Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48019 | ||
Not only does the Bible not teach Sola Scriptura, it says nothing of the Bible itself. Yes, it does refer to scripture, but it doesn't tell us anywhere what is scripture and what is not. To argue Sola Scriptura is to take a leap right past the issue of what is scripture. When Paul said that all scripture is inspired by God, the scripture he most likely had was the Septuagint. This version contained the books that we call the Apocrypha. Paul made no exclusion of those books. Just something to think about, since Luther and those who began the doctrine of Sola Scriptura didn't acknowledge these books as scripture. So who gets to decide what is and what is not scripture? |
||||||
2 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48031 | ||
You wrote: "When Paul said that all scripture is inspired by God, the scripture he most likely had was the Septuagint." Paul, being a Pharisee, also had the Hebrew Scriptures, which would have been used in all Jewish worship. The Apocrypha was not declared by the Roman Catholic Church to be part of the canon of Scripture until the counter-Reformation of the 16th century (that would be the Council of Trent). Which is why Luther did not recognize them: they were declared to be canonical after the Reformation began. A thorough analysis of how the church recognized the New Testament canon is beyond the scope of a 5000-word post. I would recommend a booklet by Darrell Bock entitled "Can I Trust the Bible?". It is available through Ravi Zacharias' web site (www.rzim.org). --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48129 | ||
Joe, You may want to check your history a little. Luther clearly removed the apocryphal books. He also wanted to remove Revelation, James, and a couple others as well. These books have been part of the canon since throughout the centuries. They weren't part of the Jewish canon which occurred after the apostolic age. |
||||||
4 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48137 | ||
I do know my history. The RCC did not officially declare the books canonical until the Council of Trent (4th session, 1546 -- you can look it up for yourself. The seven deuterocanonical books do not appear in the Hebrew Old Testament. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, which served as THE Bible for the RCC for well over a milennium, considered them to be questionable as well. Therefore, the Protestant Old Testament is in accord with the Jewish one, and THAT'S why we reject the extra seven as being inspired by God. A good link to examine the history of the canon,as well as the position of Luther (and the other Reformers) on the books you mentioned is: http://www.probe.org/docs/xn-canon.html --Joe! |
||||||
5 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48182 | ||
Joe, After reading the stuff at your link I find nothing that disagrees with me except this guy's own opinion. The RCC declared these books part of the canon because they have been in use for centuries. They didn't just invent the idea. As a matter of fact there have been many canons throughout the centuries. They differ from time to time and from east to west. Parts and all of the apocrypha have been incuded. In fact the Old Testament that we now have is bigger than the original Jewish canon. It all depends on what year and in what context you are looking. Here is a question for you; when did the "protestant" church ever officialy declare it's canon? I missed that in any of the info you referred to. Again, my question was how do you or anybody else determine the authority to decide what is scripture? |
||||||
6 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 48189 | ||
Greetings dschaertel! You ask: "Again, my question was how do you or anybody else determine the authority to decide what is scripture?" Does Scripture count, since what we know as "Scripture" refers to itself as being 'inspired'? 2 Peter 1:21, 1 Cor. 2:13, John 16:13, 1 Cor. 14:37, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Peter 1:16, John 1:1 These are just a few of the verses that the Bible contains in which it refers to itself as "inspired" from God. So should be believe it when the Bible itself states that it is the authoritative, inspired message from God to humankind? - Makarios |
||||||
7 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48216 | ||
Makarios There are plenty of verses that refer to scripture, but show me where is the magic list that tells which books are in and which are out. Tell me where is the criteria for determining this in the Bible, and then tell me how you know that should be in the Bible in the first place? |
||||||
8 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | The Berean | 48233 | ||
Hello I can't give you any indication as what belongs and what doesn't. Most of what has been put in the canon was agreed upon by the thought processes of Holy Men. I think there were plenty of complete bibles before canonization (Wycleff 1380, Tyndale in 1530's), Correct me if I'm wrong somebody. But I do know one thing in John 20:30 it says "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book (book of John only?); but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ.." Now do we have the complete story of Jesus Christ? Of course not, we only need that which gives us faith to believe. There are other Historical book like Macabees I and II that the Jews refer to but we don't recoginize them as necessary books for the prophecy of Jesus. But then again the Book of Esther doesn't even mention the word God in it. So does that make it an acception to the rule over the other apocryphal books? Just my two cents. |
||||||
9 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 48289 | ||
Greetings The Berean, Speaking of the book of Esther... "An outstanding feature of this book- one that has given rise to considerable discussion- is the complete absence of any explicit reference to God, worship, prayer, or sacrifice. This "secularity" has produced many detractors who have judged the book to be of little religious value. However, it appears that the author has deliberately refrained from mentioning God or any religious activity as a literary device to heighten the fact that it is God who controls and directs all the seemingly insignificant coincidences (see, e.g. note on 6:1) that make up the plot and issue in deliverance for the Jews. God's sovereign rule is assumed at every point (see note on 4:12-16), an assumption made all the more effective by the total absence of reference to Him." (1) I pray that this serves to justify and make clear the addition of the book of Esther in the Bible. Blessings to you, Makarios (1) The Zondervan NASB Study Bible, 1999, the Zondervan Corporation, Kenneth Barker, General Editor [taken from the Introduction to Esther] |
||||||
10 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | The Berean | 48422 | ||
I see your point. I don't have any problems with the book of Esther. However, when you say author, isn't the author inspired by God? So thus are you saying that God deliberatley withheld the mentioning of his name in the book? There are plenty of other documents concerning the plight of Jews that are not of Canon and also may not mention God. In this case it really wouldn't matter because they are his chosen people. He called them (Jews) to a Holy Nation (1 Peter 2:9) What about the Book of the Wars of the Lord in Numbers 20:21. I don't think no one has found them, still unkown I think. If they were found today, would they not be accepted? Thanks for the input | ||||||