I thought we agreed that using Scripture to interpret Scripture was the primary and foundational method to interpret.

When I said that anyone who uses historical testimony to interpret Scripture is plain ignorant on how to interpret Scripture, it is consistent with what we agreed on above. Presbyterians do not reject historical testimony as a subordinate standard, but it is not used as the primary method to interpret Scripture.

May I assume you are an Independent or Baptist adherent to form of Church Government?

If you are, then you reject my views that those who have been called by God to interpret Scripture are faithful courts. In Presbyterianism, this is defined as the Session, Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly.

When these courts are to settle a controversy, they MUST, if they adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Scripture itself, agree to use the Scripture as their primary method to interpret. They can use all other aides and helps as a secondary or subordinate method, but the Court must use Scripture alone as its primary method.

It appears we are talking past each other. If you are in agreement that using Scripture to interpret Scripture is the best and primary method of interpretation, then there is no further discussion.

You won't find a Presbyterian rejecting historical testimony as a subordinate standard, as we use them all the time as an aide and help to understanding.

RK made a good point and I would hold to this point as well, even if it gets you three guys (ML, Uh..Oh & MurrayA) all upset over this issue at hand. RK wrote:

"Sorry Murray,

I have been involved in scientific research for 31 years. I am well aware of the liberties and wild interpretations that scientists are capable of spinning. I have seen how archaeologists attempt to turn the Red Sea into a shallow pond. Consequently, I know quite personally why Paul calls it "science falsely so-called"."

"Ultimately, the fundamental problem with solo scriptura is the same problem that exists within the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox concepts of Scripture and tradition. All of these concepts result in autonomy. All result in final authority being placed somewhere other than God and His Word. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrines result in the autonomy of the Church. Solo scriptura results in the autonomy of the individual believer who becomes a law unto himself. Scripture is interpreted according to the conscience and reason of the individual."

I could not agree more on these points.

However, that is far from what the Reformers taught of using Scripture to interpret Scripture, and anyone who is using Sacred Tradition, or historical testimony, to interpret Scripture are plain ignorant on how to interpret Scripture.

"Investigation of the Jewish background to the NT, and the Gospels in particular is a necessary part of the process of interpretation."

Hmmm, interesting. This is a Roman Catholic argument to the interpretation of Scripture. I find it interesting that yesterday there were two Roman Catholic Scholars on tv explaining how "Sacred Tradition" and "Sacred Scripture" are equal.

This method is precisely what has created a massive wave of new and improved manuscripts being released, and why the Vatican releases various texts.

This "Scholar" explained that the Apocrypha was given equal weight as Canon of Scripture. Although the Gospel Canon was recognized by Irenaeus in 160AD, and the Synod of Hippos (393) and Councils of Carthage (397 & 419) confirmed our eccleastical text, the view they espouse is Sacred Tradition is a "necessary part" for interpretation (same argument being made by MurrayA).

Few will allow God's word to interpret itself, called the "literal sense", or God's "intended meaning" taken from the words themselves, whether strictly or figuratively.

"I only brought it up to demonstrate that what he said about allowing the context to teach him what to believe could not be separated in reform thinking from their presuppositions."

Actually, horsie (as you call him) makes mention that he was a former Arminian baptist, then reformed baptist and is now reformed Presbyterian. Please understand that a person's presupposition we often speak about on here is that which is exclusively established in one manner of thinking. Their epistemology (how they know what they know) is generally grounded in either Arminianism or Calvinism from the beginning. It is clear from horsies only testimony that his presupposition has changed on the doctrine of salvation, so you would be wise not to say he is looking at the book of Romans with only one set of presuppositions!

Finally, I would encourage you to read this article JD as your views are often held by not only dispensationalists, but by the Christian Identity movement. The same chapters you appeal to are often what they appeal to as well:

"I would do the same as you asked and look at Romans in context. Hopefully you do not mean what others mean by it--- the context of the whole of scripture--- which is no context at all."

