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 | Robin Hass | 170900 | ||
"...not opposing to the authority of the Bible" Lockman are not asserting that no user is welcome on this forum unless they subscribe to 'sola scriptura.' There are definitions of 'biblical authority' other than yours. I for one, subscribe to the Doctrine of Tradition in that I hold to this self-evident proposition: Scripture was never intended to teach doctrine, but only to prove it, and that, if we would learn doctrine, we must have recourse to teachers, Catechisms, and the Creeds. After learning the doctrines of Christianity, the inquirer must verify them by Scripture. And this is why I in no way impugn 'the authority of the Bible.' Indeed I do deny the ‘perspicuity’ of Scripture. It is an absurdity to say that ordinary people, with no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, archaeology, ancient history or writings of the Fathers of the Church, are competent to interpret it. Scripture itself says as much 2 Peter 3:16 ‘as also in all [Paul’s] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the UNTAUGHT and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.’ The Ethiopian reading Isaiah in Acts 8:31 said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Philip did not reply 'The Holy Spirit will enlighten you; keep on reading' but in accordance with the need for an official and correct interpretation Philip instructed him. In accordance I'm sure with 2 Peter 1:20 'But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,' Was Scripture ‘perspicuous’ to the ordinary man throughout history. The ordinary man could not even read until well into our modern era. Perhaps if you saw such a person picking up a Bible and looking at the fuzzy shapes you might concur. |
||||||
2 | Scripture does teach. | 2 Thess 2:15 | lionheart | 170908 | ||
perspicuos- easily understood,clearly expressed. The above is the definition from the Oxford American Dictionary. In light of the above stated definition is there anything where Gods Word cant be understood or that he has not clearly expressed? What do we say to 2 Timothy 2:15,3:16,17 2 Peter 1:20,21? In Christ, lionheart |
||||||
3 | Scripture does teach. | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170911 | ||
I'm repeating myself now. 2 Pet 3:16 asserts 'as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand...'which is completely the opposite of what you assert! Acts 8:30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. The practical proof that Scripture is not perspicuous is the diversity of evangelical sects and their many conflicting opinions. In what way do you interpret 2 Peter 1:20, this verse states there is only one true interpretation for any Biblical verse, namely the official one taught by the Church: The Church of the living God, which 'the pillar and support of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). Scripture does not say the 'Bible is pillar and support of the truth.' |
||||||
4 | Scripture does teach. | 2 Thess 2:15 | lionheart | 170913 | ||
idios-ones own.This usage is found in 2 Peter 1:20. How about the very strong possiblity that the Bible interprets itself? Maybe with some application of 2 Timothy 2:15 we will have fewer opinions and a much stronger grasp of the truth. I know of no one at the present who has made it to heaven on opinion. In Christ, lionheart |
||||||