Well, I didn't raise the subject of baptism, anyway.Well this thread is not for discussing baptism issues. But here we see how a less weighty matter may be disagreed upon by sincere believers.
C H Spurgeon had an overwhelming track record of faithfully preaching the Word in a clear and immediate manner, rather than of using eloquence to twist and deceive.Speaking of silver tongues how about C.H. Spurgeon? In certain circles he has been labeled the "prince of preachers" and for good reasons.
C H Spurgeon had an overwhelming track record of faithfully preaching the Word in a clear and immediate manner, rather than of using eloquence to twist and deceive.
Personally I think that people such as Melanchthon and some of the later Puritan and Reformed writers were rather unwise in their way of wanting to follow the style of writing of Aquinas and the Medieval Scholastics: they tried to put together a comprehensive, closed system of appealing logic. Discerning the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus from Scripture - for which there is overwhelming scope for profitable study and encouragement - doesn't work by such Medieval logical methods.Eloquence is a good thing. But when it is used in the place of logic and exegesis to lead people away from the Lord it is a very bad thing! No one here is accusing Spurgeon of that.
Personally I think that people such as Melanchthon and some of the later Puritan and Reformed writers were rather unwise in their way of wanting to follow the style of writing of Aquinas and the Medieval Scholastics: they tried to put together a comprehensive, closed system of appealing logic. Discerning the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus from Scripture - for which there is overwhelming scope for profitable study and encouragement - doesn't work by such Medieval logical methods.
Not Calvin himself but some of the later Calvinists; Turretin comes to mind; I don't necessarily have a problem with the overall view of the Synod of Dort, but the whole style of logical propositions in the style of Medieval Scholasticism is not food for the soul, in my humble opinion.I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Which Reformed authors do you think were using Medieval logical methods?
Great example. He was a champion (IMO) at drawing different 'senses' from a particular text. He not only drew out the obvious meaning from verses, but he would often times bring out points which were quite unconventional. Alongside the literal and obvios meaning of a verse, he often saw a figurative or allegorical sense in many parts of the Bible too. For instance, his commentary on Song of Solomon did not emphasize a literal interpretation of romance between two lovers, but he drew out of it an allegory of the relationship between Christ and His church. I believe he was right to recognize manifold purposes for different texts. Some people 'accuse' Spurgeon of preaching the right sermon from the wrong text, but I think they may be missing this important principle of interpretation and application.Speaking of silver tongues how about C.H. Spurgeon? In certain circles he has been labeled the "prince of preachers" and for good reasons.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Which Reformed authors do you think were using Medieval logical methods?
Not Calvin himself but some of the later Calvinists; Turretin comes to mind; I don't necessarily have a problem with the overall view of the Synod of Dort, but the whole style of logical propositions in the style of Medieval Scholasticism is not food for the soul, in my humble opinion.
One does not doubt their Godliness. In terms of effective ways of communicating the Word, I do struggle with the idea of presenting logical propositions over and over, as not a few of them do.I am curious too, from everything I have read from the Puritans, their devotion to Christ and Scripture seems clear and pure as mountain streams.
I have not personally read Turretin so I'll have to take your word for it.
One does not doubt their Godliness. In terms of effective ways of communicating the Word, I do struggle with the idea of presenting logical propositions over and over, as not a few of them do.
Up to a point, yes. What we need to remember is that logical processes - however ingenious seeming- can go astray.That's understandable, what boggles my mind is the amount of truth they were able to communicate in so few words, and yet the massive amount of words they communicated in writing. I also appreciate the time they took to present arguments and respond to counter arguments, the thought put into them, and relevance in all ages.
Since I believe that logic is governed by laws and is typically not very flexible, I don't think there's much wiggle room. It's certainly possible to use bad logic and commit logical fallacies to wrongly arrive at what one supposes the Bible implies. This is the essence of false teaching. It can easily be shown to be incorrect by exposing the logical and exegetical flaws:
All false teaching suffers from one or both of these flaws.
- Exegetical flaw - They got something wrong about what the text plainly says.
- Logical flaw - They committed a logical fallacy in getting to what they think the Bible implies.
Up to a point, yes. What we need to remember is that logical processes - however ingenious seeming- can go astray.