Badhorsie777, I can see that Yamil is going to force you to select one book of Scripture to discuss the doctrine of salvation. I did not read all your posts to him, or his to you, but your selection of Romans should be sufficient.

"And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, ***Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.***" (Rom.9:26-28)

"...having read just the first few pages of these posts, I must echo my brothers and sisters concerning the tone. I am (by label only) a baptist who ended up at a reformed baptist church (and YES this was a contradiction in terms) and am now attending and worshipping with full agreement at a reformed presbyterian church."

and on 1/3/08;

"...you know, I teach elementary school music. I have 1st-5th graders. And reading JD makes me feel right at home. His arguments and supposed points have gotten progressively more disjunct and ludicrous."

and on 1/4/08;

"The reformed are the only system of interpretation that I have found which has a framework, a hermeneutic, and a worldview which accounts for the whole of scripture. That's not to say they have never erred, or are not wrong, but the contradictions I see in my credo-baptist (that was me, so no flaming), pre-millenial (check - me also), arminian (...yep) brothers is enough to drive me batty!"

"There is no controversy in the scientific community over whether evolution has occurred," the booklet states. Although there is continuing scientific debate about the details and mechanisms of evolution, there is now an "immense body of evidence" to support it, making it "one of the most securely established of scientific facts."

I think that statement would take a lot of faith, even more faith than that required from Scripture. Although the alternatives to Evolutionary Theory are often not in the mainstream media, I would encourage anyone seeking another perspective to listen to this author:

http://wildersmith.org/library.htm

Are you familiar with these verses?

"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. ***But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.*** (1Cor.2:13-14).

I was pointing out to Jack not to get turned off by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith's Christian presupposition. Do you know what a Christian presupposition is?

What am I saying you ask? I'm encouraging Jack to listen to the video's and try to understand the "Christian View" initially.

Have you read this verse?

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (Jn.8:47)

You make an excellent observation. I could not agree more, but you probably know that sometimes there is a few different manuals that could cover the same repairs using different methods. Generally there is only one manual and one publisher for every auto, but sometimes looking a little deeper you might find a better manual covering the same topic. Don't be surprised if the guy who wrote that better manual covering the subject matter did not struggle through the process to make improvements to the texts.

If I were you I would ignore the details of how we get to these published views for now. Rather, focus on the big picture with the video's I referenced below. If you are a mechanic, it tells me you are a detailed, methodical and mechanical person. If you even consider using a repair manual, that puts you into a higher calibur of intellect and a student that can learn how to learn.

Since you are on here looking around at all these sermons, I would like to have you take a few hours and weeks to dig into these videos.

http://wildersmith.org/library.htm

They are also listed on SermonAudio, but these downloads from the site above seem to have a little better quality.

I would start with the "Christian Viewpoint" series, then go to the "College Lectures" then "Faith & Reason" in that order. "Thinking & Believing" is sort of the grand finale and might need a more advanced presupposition to see what thinking and believing is from a Christian perspective.

Remember Pilot could not possibly grasp the question below, "What is Truth?" and so jumping to thinking and believing right off the mark will likely be a waste of time for one who really could care less about "what is truth".

This author is really funny, but extraordinarly brilliant...and Christian. I know...that is not possible in the eyes of some out there, but I started listening to tapes and speakers when I was 14 years old and have listened to thousands of speakers. This man ranks #1 among even the old tapes from Napoleon Hill (rare video) and Earl Nightingale I have tucked away.

Do you really believe there is little value in working out the details on any subject matter? It is easy to say that we should ignore the time invested to work back and forth on any subject, but perhaps if you are involved in any detailed argument you'll know this is how it works in the real world.

After traveling 36 countries and looking at multiple religions (including your heathenism and paganism leanings), I have not found it a waste of time at all. It has been an absolutely grand experience, and I could not have hoped for a more blessed opportunity. There is lots of room for open discussion between cultures and religions to get down to the truth.

'Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are You a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, "I find no fault in Him at all."' (John 18:37-38)

You are obviously entitled to your view of eschatology, and there is no doubt that whatever your blueprint opinion of Scripture is from beginning till end will determine your views.

Historical post-millennialism was a basic fundamental belief by almost all major reformers, and they recognized that their second reformation would not last but a short time. I could not agree more that before the vial judgments pour out on the earth there is zero chance I will ever see a Christian nation in the same sense as Scotland. There is not even a chance, and most reformers did not see another major reformation before the vial judgments come to welcome the wicked.

However, there may be a small and brief third reformation, but it may not be likely in America, Europe or Australia. It may happen in Asia, Africa or Russia, I don't know before judgment comes.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that after this 30 year period (1260-1290) that another reformation will begin with the start of the restoration of the Jews and begining of the fulfillment of the Gentiles for 45 years (1290-1335).

Those views are good for making money and selling video tapes!

"Volume 4. A Defence of the History of Infant Baptism Against the Reflections of Mr. Gale and Others with An Appendix Containing the Additions and Alterations in the Third Edition... That Are Most Material.

For the first two volumes we have used the 1889 (two volume) edition because they are far easier to read (as they contain modern style fonts); volume three is the 1711 edition and volume four the 1720 edition. This set provides English translation for a large amount of intriguing material on baptism from the early church that is otherwise unavailable to English-only readers. 1647 pages." see www.swrb.com

MurrayA wrote:

"Even in the C17th the whole idea of National Covenants and a Solemn League and Covenant for inter alia "the extirpation of all Popery and heresy" was/is a mistake."

"WALL, WILLIAM
The History of Infant Baptism
([1705, 1711, 1720] 1889, 4 volumes)

Very rare and considered the CLASSIC set in this field of study (due to the detailed and exhaustive research of Mr. Wall), we have published all four volumes -- including the last two which turned Wall's research into a stirring debate.

Volume 1. An Impartial Collection of All Such Passages in the Writers of the Four First Centuries as do Make For or Against Infant Baptism

Volume 2. Several Things that do Help to Illustrate the Said History

Volume 3. Reflections (Reproaches--RB) on (Against--RB) Mr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism (by John Gale)

"And BTW, precisely what were you scheming with the Beeke quote? You never did say. Has your church had a run in with His?"

Are you the same person who listed himself as Joel Beeke on that quote, and then listed himself as "In the interest of fairness"? I was wondering if you have been using other alias names on here besides "Uh..Oh".

The reason I ask is that some of the arguments seem to be going back and forth with yourself if you are using multiple alias names, and I can now see why it is so confusing reading some of the threads where you are involved. I never thought before about people on here using multiple alias names carring on a discussion with themselves on a thread, but perhaps this is possible.

No, I have met Beeke a couple times in GR at the bookstore, and think he is a brilliant guy, but do understand he has a strong dislike of the Covenanters. When he seemed like you were him and posting under multiple alias names, I thought it might make sense to keep his name confidential after the first post where he used his public name here.

"What makes Clifford an authority on this issue? Oh yes, he turned Presby!"

Well, after watching your multitude of posts the last few days it is obvious to me you have no idea about the subject of infant baptism, as well as other biblical issues. Your best skill is trying to make your opponent look like a fool without your putting forward any serious logical, reasonable or scriptural argument. From what I have been seeing, you are indeed a breath of hot air on the site. More like the sports fan sitting in the stands screaming at the various players trying to get them to pay attention, while everyone around is wondering when you might sit down and zip up!

Making fun of great ministers like Owen on infant baptism is humerous, since he never turned Presbyterian (although some believed he wanted to at the end of his life) in order to teach this doctrine.

The argument demanding that only adults can be baptised, and all infants/small children must be refused, is foolish. Even the best independents taught infant baptism, and those who ignore the Scripture and faithful testimony are doomed to repeat it over and over.