Results 1 - 19 of 19
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | kalos | 126372 | ||
Sola scriptura ____________________ "Instead of tradition being the interpreter of Scripture, sola scriptura makes Scripture the interpreter of tradition." ____________________ Sola scriptura (Latin by Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It meant that Scripture is the Church's only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority, and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible or in addition to the Bible. The singular authority of Scripture (...) Sola scriptura reverses the order of the Church's authority, as it as understood in the Catholic tradition. Instead of tradition being the interpreter of Scripture, sola scriptura makes Scripture the interpreter of tradition. It is the foundational claim of the Reformation. Sola scriptura did not originally signify a radical rejection of all authority of the Church to interpret the Scriptures, but rather represented a claim that the teaching authority of the Church is regulated by the Bible, constrained by Scripture in both a limiting and a directing sense. The Reformers argued that the Scriptures are guaranteed to remain true to their divine source, and thus, only insofar as the Church retains scriptural faith it is assured of all the promises of God. Likewise, if it were possible for the Church to entirely lose Biblical faith, its authority would be reduced to nothing. Therefore, the Reformers targeted traditions which the Roman church had elevated to central issues of the Christian faith (such as transubstantiation, communion in one kind, that works of saints add to the church's treasury of merit, the doctrine of purgatory, the veneration of images, masses dedicated to the dead, and especially that the pope is the head of the Church), which the Reformers believed had no basis in Scripture, in the attempt to prove that the Church had gradually substituted traditions as the primary definition of the faith instead of the Bible, in order to demand of the Church that it should return single-mindedly to the Scriptures alone as the foundation of catholic faith. ____________________ To read much more on this subject, go to: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura) |
||||||
2 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | Emmaus | 126380 | ||
Prima Scriptura anyone? The Spirit and Forms of Protetstantism by Fr. Louis Bouyer, a French priest and Professor, 1st English edition in 1956 and currently in print from Scepter Press, has a preface written by Fr. G. De Broglie, S.J. and an appendix article also by De Broglie titled: On the Primacy of Argument from Scripture in Theology. Allow me to quote the opening paragraphs. "This brief note is far from being a complete tretment of the complex problem of the relationship between Scripture and Tradion. Still less does it question the fact that the argument from Tradition has a certain logical priority to the argument from Scripture--insofar as our belief in the inspiration of the Scripture rests on the authority of the Church. Nor does it maintain that every dogma can be proved by argument from Scripture, without recourse to Tradition. It does not call into question the infallibility of the Magesterium or its indeispensable role in the interpretation of Scripture. Neither does it ignore the fact that the theological argument drawn from ecclesiastical documents is, in a number of cases the most clear and cogent that could be imagined. All it aims at is to emphasize the classic recognition of the argument from Scripture as holding an inalienable primacy of importance and value among all the arguments used in theology. The reason for this is easy to understand. Even in cases where in the Catholic view the teaching of the Magesterium satisfies all the conditions for infallibility, the Church is obliged by her own teaching to acknowledge that an eccelsiastical document of the sort is an entirely different thing from a text of the Scripture. True, the Church's teaching is divinely guarenteed to be free from error; nonetheless, it remains, in the various acts that constitute it, an aggregate of testimonies that are merely human, bearing on past revelation made by God to men; whereas the sacred text presents us with a formal and direct testimony from God himself, in the very form in which it originally appeared. Consequently, Scripture has always had a place apart in the teaching of the Church. " He goes on to quote The Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, by Leo XII which states about the doctrines of all the Church Fathers: "They set out to establish and confirm, primarily by the sacred books, all the truths of the faith as well as those which flow from them." I highy recommend this book. But it is not light reading. Emmaus |
||||||
3 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | EdB | 126498 | ||
Emmaus Excellent!!!!! I love this quote, "Nor does it maintain that every dogma can be proved by argument from Scripture, without recourse to Tradition." That is exactly what I have been trying to say. Sola Scriptura does not stand alone when deciding doctrine. Many times traditions, oral or other written teachings, and testimony of saints were used to establish our cherished doctrine. It is ignorance and /or arrogance on our part now to stand and say unless you can clearly prove this from scripture it isn't so. EdB |
||||||
4 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | kalos | 126516 | ||