Then why are there some Christian denominations that don't see the Trinity in Scripture? Why are there Christian denominations that think those of us who believe the Trinity believe in three Gods, not one?Thesis: What the Bible implies, the Bible teaches.
Roman Catholics claim that Scripture alone is not sufficient in order to formulate doctrine. The examples they will provide for this are the very famous and ecumenical doctrines of:
These doctrines are incredibly important. They are so important, that one cannot be considered a Christian if they deny these doctrines. But we must admit that explicit formulations of these doctrines are not found in Scripture. And their technical terminology (Trinity, Hypostatic Union) is not found in Scripture either.
- The Trinity
- The Hypostatic Union (Two Natures of Christ)
"Aha!" say the Catholics. "Sola Scriptura cannot be correct! Scripture does not explicitly teach these doctrines, yet they are necessary for orthodoxy." The Catholic position on this matter is that the Magisterium and Tradition of the Church is necessary in order for these doctrines to be established. They cannot stand on Scripture alone, say the Catholics. The authoritative teaching of the church is also required in order to establish these doctrines.
The problem with this view is that it is hogwarsh in the highest degree.
While these doctrines are not explicitly taught in Scripture, they are certainly implied by Scripture. Take the Trinity as an example. The Bible explicitly teaches:
So while the Bible does not say "Trinity", nor does it use the technical language of the Nicene Creed, it certainly says enough to imply the formulations of the Trinity. So the Trinity is certainly able to stand on Scripture alone because what the Bible implies, the Bible teaches.
- There is one God
- Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God
- These three persons are distinct
It actually is. Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium provide context for Scripture. Without Tradition and Magisterium providing context, we wouldn't know what passages mean, such as John 6.Example of this Principle in Scripture
How do we know that "what the Bible implies, the Bible teaches"? We know this because the Bible says so. Take a look at how Jesus used the Bible for teaching:
Luke 6:1-5 - On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” 3 And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” 5 And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
In response to the Pharisees' challenge that Jesus was violating the Sabbath, he did not quote Scripture about the Sabbath. Rather, he reminded them of a story about David eating sacred bread. This story does not explicitly say that preserving human life is more important than following rituals. But the story certainly implies that this is the case. Jesus was able to start with Scripture, use logic, and reach logical inferences and deductions about what Scripture teaches.
So it's not just what Scripture explicitly says which is authoritative. What the Bible implies is also equally authoritative.
Therefore Sola Scriptura is unaffected by this Catholic criticism.
I love Spurgeon's Morning and Evening; but I would also ask: Why should the style of Medieval Scholastics be regarded somehow as a norm for declaring God's Word, rather than by directly appealing to Scripture?True, and also any meaningful communication is impossible without logical processes. It's the combination of logical processes and eloquence that stirs up a logical fire in the soul, logic on fire as it were. For example, reading a devotional like Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening" involves both and reasoning and soul stirring emotion, and written in such a way as to be memorable. All good.
There is overwhelming evidence for Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Scripture. The "church" does not stand above Scripture in order supposedly to read things into it.Then why are there some Christian denominations that don't see the Trinity in Scripture? Why are there Christian denominations that think those of us who believe the Trinity believe in three Gods, not one?
Also, why was there necessarily a Church Council to discuss the two natures of Christ and to nail down the doctrine, and what the Trinity means?
It actually is. Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium provide context for Scripture. Without Tradition and Magisterium providing context, we wouldn't know what passages mean, such as John 6.
Personally, when someone invites me to a feast (Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium, three legs of one stool), I don't say, no thanks, I'll just have a glass of water (Scripture). I study the entire thing.
I love Spurgeon's Morning and Evening; but I would also ask: Why should the style of Medieval Scholastics be regarded somehow as a norm for declaring God's Word, rather than by directly appealing to Scripture?
Take the Trinity as an example. The Bible explicitly teaches:
So while the Bible does not say "Trinity", nor does it use the technical language of the Nicene Creed, it certainly says enough to imply the formulations of the Trinity. So the Trinity is certainly able to stand on Scripture alone because what the Bible implies, the Bible teaches.
- There is one God
- Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God
- These three persons are distinct
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?