Monday, August 23, 2021

Is the Bible Enough?

Latter Day Saints say that we need the Book of Mormon to get the whole truth.  A Jehovah’s Witness would tell us that we are lost in our understanding of Scripture without the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (est. 1884).  But what saith the Word itself?

 

When was the last time you read the entire Bible?  It took me three years to read through all 66 books after my conversion.  I would encourage you to read the Bible for yourself and ask the Lord to open the eyes of your understanding.  There are many plans to get through both the OT & NT in a year.

 

The phrase “it is written” appears around eighty times in Scripture.  Note that it’s not, “go look at your church’s charter” or “go ask the Pope.”  Our standard is the Word of God, not tradition – although that may be helpful, it’s not infallible.  “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Is. 8:20).  The Lord said to Joshua,

 

Be strong and very courageous.  Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go.  Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it.  Then you will be prosperous and successful (Joshua 1:7,8).

 

Peter himself points us to Scripture:

 

His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.   Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (2 Peter 1:3,4)

 

The Bible gives us “everything we need” … we don’t require esoteric interpretations, councils, ancient traditions or trips to Rome to teach us the way of salvation – the Bible is plain on that point.  Peter goes on …

 

We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.  We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.  Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.  For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit

(2 Peter 1:18-21).

 

Although Peter had the amazing experience of seeing Jesus Transfigured, we should look to the Word of God for guidance and truth.  Why didn’t Peter say, “talk to me, I’m the Pope, I’m infallible.”  Recall the controversy in Acts 15?  Did Peter get the most attention?  Peter speaks, but James, the ½ brother of Jesus, seems to carry the major influence (Acts 15:13,19).

George Salmon (1819-1904) was a theologian and mathematician.  In 1849, Arthur Cayley and George Salmon made the remarkable discovery that every smooth cubic surface (using Complex Numbers) contains exactly 27 lines.  Salmon’s last Maths contribution was in 1873 on periods of the recurring decimals of the reciprocals of prime numbers.

In 1888, The Infallibility of the Church was published in which Salmon demonstrated the impossibility of Papal infallibility, as believed by the Roman Catholic Church.  Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890) was at first an Anglican priest and later converted to Catholicism.  He was one of the key leaders of the Oxford Movement made up of Anglicans who desired to recover many Catholic beliefs and rituals.  Salmon spoke on Newman’s “development” theory:

 

The first strategic movement towards the rear was the doctrine of development, which has seriously modified the old theory of tradition. When Dr. Newman became a Roman Catholic, it was necessary for him in some way to reconcile this step with the proofs he had previously given that certain distinctive Romish doctrines were unknown to the early Church. The historical arguments he had advanced in his Anglican days were incapable of refutation even by himself. But it being hopeless to maintain that the present teaching of Roman Catholics is identical with the doctrine held in the primitive Church, he set himself to show that though not the same, it was a great deal better. This is the object of the celebrated Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which he published simultaneously with his submission to the Roman Church. The theory expounded in it in substance is, that Christ had but committed to His Church certain seeds and germs of truth, destined afterwards to expand to definite forms … [1]

 

The infallibility of the Pope did not become dogma until the first Vatican council in 1870.  The doctrine of papal infallibility means that the Pope cannot err when he speaks on matters of faith and morals ex cathedra (“from the chair”).  There are many views held within the Romanist camp on numerous controversies – just tune in to EWTN and see for yourself.  How else can such matters be settled unless the ultimate decision on an issue comes down to one man?  Should there be a Supreme Court of the True Church?  There is no official Roman Catholic commentary on the whole Bible.  If the Pope were actually infallible, wouldn’t such a work be a great inspiration?  Cardinal Newman was on the right track in something he wrote in his Anglican days,

 

This inconsistency in the Romish system one might almost call providential. Nothing could be better adapted than it is to defeat the devices of human wisdom, and to show to thoughtful inquirers the hollowness of even the most specious counterfeit of Divine truth. The theologians of Rome have been able dexterously to smooth over a thousand inconsistencies, and to array the heterogeneous precedents of centuries in the semblance of design and harmony. But they cannot complete the system in its most important and essential point. They can determine in theory the nature, degree, extent, and object of the infallibility which they claim, but they cannot agree among themselves where it resides. As in the building of Babel, the Lord has confounded their language, and the structure remains half finished, a monument at once of human daring and its failure. [2]

 

Salmon comments of the lateness on the infallibility dogma:

 

Did not the Pope, at the Vatican Council of 1870 [Vatican 1], bear witness to himself, and declare that every theory was wrong which made the organ of infallibility other than himself? But what time of day is this to find the answer to a question so fundamental? Can we believe that Christ before He left this earth provided His Church with an infallible guide to truth, and that it took her more than 1800 years before she could find out who that guide was? It seems almost labor wasted to proceed with the proofs I was about to lay before you, of the neglect or inability of the infallible judge of controversies to settle controversies, when it took him so long to settle that controversy in which his own privileges were so vitally concerned. [3]

During the Council of Trent (1545-1563), Dominicans & Franciscans disagreed on their understanding of original sin.  Thankfully, the Pope is infallible and that settles it … supposedly.  Yet, the controversy was left unresolved.  Salmon cuts to the chase regarding this result …

