Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233226 | ||
EdB, I'm afraid that I don't understand your view much more than before. You mostly just indicated what you agreed with concerning my view but didn't clarify yours much. 1. What "more than shedding light on the word of God" would you affirm? Can you give me an example to help me understand? 2. It sounds like you affirm ongoing authoritative special revelation outside of scripture, am I missunderstanding you? Please don't be upset if this is way off, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just not sure what specifically you are saying. Can you help me understand your view? Right now I could not clearly explain to somebody else what it is you are either affirming or denying. Can you explain it to me without using the term Sola Scriptura? Thank you for your patience with me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
2 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | EdB | 233227 | ||
Beja I think I have clearly stated my position without the need of going deeper into specifics. I thread lightly less I be accused of being intolerant or an antagonist causing disruption to the sensibilities of the Study Bible forum. Certainly our history clearly proves that nothing good will come out of further discussion of the this subject by you and I. Blessings and God’s best to you and yours Ed |
||||||
3 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233228 | ||
EdB, Well perhaps I am too slow on the uptake, but as stated I don't understand your view. However, should your hesitation be because your view might be out of line with the notion of sola scriptura in a way not welcomed by the forum, then I can completely respect your restraint. My understanding of the TOU is that it does not demand that we agree with sola scriptura, but merely that our posts must not be contrary to it. This seems to be what we are pressing up against. So I accept the dismisal of the topic with no ill feelings. God bless. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
4 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | EdB | 233231 | ||
Beja Let me go out on a limb on this if I may. To all that I offend let me apologize but I'm trying to clarify my position on this topic. I object to the idea/concept of Sola Scriptura because it is an invention of man not to glorify God or to become more Christ like but rather it was invented by politically motivated people to cast off the restraints of Rome. Certain teachings within the church prevented the casting off of Rome without violating church teachings thus having the appearance of disobedience to Jesus and to the order of the church He established. So to overcome those handicaps men many with only political intentions devised the concept of Sola Scriptura thus providing them the freedom to cast off any restraint of any church teaching that was not specifically listed in scripture. That means any teaching, ritual, tradition that existed in the early church and was totally agreed to by all the apostles could and would be abandoned because it was not found in scripture. I do totally agree that man before Sola Scriptura wrongly invented things to preserve their agenda within the church, but I also believe many good and righteous things have also been lost by concept of Sola Scriptura. One of the last things our Lord Jesus prayed before His ascension into heaven was for the unity of believers. I see the biggest division in the church occuring when men started inventing things like Sola Scriptura. |
||||||
5 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233234 | ||
EdB, Thank you for your thoughts. I feel that while I wouldn't be perfectly comfortable explaining your thoughts on this to another, I do understand you much better. If I'm understanding you correctly I don't think I'd take much issue with what you are saying (as if that matters). If you are suggesting that prior to the reformers articulating the notion of sola scriptura, things were good then I would probably disagree there. However, the only concern that I would have had is something I think you answered in a previous post. I think you do affirm that if something is actually contrary to scripture then it is invalid for the churches. I'm pretty sure you said as much. Might I offer some help with terminology? Now I may be mistaken but it seems to be that what you take objection with is not sola scriptura but rather what many call the "regulative principle." The regulative principle teaches that ONLY things found in scripture have any place within the church. I myself struggle with this concept as to whether it is biblical. I have a good book on my "to-read" pile that will give me the chance to hear its reasoning articulated but I'm not sure whether I will find it persuasive or not. I think sola scriptura would be more about having the Bible alone as the ultimate authority for the church. Sola scriptura would not imply that we must throw out christmas eve services because we don't find that in the new testament portrayal of the church. Sola scriptura does not forbid those practices which are unfound in scirpture but not contrary to scripture. It does object to teachings contrary to scripture. For example we wouldn't introduce a doctrine of angels from outside of scripture as absolutely trustworthy. However it seems to me that what you are objecting to is blanket forbidding of practices which scripture does not address. That would be the regulative principle, which is also popular among reformed theologians. I think I'm accurate on all of that. ;) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
6 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | EdB | 233235 | ||
I'm familiar with the term regulative principal when it is applied to worship. Where it is felt that God has supplied all the things needed for His worship in scripture thus anything not listed is prohibited. The opposite being the normative principal of worship where any that isn’t directly prohibited by scripture is allowed if it is agreeable with members of the church. I think when the regulative principal is applied not only to worship but also to church government then the correct term is Sola Scriptura. Although I do view the regulative principal as equally egregious. And yes you are right in your understanding that I would not endorse a doctrine of angels from outside of scripture as being absolutely trustworthy. My biggest objection of the concept of Sola Scriptura is that its inception was not the result of prayer, or of a desire to draw closer to God or even to become more Christ like. It was conceived as a way to break the hold of Rome on the church (people). What I believe Sola Scriptura has accomplished is the division of the church into thousands of denominations each sure they have the correct and only true interpretation of various aspects of theology. But the biggest tragedy of Sola Scriptura is that in many cases we have lost the early church fathers perspective on many of the questions we now toil over theologically. |
||||||