Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Is it YEC or Mormonism?

Expand Messages
  • Mark
    ... enough ... *** Why do you have a problem with sticking to what Jesus and his Apostles actually taught? Only someone who does have a problem with the Bible
    Message 1 of 27 , Aug 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge
      <doldridg@s...> wrote:
      > On 28 Jul 2005 at 16:00, Danny Faulkner wrote:
      >
      > > Again, please identify my heresy/heresies. You've scratched me
      enough
      > > to be able to indentify it/them.
      >
      > Where do you stand on sola scriptura?
      >
      > (He asked, cutting at the root of the tree).


      *** Why do you have a problem with sticking to what Jesus and his
      Apostles actually taught? Only someone who does have a problem with
      the Bible would ask the question you've asked here.


      Mark
    • Mark
      ... that the ... teachings and ... *** You are either ignorant or lying in saying this. I suspect a little of both. Here is why... The first point is Matthew
      Message 2 of 27 , Aug 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge
        <doldridg@s...> wrote:
        > On 30 Jul 2005 at 10:49, Danny Faulkner wrote:
        >
        > > Dave, as a Protestant, I do believe in sola scriptura. I think
        that the
        > > RCC veered off this path early, eventually equating the
        teachings and
        > > traditions of the RCC church as the sole authority. The
        >
        > Then, by my definition, you are definitely a heretic, since no
        > ecumentical council EVER has actually endorsed this doctrine, and
        > since this doctrine is not found IN scripture (could not be, in
        > any case, since scripture is not self-defining).



        *** You are either ignorant or lying in saying this. I suspect a
        little of both. Here is why...


        The first point is Matthew 4:1-11. Three times Jesus was tempted by
        the Devil and each time Jesus replied the same way. Jesus rebuked
        the Devil saying " It is Written". If anyone could have used an oral
        tradition, it was Jesus. Yet he rebuked the Devil from the written
        word of God. If it was a good enough avenue for Jesus, why not us?
        If he felt that the written word was sufficient to rebuke the Devil,
        why shouldn't we?

        Luke 1:1-4 " Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in
        order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed
        among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
        beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed
        good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from
        the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent
        Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
        wherein thou hast been instructed. "

        Notice that the purpose of Luke's gospel is to give the reader a
        perfect understanding of all things. How can Luke say that we can
        understand all things based upon his writings if there was and is an
        Oral Tradition necessary for truth?

        Luke 10:25-26 " And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted
        him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He
        said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? "

        Jesus was asked a specific question about salvation and notice that
        he answered it by referring to the scriptures. If it was a good
        enough avenue for Jesus, why not us? If he felt that the written
        word was sufficient, why shouldn't we?

        Acts 17:11-12 " These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in
        that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched
        the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many
        of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of
        men, not a few. "

        Notice that Paul called the Bereans 'noble' for checking what he
        told then against the scriptures. If it was a good enough avenue for
        Paul, why not us? If he felt that the written word was sufficient,
        why shouldn't we? If he didn't mind being checked against the
        written word for accuracy, why then would we want or need an Oral
        Tradition? It is also interesting to note that the only time Jesus
        ever mentioned an Oral Tradition was in rebuking said Oral Tradition
        for corrupting the written word of God.

        1 Corinthians 4:6 " And these things, brethren, I have in a figure
        transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might
        learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no
        one of you be puffed up for one against another. "

        Notice that Paul warns the Corinthians not to exceed that which was
        written. How can he say this if there was and is an Oral Tradition
        necessary for truth?

        2 Timothy 3:16-17 " All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
        and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
        instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect,
        thoroughly furnished unto all good works. "

        Notice that Paul reminds Timothy of his knowledge of the Scriptures.
        Notice also that Paul states that the Scriptures "are able to make
        thee wise unto salvation". Finally, notice that Paul says that
        Scripture is sufficient to " make the man of God perfect, thoroughly
        furnished unto all good works." If scripture can make us wise unto
        salvation and make us perfect , then by definition there is nothing
        from anywhere else that is needed for salvation than what is written.

        Interestingly enough there is a historical precedent for using the
        written word as the Supreme Arbiter of the Christian Faith.

        Irenaeus:
        "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
        from those through whom the gospel is come down to us, which they
        did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the
        will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground
        and pillar of our faith." [Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1,
        Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 3.1.1, P. 414]

        Cyril of Jeruselum:
        "This seal have thou ever on they mind; which now by way of summary
        has been touched on its heads, and if the Lord grat, shall hereafter
        be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For
        concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought
        not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy
        Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the
        artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee
        these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof
        of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is
        not by ingenious reasonings but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."
        [The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril, Lecture 4.17; A Library of
        the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford, Parker, 1845]

        St. Jerome:
        "As we accept those things that are written, so we reject those
        things that are not written (in Scripture)" (Adv. Helvid).