 

… is it not most clearly proved that the Pope did not believe in his own pretense to infallibility, else why not take the opportunity of settling, by the joint authority of Pope and Council an authority which, in theory, all owned to be infallible a dispute which had so long convulsed the Church?  But to meddle in the matter, that is to say, to decide the question one way or other “might cause a schism among Catholics”; in other words, these “Catholics,” whatever they might pretend, did not really believe in the infallibility of the Pope and the Council.  Nay, I am putting the matter too weakly; for we do not set up our own opinion against that of an expert on any subject, even though we know that he is far from claiming infallibility; but these “Catholics” must really have thought that Pope and Council knew no better than themselves.  Why should there be danger of a schism after the truth had been ascertained by infallible authority?  Surely, no person could be mad enough to separate himself from the Church of Christ [Rome] in consequence of a decision which he believed to be infallibly true, and to have emanated from a divinely promised and infallible guidance.  The only way of accounting for the conduct of the Pope and of the Council on this occasion is, that neither one nor the other believed in the pretense of infallibility.  For, as I said, acting is the test of faith … [4]

 

 

Indeed, actions do speak louder than words.

 

In The Gift ofInfallibility, James O'Connor clarifies the idea of infallibility. He provides a helpful translation of the "relatio" or official explanation by Bishop Gasser given at Vatican I, the Church council that defined the dogma of papal infallibility. Despite its importance in all theological discussions on the doctrine of infallibility, Bishop Gasser's relatio had never until recently been translated from the Latin original into English.  If “Pope-No-Lie” is such a critical doctrine, why has this not been translated into English over a hundred years ago?

 

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.  And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll (Rev. 22:18,19).

 

 

Notes:

1) The Infallibility of the Church by George Salmon (John Murray, London, 1914), p. 65.

2) Cardinal Newman quoted in Salmon, p. 176.

3) Salmon, p. 176.

4) Ibid., p. 181.

 

#Mormons #LDS #Watchtower #JW #Catholic #RC #Pope #CardinalNewman #Salmon #InfallibilityOfTheChurch #Trent #Vatican1 #Bible #SufficiencyOfScripture #relatio #OriginalSin #CubicSurface

Joseph Smith pic by Anthony Sweat, © 2014

 

 

Friday, July 16, 2021

Who is Voddie?

Who is Dr. Voddie T. Baucham, Jr.?  Dr. Baucham is a former pastor at Grace Church in Spring, Texas (not BIG Spring).  He is now the Dean of Theology at African Christian University in Lusaka, Zambia (he has lived there since 2015).   You may have heard the interview with Glenn Beck on Voddie's latest book Faultlines.  Voddie played football for New Mexico State University, Rice and Houston Baptist University.  In his first game against Univ. of Texas - El Paso (UTEP), he caught 10 passes for 106 yards.  Paige Patterson thought Voddie would make a great President of the SBC.  Voddie's first book was on Apologetics.  When Dr. Baucham taught Sociology, he used a standard mainstream textbook.

 

What can we learn from Voddie's latest book Faultlines?  The website "New Discourses" is a great source for info on Critical Theory.  Voddie visited the Slave Tree in Ndola, Zambia which reminded him that slaves were sold to Spaniards and others by their own African kinsmen. 

 

Speaking of football ... remember Colin Rand "Kap" Kaepernick?  In 2016, he knelt during the national anthem as a form of complaint regarding police action.  But what was the nature of his initial protest?  The incident involved the San Francisco Police and Mario Woods (BTW there is a Frisco, TX).  Police were dispatched because of an alleged stabbing ... Woods was brandishing an eight inch blade.  Five police were on the scene who first spoke to him without effect and then they used pepper spray and projectile bean bags.  Bystanders said, "Drop the knife!" but Woods refused.  Woods moved towards the officers with the knife and it was only then that he was shot.  He was dangerously close - less than ten feet away.

 

How should we react to this tragic event?  One radical activist stated, “If this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it”.  Do you want your town to turn into Kenosha, Minneapolis or Portland?

 

Only certain incidents involving police get high profile coverage.  Did you hear what happened to Tony Timpa in Dallas in 2016?  Timpa, who was schizophrenic, called the cops and said he was off his meds and needed assistance.  A security guard had already handcuffed Timpa before the officers arrived.  Three Dallas officers held Timpa as he said, "You're gonna kill me!" several times - this lasted around fourteen minutes.  Then Timpa went limp ... the DPD on the scene did not take this seriously and joked around.  However, one officer said, "I hope we didn't kill him."  Sadly, he had already passed.  The DPD refused to release the body-cam video for 3 years.  The officers involved received no disciplinary action at the time.  Why is it that Tony Timpa's name is not a household word?              

 

Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh.  Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.  Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. (2 Cor. 5:16-19, NKJV)   

 

#Sociology #VoddieBaucham #Kaepernick #Kap #football #TonyTimpa #police  #cops #officers #handcuffs #FaultLines #GlennBeck #Apologetics #Zambia  #MarioWoods #SBC #CriticalTheory