"Instead of tradition being the interpreter of Scripture, sola scriptura makes Scripture the interpreter of tradition." Ed: Which, if any, of the following statements are true? Which, if any, do you agree with? 1. The Bible does not claim to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. 2. The Scriptures are in need of some supplement. 3. Their authority comes from something other than their nature as God-breathed revelation. 4. Their authority is dependent upon man, Church or council. Ed, you are free to believe what you want, but if you agree with any of the statements 1-4, then I cannot agree with you. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
5 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | EdB | 126518 | ||
Kalos Once again you miss my point. I'm saying in some of cases of establishing church doctrine, other source aside from scripture were considered. Much of this was done before the term Sola Scriptura was coined. At that time there was only one church and one way to believe. Today we cry Sola Scriptura and end up with thousands of different beliefs. To me that looks like a problem. I think there are places in the bible that is open to individual interpretation, things like are the gifts of spirit manifested today or not, infant baptism, once saved always saved, predistination, divorced men in pulpit, women preachers, wearing of head covering for women, frequency and method of communion, method of baptism, worship styles, etc. Take Isaiah 53:3-5 some within Christiandom claims that is purely spiritual healing the others claim it is talking about physical healing. Can you or anyone else say for certainity that it is one or the other? No. You can't. You can say God heals today and He does, but that does not prove what this verse was referring to. You can say we are to pray for healing but still this particular verse is open to personal interpretation. And that brings division. EdB |
||||||
6 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | kalos | 126520 | ||
EdB: You write: "this particular verse is open to personal interpretation. And that brings division." I reply: Whatever it is that causes division, it is NOT the proper application of the principle of sola scriptura. "Very few of the differences that exist are due to sola scriptura; the VAST majority are due to a failure to apply sola scriptura." One may as well say that the solution to division is to gather up all privately owned copies of the Bible and burn them. The reasoning is that if the masses of people did not have access to the Bible, then there would be no division over its interpretation. My question remains unanswered: Do you agree with any of the four statements I posted in my previous Note? Those four statements have everything to do with what is meant by sola scriptura. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
7 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | EdB | 126523 | ||
Kalos I'm not going to answer your questions, there is no need, the fact you ask them is insulting. If you can’t understand what I trying to say about how people hide behind sola scriptura, if you don’t see how each person takes their own interpretation of scripture to justify their own agenda, if you don’t see how this has divided the church fine, but don’t try to make me out as a heretic. You know I have as orthodox view of scripture and Christianity as you do and for you to try to walk me into some little trap is to me distasteful. I think before I say anymore or something that I may regret later I will simply say I have explained my point of view as clearly as possible, I have given illustrations and examples in an attempt to convey my point and given quotes from others and it seems I’m still unable to convey my point to you. Therefore it is useless to continue this discussion. Be Blessed and Be a Blessing EdB |
||||||
8 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | kalos | 126524 | ||
Ed: I am not trying to make you out as a heretic. If you take a stand against sola scriptura, it is not I who is making you out to be anything. The questions I asked are not intended to be insulting. How you answer the questions will indicate where you stand on sola scriptura and whether you understand what it is. Not whether your definition of it agrees with someone else's, but whether you understand the definition of it. 'What then is sola scriptura? 'The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:' [If you do not believe in sola scriptura then you do not believe the truths contained in the previous paragraph because that paragraph is part of the definition of what sola scriptura is. So I ask you, do you believe that something not found in Scripture is somehow binding upon the Christian conscience? That the Scriptures alone are not sufficient to function as the "rule of faith" for the Church? That the Scriptures do not include all that one must believe to be a Christian; that there is something else -- something outside of Scripture -- that we must believe to be saved?] 'The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby' (http://www.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html). If you do not believe in sola scriptura, then : - You do not believe that the Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. - You believe that the Scriptures are in need of some type of supplement. - You do not believe that their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. - You do believe that their authority is dependent upon man, Church or council. - You do not believe that the Scriptures are self-consistent and self-authenticating. You can't have it both ways. Either you accept the teaching of sola scriptura -- that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God -- or you don't. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
9 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | EdB | 126556 | ||
