CreedFeed Community - View Single Post - Bible College Final Exam

no_fixd_address · 06-08-2005, 07:57 PM

You passed with flying colors! You got 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, correct. 7, 9 and 10 were not answered, giving you a passing grade of 60%!!!! Most Protestants I have given this test to can’t get past question 2 without re-writing historical facts. You know your shit!

Question 5. By choosing “D”, it is correct to say that the Bible comes from God, but incorrect to presume that God did not use man as instruments in His WRITTEN revelation. The fact remains: God did use man to reveal truths, but with the limitations of human language. That is why an infallible interpreter is necessary. Without that, all you have is ink and paper that may inspire, but it cannot be inspired and inerrant for doctrine outside of the Tradition from whence it came. “A” is the most correct answer. So you get ½ a mark, boosting your grade to 65%
7. True or False: Even though the list of books in your bible is not in the bible, it is an infallible list?

Let’s not complicate matters and stick with the New Testament for our purposes. There are 27 books in the New Testament. Why aren’t there 28? Or 26? Is there an explicit biblical basis for correct number of 27? No. You can read it from Matthew to Revelation, and not find a single verse that says 27. The only way to know for sure that there are to be 27 books in the NT is to go outside the bible, and that in itself defeats the invention of sola scriptura. 27 is an infallible number of books in the NT, and a fallible errant church cannot produce an infallible list. The infallible Church existed before the canon of the NT. The Book is a fruit of the Infallible Church, historically, theologically, scientifically and reasonably. The church is not a fruit of the Book. That is bass ackwards.

9) Some claim the Bible says that unless doctrines are explicitly found in scripture, they cannot be trusted. State any explicit biblical basis for this doctrine, Old or New Testament. Provide chapter and verse(s).

Quote: AGIAN NOT SURE AT THIS POINT BUT i CAN GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT

Not sure? I am giving you another ½ mark for thinking for yourself, raising your mark to 70%. There is no explicit verse(s) that state that unless doctrines are definitely spelled out in scripture alone, they cannot be trusted. 2 Tim 3: 16 is a thoughtless argument for sola scriptura and is pre-mature at this point. Let’s look at it this way:
If a relativist hedonist says, “There are no moral absolutes." The hedonist is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes.

This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one.

“All generalizations are false”. This is a generalization in itself. It too self-destructs. What a person is really saying here is “all generalizations are false, except for this one."

"Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy.”This concept is self-destructive, and is not found in scripture. Unless you can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which you can’t, then you must re-phrase it to say: "Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy, except this one.” This is the foundation of sand

on which most of Protestantism rests.

10) If (9) has no verses to support the claim, but you accept it as a doctrine anyway, isn't that an extra-biblical "rule of faith and practice", or an extra-biblical doctrine?

The answer is YES. The bible alone as the sole rule of faith and practice is not in the bible, making it extra-biblical, and illogical. The 16th century Deformers were operating out of a Nominalist world view, reconstructing Christianity from human opinions of grammar and atomization of proof-texts from scripture.

Quote: So how did I do??

not bad I hope. If I did good that proves I know my shit about religion even when I am half asleep and doped up on painkillers

You really surprised me. Good work.

Stand by for Semester II

06-08-2005, 07:57 PM	#10
no_fixd_address USER INFO » Status: Misconception Posts: 96 Joined: Jun 2005 Currently: Offline	You passed with flying colors! You got 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, correct. 7, 9 and 10 were not answered, giving you a passing grade of 60%!!!! Most Protestants I have given this test to can’t get past question 2 without re-writing historical facts. You know your shit! Question 5. By choosing “D”, it is correct to say that the Bible comes from God, but incorrect to presume that God did not use man as instruments in His WRITTEN revelation. The fact remains: God did use man to reveal truths, but with the limitations of human language. That is why an infallible interpreter is necessary. Without that, all you have is ink and paper that may inspire, but it cannot be inspired and inerrant for doctrine outside of the Tradition from whence it came. “A” is the most correct answer. So you get ½ a mark, boosting your grade to 65% 7. True or False: Even though the list of books in your bible is not in the bible, it is an infallible list? Let’s not complicate matters and stick with the New Testament for our purposes. There are 27 books in the New Testament. Why aren’t there 28? Or 26? Is there an explicit biblical basis for correct number of 27? No. You can read it from Matthew to Revelation, and not find a single verse that says 27. The only way to know for sure that there are to be 27 books in the NT is to go outside the bible, and that in itself defeats the invention of sola scriptura. 27 is an infallible number of books in the NT, and a fallible errant church cannot produce an infallible list. The infallible Church existed before the canon of the NT. The Book is a fruit of the Infallible Church, historically, theologically, scientifically and reasonably. The church is not a fruit of the Book. That is bass ackwards. 9) Some claim the Bible says that unless doctrines are explicitly found in scripture, they cannot be trusted. State any explicit biblical basis for this doctrine, Old or New Testament. Provide chapter and verse(s). Quote: AGIAN NOT SURE AT THIS POINT BUT i CAN GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT Not sure? I am giving you another ½ mark for thinking for yourself, raising your mark to 70%. There is no explicit verse(s) that state that unless doctrines are definitely spelled out in scripture alone, they cannot be trusted. 2 Tim 3: 16 is a thoughtless argument for sola scriptura and is pre-mature at this point. Let’s look at it this way: If a relativist hedonist says, “There are no moral absolutes." The hedonist is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one. “All generalizations are false”. This is a generalization in itself. It too self-destructs. What a person is really saying here is “all generalizations are false, except for this one." "Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy.”This concept is self-destructive, and is not found in scripture. Unless you can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which you can’t, then you must re-phrase it to say: "Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy, except this one.” This is the foundation of sand on which most of Protestantism rests. 10) If (9) has no verses to support the claim, but you accept it as a doctrine anyway, isn't that an extra-biblical "rule of faith and practice", or an extra-biblical doctrine? The answer is YES. The bible alone as the sole rule of faith and practice is not in the bible, making it extra-biblical, and illogical. The 16th century Deformers were operating out of a Nominalist world view, reconstructing Christianity from human opinions of grammar and atomization of proof-texts from scripture. Quote: So how did I do?? not bad I hope. If I did good that proves I know my shit about religion even when I am half asleep and doped up on painkillers You really surprised me. Good work. Stand by for Semester II __________________ “There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is, of course, quite a different thing.” Bishop Fulton J. Sheen Last edited by no_fixd_address : 06-08-2005 at 08:15 PM.