        "These things which they invent, as if by Apostolic tradition,
        without the authority of Scripture, the sword of God smites." (In
        Aggari Proph. Cap. I, II).

        St. Chrysostom:
        "All things are plain and simple in the Holy Scriptures;
        all things are evident." (2 Thessalonians, Homily III, Volume xi,
        528)







        God is an evolutionist.



        *** This is only true if God is also a liar.


        Mark
      • Dave Oldridge
        ... think ... no ... and ... in ... a ... When we fully understand WHAT is written, to WHOM it was written and WHY it was written, that is fine. When we start
        Message 3 of 27 , Aug 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On 1 Aug 2005 at 18:23, Mark wrote:

          > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge
          > <doldridg@s...> wrote:
          > > On 30 Jul 2005 at 10:49, Danny Faulkner wrote:
          > >
          > > > Dave, as a Protestant, I do believe in sola scriptura. I
          think
          > that the
          > > > RCC veered off this path early, eventually equating the
          > teachings and
          > > > traditions of the RCC church as the sole authority. The
          > >
          > > Then, by my definition, you are definitely a heretic, since
          no
          > > ecumentical council EVER has actually endorsed this doctrine,
          and
          > > since this doctrine is not found IN scripture (could not be,
          in
          > > any case, since scripture is not self-defining).
          >
          >
          >
          > *** You are either ignorant or lying in saying this. I suspect
          a
          > little of both. Here is why...
          >
          >
          > The first point is Matthew 4:1-11. Three times Jesus was
          > tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied the same way.
          > Jesus rebuked the Devil saying " It is Written". If anyone
          > could have used an oral tradition, it was Jesus. Yet he
          > rebuked the Devil from the written word of God. If it was a
          > good enough avenue for Jesus, why not us? If he felt that the
          > written word was sufficient to rebuke the Devil, why shouldn't
          > we?

          When we fully understand WHAT is written, to WHOM it was written
          and WHY it was written, that is fine. When we start to take
          ancient writings, speculate about reality on the basis of those
          and then take to task those who, instead, inspect the actual
          creation that God made and whose conclusions ared different, then
          I have to draw a line somewhere.

          >
          > Luke 1:1-4 " Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth
          > in order a declaration of those things which are most surely
          > believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which
          > from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the
          > word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect
          > understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto
          > thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest
          > know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been
          > instructed. "
          >
          > Notice that the purpose of Luke's gospel is to give the reader
          > a perfect understanding of all things. How can Luke say that
          > we can understand all things based upon his writings if there
          > was and is an Oral Tradition necessary for truth?

          I think you are in danger here of reifying Luke's hyperbolic
          expression. Luke certainly did not intend his statement to mean
          that his gospel and the book of Acts (which forms the second part
          of this letter) are able to explain everything in nature. It is
          an explanation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ and its place
          in the spiritual history of mankind, not a treatise on sub-atomic
          particles.


          > Luke 10:25-26 " And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and
          > tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit
          > eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law?
          > how readest thou? "
          >
          > Jesus was asked a specific question about salvation and notice
          > that he answered it by referring to the scriptures. If it was a
          > good enough avenue for Jesus, why not us? If he felt that the
          > written word was sufficient, why shouldn't we?

          That's nice. But when you are able to consult, not just the
          writings of inspired men, but the ACTUAL WORK OF THE CREATOR, do
          you not think that you should try to understand the latter in its
          own terms, instead of taking the opinions of men (however
          inspired they may have been spiritualy) over the actual condition
          of the creation itself?

          > Acts 17:11-12 " These were more noble than those in
          > Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all
          > readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether
          > those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of
          > honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. "

          > Notice that Paul called the Bereans 'noble' for checking what
          > he told then against the scriptures. If it was a good enough
          > avenue for Paul, why not us? If he felt that the written word
          > was sufficient, why shouldn't we? If he didn't mind being
          > checked against the written word for accuracy, why then would
          > we want or need an Oral Tradition? It is also interesting to
          > note that the only time Jesus ever mentioned an Oral Tradition
          > was in rebuking said Oral Tradition for corrupting the written
          > word of God.