Kalos My problem is not with Sola Scriptura as I have been trying to say. My concern is most people are unable for whatever reason to properly apply it to find God direction. The question then becomes who is to make the decision? Should it be the authority established over us in the church or not? Everyone reads the Bible to their "own' understanding and then claiming Sola Scriptura go off into never never land. Having already rejected most authority this process breeds more and more problems. The problem is some of these ideas while they resist tradition have some merit and need to be explored however since they are not consider orthodox Christianity they are summarily rejected. Others that have little or no merit for one reason or another seem to attract attention and many times eventually become a new denomination. I feel this process is the problem. Once more my misgivings is not with the concept but rather with the actual execution of the that process. I recall a time when authority was respected and the church was one of the authorities in our life. If they said this was wrong then most everyone felt it was wrong. Today if the church says this is wrong most people’s response is that is your interpretation of scripture not mine. Their claim is scripture not someone in the church is going to tell me what I’m going to believe. That is sola scriptura. We see it here on the forum. In nearly every discussion. One person reads scripture in a different light than another. Each believe without a shadow of doubt ‘his’ is the correct position. Most of these type discussions end with the thread being restricted because of tenor of the posts or someone gets insulted and leaves. At one time within the church all church doctrine was established by one church. It based it’s decisions on scripture, however in cases where two different readings or two different points of view prevailed then church history, oral and other written traditions, and even testimony of witnesses were used to establish clearly what was the preferred reading. I believe that was a good and correct process. I also believe that was what Christ desired for his church. However abuses also entered the process and the process needed to cleaned up. Instead of doing that the authority of the church was destroyed and every man has since taken this process upon himself. Now if that seems heretical to you so be it. As I have said I have tried more than once to convey this point and for some reason some want to try to twist my position from one of criticizing application to that of attacking the valid concept. EdB |
||||||
10 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | kalos | 126565 | ||
EdB: Shalom! After carefully reading your previous post, it seems to me that we are not so far apart in our thinking. The disagreement may be more about terminology than the substance of our thoughts. You write: "Once more my misgivings is not with the concept but rather with the actual execution of the that process." "My problem is not with Sola Scriptura as I have been trying to say. My concern is most people are unable for whatever reason to properly apply it to find God direction." That sounds a lot like what I've been posting for the past three days: "Very few of the differences that exist are due to sola scriptura; the VAST majority are due to a failure to [properly, intelligently] apply sola scriptura." You write: "Everyone reads the Bible to their 'own' understanding and then claiming Sola Scriptura go off into never never land." I agree that everyone reads the Bible to their own understanding of it. However, regardless of what people claim, the fact is that everyone determining BY HIMSELF what the Bible means is not sola scriptura. Instead it is SOLO scriptura. As I understand it, the principle of sola scriptura (basing our beliefs on Scripture) and how we INTERPRET the scriptures [upon which our beliefs are based] may be related, but they are separate and distinct, issues. Sola scriptura is not a methodology for interpreting Scripture. The problem is not due to basing our beliefs on Scripture; the problem is basing them on our own individual faulty interpretation of Scripture. The problem is the false notion of SOLO scriptura -- me and my Bible. SOLA scriptura does not mean "me and my Bible". I.e., it does not mean just give me my Bible and a desert island, I can figure it out for myself in isolation from the body of Christ, and "I don't need no" Greek word studies, lexicons, or the gifted teachers that Christ Himself has given to the church. What I described in the last sentence is SOLO scriptura (just me and my Bible), not SOLA scriptura. Truly the problem is not the principle of sola scriptura; it is the misapplication of the principle. It was never my intent to twist your position. My aim is and has been to understand it. I think that now I do understand your position better than I did. And if you mean what I think you mean, then I agree with you. Ed, I have much respect for and appreciation of you. Yours in Christ, kalos |
||||||
11 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | EdB | 126569 | ||
Now we are making progress. In all of this falls another ingredient to the mix, “Orthodoxy.” The attitude of some is that they are not involved in Solo Scriptura and they believe they are correctly applying scripture. However their view strays from everyone else’s. Both sides claim sola scriptura yet both have completely different concepts of the same passage of scripture. Validity of interpretation is in fact determined by orthodoxy, what has been established as the orthodox view of a passage. This orthodox view must be established on scripture but the interpretation of that scripture may have come from sources external to scripture. That is why my blood boils when someone says my interpretation is correct because it is based solely on scripture. Unless it aligns with what is considered orthodox it is variant and is to be held in suspect. Now the question becomes who today determines what is orthodox? Is it us here on the forum, the Christian Research Institute, each person for themselves, the World Council of Churches, each denomination, council of Rome? I’m sure you have an answer and my whole thrust of this thread is are we sure our answer is the one that Christ desired for His church or have we broken into what I see as many different answers with many different opinions, attitudes and directions? Then I ask is this Christian Unity or is a ploy of the adversary to cause division within the church? EdB |
