Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
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 | Wild Olive Shoot | 170885 | ||
How about: James 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: Your ears, by count, double your tongue. Maybe one should take advantage of that. Diatribe??? WOS |
||||||
2 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Emmaus | 170887 | ||
... | ||||||
3 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | DocTrinsograce | 170894 | ||
Whew... almost every line demands a response, not sure where to start... "...owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense...", that is a perfect example of Alexandrian School of Thought: i.e., we need really, truly, holy men to teach us poor, sinful, ignorant sods, lest we start plucking out our own eyes and such like. Therefore, the real authority for all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience are men demanding veneration from other men, rather than the Scriptures themselves. "According to the Fathers, Scripture is sufficient only within the milieu of the Church and Tradition..." Which is fully contrary to the statements of the Fathers themselves, let alone the kyrigma. "The Church Fathers never separated Scripture, Tradition and Church..." Seems that happened in the Pelagian Controversy in the 400's... Or was the cut off point the very LAST Ecumenical Council in 787? "...as a Church Father, they were first and foremost men of the Church." Paul, Peter, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc.did not offer up their lives for the "church!" They were martyred for Christ! To imply otherwise denigrates there willingness to die for the Lord to something common. "...Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God..." Sorry... I've read too much from the 1992 Catechism! Maybe later editions will get that transition thing down pat. "...Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw truths from the holy Scripture alone..." Although calling them truths is specious, however, if liberty is granted with that word, this statement is true. There is, indeed, much adding to the Book by Rome. "...we learn about the Church in the Scriptures. If you accept Christ, why do you not accept the Church?" False dilemma, especially as they mean a specific denomination, not the holy, invisible body of Christ. "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." (1 Timothy 4:1-3) "There is no gospel preaching when sola scriptura is compromised. The sufficiency of Scripture is always the target of every false teacher. The elders in the churches must be prepared to define and defend this fundamental truth. And more than this, they must be able to do so with God-borne passion. Let us pray that God will bless His people with a deep and abiding love for His truth, and the desire to press this truth boldly in the face of those who oppose it." --James R. White from http://www.aomin.org/SS.html Another good discussion on this topic, though brief, is at http://www.credenda.org/issues/8-5disputatio.php "Postings must be Biblically based and not opposing to the authority of the Bible" --SBF Terms of Use Postings repudiating the authority of the Bible will be reported to Lockman. |
||||||
4 | 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. |
||||||
5 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Ocelot | 170901 | ||
And then there was the inquisition. Ocelot |
||||||