          Again, yes. Christianity represented a somewhat radical new
          interpretation of the scriptures (Septuagint) and thus required
          of its converts at least some study of these matters. But do not
          think that there was no oral tradition. Paul even mentions one.
          What Jesus rebuked was the literalism of the Pharisees, which was
          corrupting the spirit of the written scripture. Latter-day young-
          earth creationism is guilty of much the same kind of tradition-
          making.

          > 1 Corinthians 4:6 " And these things, brethren, I have in a
          > figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes;
          > that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which
          > is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against
          > another. "

          > Notice that Paul warns the Corinthians not to exceed that
          > which was written. How can he say this if there was and is an
          > Oral Tradition necessary for truth?

          And you totally miss the point here.

          > 2 Timothy 3:16-17 " All scripture is given by inspiration of
          > God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
          > correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of
          > God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
          > "

          > Notice that Paul reminds Timothy of his knowledge of the
          > Scriptures. Notice also that Paul states that the Scriptures
          > "are able to make thee wise unto salvation". Finally, notice
          > that Paul says that Scripture is sufficient to " make the man
          > of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." If
          > scripture can make us wise unto salvation and make us perfect
          > , then by definition there is nothing from anywhere else that
          > is needed for salvation than what is written.

          Nobody is saying anything different from this. What we ARE
          saying is that you cannot have two truths. If scripture is
          interpreted in ways which are flat-out contrary to the observed
          state of God's creation, then the interpretation is in error.

          > Interestingly enough there is a historical precedent for using
          > the written word as the Supreme Arbiter of the Christian
          > Faith.

          > Irenaeus:

          > "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation,
          > than from those through whom the gospel is come down to us,
          > which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later
          > period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the
          > Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
          > [Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1, Irenaeus, "Against Heresies"
          > 3.1.1, P. 414]

          Not an argument for sola scriptura, though.

          > Cyril of Jeruselum: "This seal have thou ever on they mind;
          > which now by way of summary has been touched on its heads, and
          > if the Lord grat, shall hereafter be set forth according to our
          > power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and
          > sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even
          > the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be
          > drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of
          > argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these
          > things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof
          > of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our
          > faith, is not by ingenious reasonings but by proof from the
          > Holy Scriptures." [The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril,
          > Lecture 4.17; A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic
          > Church, Oxford, Parker, 1845]


          >
          > St. Jerome:
          > "As we accept those things that are written, so we reject those
          > things that are not written (in Scripture)" (Adv. Helvid).

          > "These things which they invent, as if by Apostolic tradition,
          > without the authority of Scripture, the sword of God smites."
          (In
          > Aggari Proph. Cap. I, II).
          >
          > St. Chrysostom:
          > "All things are plain and simple in the Holy
          Scriptures;
          > all things are evident." (2 Thessalonians, Homily III, Volume
          xi,
          > 528)
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > God is an evolutionist.
          >
          >
          >
          > *** This is only true if God is also a liar.

          No, if God is a liar, then your quest to understand Him is
          hopeless. And, since evolution is part of creation, it exists
          and God created it.

          So who is the liar? God? Or the men who put their own words in
          His mouth? Genesis tells us that God commanded the sea and the
          earth to bring forth life. Science tells us they did and we call
          the scientists liars for saying it. Or at least YOU want us to.

          --
          God is an evolutionist.

          Dave Oldridge
          ICQ 1800667
          VA7CZ



          --
          No virus found in this outgoing message.
          Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
          Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/2005
        • Dave Oldridge
          ... scratched me ... his ... with ... I have no problem with what Jesus actually tuaght us. I DO have a problem with those who would substitute their private
          Message 4 of 27 , Aug 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On 1 Aug 2005 at 18:18, Mark wrote:

            > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge
            > <doldridg@s...> wrote:
            > > On 28 Jul 2005 at 16:00, Danny Faulkner wrote:
            > >
            > > > Again, please identify my heresy/heresies. You've
            scratched me
            > enough
            > > > to be able to indentify it/them.
            > >
            > > Where do you stand on sola scriptura?
            > >
            > > (He asked, cutting at the root of the tree).
            >
            >
            > *** Why do you have a problem with sticking to what Jesus and
            his
            > Apostles actually taught? Only someone who does have a problem
            with
            > the Bible would ask the question you've asked here.

            I have no problem with what Jesus actually tuaght us. I DO have
            a problem with those who would substitute their private
            interpretation of scripture for those teachings (or who would add
            to those teachings and declare necessary for salvation things
            that they think they have learned from scripture, when in fact,
            they have failed to learn the most fundamental lessons).


            --
            God is an evolutionist.

            Dave Oldridge
            ICQ 1800667
            VA7CZ



            --
            No virus found in this outgoing message.
            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/2005
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.