Building on my earlier post regarding Landmark Baptists, it occurred to me that it's not just what appears to be a factual error (three secondary/tertiary quotes does not a historical fact make), but also will tend to be a ruinous bit of dogma in the church.
How so? Let's take the milder case first; the claim that there were always Baptists through history. Why so?
Well, consider the claim; it doesn't have any precedent in Scripture, but it is stated as if it is vastly important. It's not only a violation of the principles of logic (ancient is not equal to true, Molech worship is ancient as well), but also serves as a diversion from the more important issues of theology that--hey let's face it--the American church desperately needs.
In short, emphasizing a "Trail of Blood" serves to make believers....immature, and as was noted before, it's an effective de-emphasis of the doctrine of sola scriptura. Ironically, in trying to counter Catholic rhetoric about ancience, they're becoming more....Catholic, the very thing they want to avoid.
Full Landmarkism--the argument that the only true churches follow a "Trail of Blood," and even that one can only be saved if one is baptised in such a church--do things far worse. Not only is it a more significant violation of sola scriptura, but the requirement of a "Landmark" to be a valid church or believer violates sola gratia, sola fide, and solus Christus (grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone) as well.
In other words, the one, or church, which subscribes to Landmarkism more or less throws out significant parts of the Reformation, and those whose rhetoric most avidly rejects the Catholic church become, more or less.....
Catholic.
I bet my friend Gino enjoys this irony immensely!
Hot Gear Friday: The Swiss Army Guitar
-
The word “iconic” is overused these days. I try to avoid it. It’ll be hard
in this next bit. If you are not a guitar player, and someone says
“electric gui...
11 hours ago
10 comments:
actaully, i found greater irony in the doctrine of sola scrptura.
without a magisterium to declare infallably what the scriptura is, then how do you know if it is scriptura?
and then accepting the declaration of the infallabe magisterium while simulatnously denying the authority of that magisterium to so declare infallably.
Two counter-arguments. First of all, the canon was decided with the concurrence of the eastern church, obviously not part of today's magisterium. Second, there are some pretty clear patterns to what is in and what is not. Apostolic authorship? In. Consistent with works of apostolic authorship, long-term blessing to the church? In.
Non-apostolic authorship and inconsistent with apostolically authored books? Out.
Not the most difficult thing to determine, really. Nicea was messy, yes, but the ground rules were straightforward, and one doesn't need a magisterium to agree with their logic.
As a Lutheran what I find interesting in this is that this group seems to be trying to justify itself on the basis of the law, "we've got a particular history that is necessary" and the Donatist, "one can only be saved if one is baptized in such a church." Have they so little trust in the promise of God that they need to gussy it up with self-made holiness?
1. so, if the eastern and western patriarchs got together next month to declare something, the baptists would accept it, since that is what is missing?
meaning, the issue isn't magisterium that baptists reject, but the lack of enough of it?
2.it takes magisterium to lay down ground rules. if the magisterium has no authority, then how do you know the ground rules are reliable?
or,
how do you know the gospel of John was written by him without the magisterium to make that distinction that qualifies it?
You do things on the basis of evidence, Gino. Appeal to magisterium is simply another way of indulging the fallacy of "appeal to authority."
So no, if both Greek and Roman magisterii got together and agreed on "fide et laborii," "gratia et laborii," "Scriptura et magisterium," and "Christus et Papii," that would by no means convince Protestants that the Reformation was a bad idea. It's simply a bad handling of the evidence and processes of logic.
WB, exactly; the modern day legalist has the extreme difficulty of legalism to begin with, coupled with the fact that his legalism doesn't even have, as the Pharisees had, a basis in Scripture. Ouch.
but you used the point of not-enough magisterium, and now say magisterium matters not.
so, what is it?
and how is appealing to authority fallacy when the bible is full of it? (actually, it was just the NT that was decided. for the OT, we just relied on the jewish scriptures that were in use at the time of out Lord (including those 7 that luther was so infallably decide sucked).
ok, so, how do baptists know what books belong in the bible?
did they have a baptist council back in the 300's or something?
OK, first, the point regarding the magisterii was that even if the entire magisterium was empowered to make such a decision at Nicea, that doesn't exist today. In short, even if appeal to authority worked, and it doesn't, you simply don't have the same authority.
Regarding the greater point, of how we decide what the Word of God is, that simply follows from "which authors were given a gift of prophecy and direct access to the very words of the Savior?"
In short, the works of the apostles, as well as those written under their direction. Not terribly complicated.....
ok, then how do you know the gospel of john is the gospel of john?
or mark?
or mathew?
what about the gospel of thomas? widely viewed as inspired until the council of hippo.
You have the testimony of many, including the church fathers, that one is, and one is not.
Regarding the "Gospel of Thomas," given that he was in India or further east at the time he was supposed to have been writing that book, we can also proceed on evidence there to reject it.
"You have the testimony of many, including the church fathers, that one is, and one is not."
...which brings us back to Tradition and Magisterium, both rejected as reliable authorities by the doctrine of sola scrptura.
you need all three: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium
Post a Comment