Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94377 | ||
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory). First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient. Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church. Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that such a remark means that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. It is the contradiction that arises out of their own interpretation of this verse. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation." He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. "Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith." Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15). Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition! |
||||||
2 | Authority of the bible in question? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Pastor Glenn | 94389 | ||
gbennett76, Is this an "attack on the authority of the Bible"? If not please explain. Notice the rules before you post: To adhere to StudyBibleForum's intended purpose, please read the following before submitting a post: 1. This post is biblically based and whenever possible, I have included Bible references to support it. 2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. Also, there are very many scripture that bare out sola scriptura. The scripture ties itself together with many key cross references, while also excluding the theories of man: John 10:35b ...(and the Scripture cannot be broken), Psalm 118:22 The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes'?[21:42 Psalm 118:22, 23] Mark 12:10 Have you not even read this Scripture: "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. Luke 20:17 Then He looked at them and said, "What then is this that is written: "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone'?[20:17 Psalm 118:22] Acts 4:11 This is the "stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.'[4:11 Psalm 118:22] 1 Peter 2:7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,[2:7 NU-Text reads [to those who disbelieve.] ] "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,"[2:7 NU-Text reads [to those who disbelieve.] ] Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. Ephesians 2:16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. James 4:4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Disregard for the authority of the bible is what allows for justifying homosexual bishops and other sexual immorality in the church. Picking and choosing what parts of scripture is for the likes of people of the "Jesus Siminar" and other enemies of God. Pastor Glenn |
||||||
3 | Authority of the bible in question? | 2 Tim 3:16 | EdB | 94393 | ||
Pastor Glenn I'm not speaking for gbennett and I hope he agrees with me. I think he was talking about things like using scripture to support or deny the use of tongues today. Both sides support their argument on the Bible and both I believe are doing it in honesty. Both sides have great theologians that I respect but obviously both can’t be right and probably both are off just a little. Many feel the Apostles settled much of this very similar to how they settled the Jersualem council debate on Gentiles in Acts 15. A lot of the apostolic verbal traditions were lost from the protestant church when they declared sola scriptura. As I said today we argue an divide over them. I don't think gbennett was giving opportunity to debate homosexuality or anything like that. His point I believe is did the church lose anything in the Reformation or not. I think we did. As I said you can argue you only use sola scriptura today but there are people that oppose you and claim the same thing. If a true analysis could be done we would see both sides used other than Sola Scriptura and didn't even know it. They viewed a word, the verse construction, or understanding under some preconceived notion the other didn't and vice versa. EdB |
||||||
4 | Authority of the bible in question? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Pastor Glenn | 94399 | ||
EdB, gbennett76 said this: "Christians are free to wear tattoos, eat shrimp, pork or rare meat, wear polyester-cotton blends, seed their lawns with a grass mixture, and get their hair cut. But homosexuality is somehow taboo. " (ID 92988) Beware of sheep's clothing EdB, some posts belong elsewhere, not on this studybibleforum. Pastor Glenn |
||||||
5 | Authority of the bible in question? | 2 Tim 3:16 | EdB | 94411 | ||
Pastor Glenn I jumped on one aspect of what Gbennet said. Others have pointed out that he is totally off the wall in other aspects. Again what I said I stand on but I also said that since the Apostolic verbal traditions are so distorted and corrupted the only thing we can depend on is the Bible and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us. EdB |
||||||
6 | Authority of the bible in question? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Pastor Glenn | 94415 | ||
I understand what you were saying EdB. But, it is sad that this person has yet to acknowledge the authority of scripture. Gbennett76 posts strawman arguments without telling his sources. That argument falsely says that we have only two scriptures on which to base sola scriptura, but I like what Jesus said: Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 46For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" God Bless, Pastor Glenn |
||||||
7 | Authority of the bible in question? | 2 Tim 3:16 | EdB | 94441 | ||
Pastor Glenn I'm sorry I ever responded to any of gbennets posts. I read them as not containing any agenda other than asking did we lose something when we decided to disregard Apostolic verbal traditions and go only to Sola Scruptura. I now see he posted the question as he did to question the validity and inspiration of scripture. All scripture is valid, all scipture is inspired and all scipture rightly divided should take precedents over any thought or belief. I regret I allowed myself to play into his hand. By him questioning scripture I now know he is completely wrong in his ideas and thoughts. Sorry EdB |
||||||