just the truth.

 

[Carrye]

Syllogisitic logic is used in Roman Catholic Doctrine, also it is the basis for Calvinism.... this was not a set up.. it is just the truth.

Yes, it's used within Catholic doctrine, which is why I've learned it, but my point was that I've never seen it used when dealing with scripture. The syllogism itself is very useful, but it has it's particular uses, like anything.

 

[BT]

Yes, it's used within Catholic doctrine, which is why I've learned it, but my point was that I've never seen it used when dealing with scripture. The syllogism itself is very useful, but it has it's particular uses, like anything.

I should have put two and two together on that one

 

[Cright]

To a point... we use science.

If you use this defination for the word science: The study of things consistantly repeatable. So if I'm speaking to a non-believer on abortion, I don't have a problem telling them about the periods of gestation and that the nervous system is working by week 3, meaning a brain, nerves and heart are working.
If speaking of creation, all I can explain is my beliefs, the bible that supports it and just let them think about it. You can't use science for it because it's not consistantly repeatable, creation of this earth only happened once.

In one of my church study groups there are a few guys who study science and none of them have found contradictions to the bible if they are using the defination of science listed above.

am I on track now?

God Bless,
Carina

**side note** if you are speaking of carbon dateing and like "forms of science" we use those forms of dateing items assuming that they would have the same/similar amounts of carbon that same/similar items/animals have today. However we don't know if that is the case, so those forms of "science" are not accurate, they are our "best educated guess", but not factual.

 

[BT]

To a point... we use science.

If you use this defination for the word science: The study of things consistantly repeatable. So if I'm speaking to a non-believer on abortion, I don't have a problem telling them about the periods of gestation and that the nervous system is working by week 3, meaning a brain, nerves and heart are working.
If speaking of creation, all I can explain is my beliefs, the bible that supports it and just let them think about it. You can't use science for it because it's not consistantly repeatable, creation of this earth only happened once.

In one of my church study groups there are a few guys who study science and none of them have found contradictions to the bible if they are using the defination of science listed above.

am I on track now?

God Bless,
Carina

**side note** if you are speaking of carbon dateing and like "forms of science" we use those forms of dateing items assuming that they would have the same/similar amounts of carbon that same/similar items/animals have today. However we don't know if that is the case, so those forms of "science" are not accurate, they are our "best educated guess", but not factual.

Hey Carina you and your friends at church should look into Creation Science. It uses the natural laws to prove that the Earth was created around 8000 years ago and that evolution according to natural scientific law is impossible! We get a monthly magazine called "Creation Ex-Nihilio" it's awesome. I use the information in it all the time...

 

[Carrye]

Hey Carina you and your friends at church should look into Creation Science. It uses the natural laws to prove that the Earth was created around 8000 years ago and that evolution according to natural scientific law is impossible! We get a monthly magazine called "Creation Ex-Nihilio" it's awesome. I use the information in it all the time...

I saw a man speak on this at Lifest (a Christian music festival), but I can't for the life of me remember his name.

**side note** if you are speaking of carbon dateing and like "forms of science" we use those forms of dateing items assuming that they would have the same/similar amounts of carbon that same/similar items/animals have today. However we don't know if that is the case, so those forms of "science" are not accurate, they are our "best educated guess", but not factual.

And that view doesn't have anything to do with being a Baptist - carbon dating, in my opinion, just isn't good science, and I was trained as a biologist.

What I wonder though, is why you say that you can use science but not other things. Why not accept truth wherever it can be found?

 

[terry13]

Please note however (and I do not want to turn this into a Creationist vs Science thread) that there are Christians and Baptists who do not accept YEC.

It is not a prerequisite for either.

 

[Carrye]

Please note however (and I do not want to turn this into a Creationist vs Science thread) that there are Christians and Baptists who do not accept YEC.

It is not a prerequisite for either.

Oh, I agree. And you know, there are elements of both that can go together pretty well ... even from a scientific point of view. As for me, I'm content in knowing that God created all.

 

[terry13]

Amen.