Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Hank | 170877 | ||
So, Robin, what is your point? Are you saying that the Bible -- the 66 books that we Protestants call Scripture -- is incomplete? If that is your position, what supplements would you offer? You will find that this Forum is largely made up of 'sola scriptura' people; so what axe have you to grind, and why grind it here? If you are attempting to get a debate going, please don't. This is not the purpose of SBF and, in fact, debates are proscribed by the guidelines. ...... While I explicitly refuse to engage in a verbal shooting match with you or anyone else on the issue of sola scriptura, I do invite you to consider all the facts surrounding the apostolic church as over against the church in our time. For example, they then had the apostles; we now have the NT Canon. ....... Do you think the Bereans were air-headed crack-pots because they examined the Scriptures daily? Do you think you have discovered some vital gems of truth about the insufficiency of Scripture that Luther, Calvin and other Reformers missed (or concealed!)?Should we feel sorry for poor Charles Haddon Spurgeon who hung to Scripture's every word as if it were from the very breath of God? Paul, even Paul, failed to tell young Timothy to preach the word of God AND the traditions of men. And the Psalmist was frightfully narrow and unenlightened when he declared "Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." He should have known better than that. Scripture, so I infer from your writings, needs supplementation, but the Psalmist was obviously not bright enough to know that. Even Jesus slipped up and endorsed sola scriptura one day when He said, "Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). ........ Finally, Robin, the coup de grace of your post is so pregnant with unbounded wisdom and scholarship that I must quote it verbatim and in full: "Whatever the Bible means, it is certainly referring to MORE INFORMATION." ....... Now that's a rara avis if I ever read one. In light of your singlular insight, one wonders why on earth the Risen Christ inspired the venerable old apostle John to write from the Isle of Patmos these words that will abide forever: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18,19, Authorized Version, a.k.a. the King James Bible). ...... Did the apostle John pen an effective remonstrance to your statement? I believe he did, but that's MY opinion. I expect you have yours. --Hank | ||||||
2 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170909 | ||
I find if funny that fundamentalist “Bible Christians” continually appeal to the Reformers as if they themselves represent unalloyed Reformation Christianity. Luther, Calvin ‘and others’ were sacramentalist, baby-baptisers. Luther recited the Creeds, believed in ‘consubstantiation’, and held a high Mariology. Contemporary American fundamentalists would find more common ground with the Anabaptists whom Luther oversaw being drowned. Clearly, he felt this was some kind of physical pun regarding their wish to be fully immersed as adults. When he wasn’t writing books such as ‘On the Jews and Their Lies.’ I find it fairly sad that you can only identify with 16th-century Reformers who probably would have drowned any fundamentalists they could have got hold of, and some 19th-century Baptist icon. Talk about selective; if you choose to dismiss 2,000 years of Christian history then that's your loss. As for us, we High Anglicans particularly contend we 'own' the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Your Scripture selections are fairly dismal. The warning about adding or removing things in the Book of Revelation refers to tampering with the aforesaid text. Nor does Jesus stating 'Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will not pass away' teach anything that supports the "Bible Only" dogma. My quote which you mock "Whatever the Bible means, it is certainly referring to MORE INFORMATION." belonged with 2 Jn 12, which you you chose not to include: Having many things to write unto you, I would not [write] with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, THAT OUR JOY MAY BE FULL. John is not refering to what he will write on Patmos but to his oral teaching which will add some kind of completion to what he has already delivered. All you had to do was read the biblical quotation with a little care, at face value and in context. Robin |
||||||
3 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | hobbs | 170928 | ||
Robin Hass, Having visited the Via Media web site, I now no why your attack against the doctrine of sola scriptura is so relentless! As long as Protestants hold fast to the doctrine of sola scriptura, the agenda of liberal churches will never win over the hearts and minds of the majority who consider themselves "bible believing" Christians. Hobbs |
||||||
4 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170931 | ||
My only knowledge of the 'Via Media' is the well known work by the one-time Anglican Cardinal John Henry Newman and the fact that the Anglican Church is known here as the 'via media' or the 'bridge church.' However, thanks for this I will check out the site. However, I am definitely akin to the conservative Church Fathers, a small "c" catholic, and neither in the liberal or fundamentalist camp: an historic Christian, the whole way back. Not 150 years like the other two camps. |
||||||