||||||
12 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | Theo-Minor | 126588 | ||
[1st John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received of Him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in him.] [Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:] [Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.] [Romans 13:9 For this, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not vocet; and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."] [2nd Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished to all good works.] [Matthew 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall you scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:] [2nd Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the morning star rises in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.] [1st Timothy 1:5 The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heat, a clear conscience, and sincere faith.] The scriptures are to be interpreted by the individual, through the Holy Spirit, by the understanding and inspiration of love. They are not open to private interpretation, because the New Testament writings are those of prophets, and no scripture of prophecy is open to private interpretation. Love is the goal of their instruction, as well as the commandment of Christ, so when in doubt, look to love. When lacking direct statements, your heart will bear witnesses to your deeds by your conscience, and you will show the works of the law written on your heart. By this will you be judged when lacking direct command. Let the Spirit be your guide. You do not need any man to teach you. All you need will be found either in the scriptures, which are profitable for doctrine, correction, etc., or in your heart by a spirit of love through the Holy Spirit. If anyone disagrees with this post, I expect the disagreement to be a polite exchange, founded in solid, contextual scripture. Don't call me anymore names. Theo-Minor |
||||||
13 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | Theo-Minor | 126589 | ||
I reread my concluding paragraphs in the previous post. I think I was a little confusing. Let me reword that so it makes better sense. No man needs to teach another. All Christians get their learning from the same source. The scriptures are to the profit of all Christians for learning, and are understood by the Holy Spirit and through a spirit of love. While the interpretations are come to individually as the Holy Spirit guides, they are not of private (or various) interpretations. If guided by the Holy Spirit and viewing the scriptures through the inspiration of love, all Christians will come to the same general conclusions. In the few instances that the scriptures are not clear, the Holy Spirit and the inspiration of love are the guidelines for interpretation, not some authority's opinion, unless the opinion is credible and within the bounds of the doctrine of Christ. Theo-Minor |
||||||
14 | Why is this thread restricted? | John 17:22 | Stultis the Fool | 126593 | ||
Why is this thread restricted? | ||||||
15 | Why is this thread restricted? | John 17:22 | Leslie N | 126599 | ||
This is my view, based on what I see, but I don't know if its correct. It happens a lot to the ones I respond to. I've been thinking to myself, is there something wrong to my answers or notes? | ||||||
16 | Why is this thread restricted? | John 17:22 | Stultis the Fool | 126621 | ||
You know Leslie, I just don't think that is the case :) Can you think of anything you wrote that would justify these thoughts? | ||||||
17 | Why is this thread restricted? | John 17:22 | Leslie N | 126657 | ||
yes I state God is Jesus Christ, or more properly the Son of God. Obviously there is the Trinity so in full God is the Father God is the Son God is the Spirit these all exist as part of the 1 God People are telling me I have to believe that Jesus is God, therefore the Father is God the Spirit is God to me that is no longer Monotheism but 3 Gods. The last I posted was concerning the death of Jesus Christ. Since people argue Jesus Christ is God, I asked did the Father die on the cross. because in that God (the Godhead) exist the Father, the Son and the Spirit. So saying Jesus is God, states that in Him exist the Father and the Spirit. |
||||||
18 | Do people disbelieve? | John 17:22 | Stultis the Fool | 126664 | ||
I am not entirely understanding the dilemma... God is Jesus. Do people on this forum disbelieve this thing? | ||||||
19 | Do people disbelieve? | John 17:22 | JCrichton | 126745 | ||
Hi, Stultis! Negative! The problem is that there are those who are do not believe in the Scripture's revelation that Jesus is God... these are like wolf in sheep clothing who use feigned humility and concern to infiltrate this forum and others with their anti-Christian regurgitations. They are so confused that they call themselves Christians or "spiritual" but, as they are not seeking God in His terms, they reject Christ as their Lord! They reject Jesus' Divinity while still believing that they are obeying Yahweh! God Bless! Angel |
||||||