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 | Hank | 48043 | ||
Jawz, yes I am totally sola scriptura, and yes I can provide ample Scripture of what Scripture says about itself to support my stand, and on many posts to this web site I have done just that, and so have many others. But I see no reason to repeat them to you, because it is a fairly safe guess that you will no more believe them than you believe what the Scriptures say of the marriage of Mary to Joseph or of their subsequent becoming parents to other children of this marriage. If you do not accept the Scriptures as your sole authority for faith and practice, I see no reason to answer any more of your questions or attempt to prove anything else to you by the use of Scripture. Our premises are too divergent to permit of any meaningful dialogue that uses Scripture as the basis for its arguments and conclusions. This forum is designed to be a STUDY of Scripture and not an ATTACK on its authority. Accordingly, I choose not to participate in or respond to anything further that is presented on this thread. You, jawz, are in violation of the second agreement that appears in the green oblong box in which you agree before posting that your post is not an attack on the authority of the Bible. The Lockman Foundation set up these guidelines for users to follow, and they fully expect them to be followed. It is wise for every user to pay attention to them if they wish to be allowed continued access to post on this forum. --Hank | ||||||
2 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | jawz | 48116 | ||
Hank, I do not attack the authority of the bible, but I do contend that there is synergy between the bible and the traditions. The bible came out of the traditions and the traditions out of the bible. One is not subordinate to the other. I believe the traditions are necessary for a proper understanding of scripture and to protect against us unwittingly applying our own bias to the interpretation of scripture. Like it or not, you have your own traditions, built on the doctrines of the reformists and their successors. Just to make my position clear, questioning sola scriptura is not questioning the authority of the bible, simply your interpretation of what scripture says on this issue. Your stand, by implication claims that after establishing his church, God allowed it to be misled for fourteen centuries. I find this reasoning dubious at the very least and in direct opposition to what Christ said of the church. |
||||||
3 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48140 | ||
You wrote: "The bible came out of the traditions and the traditions out of the bible." That makes no sense. One or the other has to be true, or else they have a common source. Your error is in stating that there are two traditions, one oral and one written, both with equal weight. The classical Protestant understanding is that there is ONE tradition, first oral and then written down as an infallible standard for the post-apostolic church. You wrote: "Like it or not, you have your own traditions, built on the doctrines of the reformists and their successors." Of course we have traditions. The question is which of all the traditions claiming to be the apostolic one really IS the apostolic one. You wrote: "Your stand, by implication claims that after establishing his church, God allowed it to be misled for fourteen centuries." Red herring. You yourself claim that the Church was misled, or else you would be a Roman Catholic and not Orthodox. The Reformers did not hold that the RCC had been wrong for fourteen centuries, or even that the Church had abandoned all sound doctrines. What the Reformers stated is that gradually the church, in establishing itself as a source of new revelation and new traditions, had gradually abandoned the apostolic traditions. In other words, the church is not infallible (if you think that it is, please show me where the Bible says THAT), and a series of errors and setting up a second tradition alongside that of the apostles is what led to the Reformation. You also need to keep in mind that the doctrine of sola Scriptura did not begin with Luther, not did its recovery begin with Luther. Check out figures such as Wycliffe and Hus. God has preserved His church since its founding. We can clearly see from church history, however, that at no time has the church been free from the possibility of error. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48305 | ||
"The classical Protestant understanding is that there is ONE tradition, first oral and then written down as an infallible standard for the post-apostolic church" And just where do you get that from? Can you give chapter and verse? Or is it human tradition? "In other words, the church is not infallible (if you think that it is, please show me where the Bible says THAT)" Paul makes no claim that the church is without error but he does regard it as being the foundation of truth. You may note the absence of the word Bible here. Paul doesn't say refer to the scriptures. 1Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. "that at no time has the church been free from the possibility of error. " I don't think you understand what infallibility is. It doesn't mean that we are without error. It does mean that the church has authority to determine what is truth. We must have this, or we have nothing. |
||||||
5 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 48310 | ||
Hello dschaertel I don't think you know what infallibility is. Infallible - adj. 1.Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information. 2.Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule. 3.Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals. www.dictionary.com Steve |
||||||
6 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brian.g | 48322 | ||
Steve A more complete definition of infallible includes: "not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint" (Merriam-Webster), which means we, the faithful, will accept without judgement. There are some teachings in which the use of your shortened definition list is appropriate, such as when the Pope does confirm that Jesus is God, the Churchs position on the Trinity and so on. I think we all agree with those infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. But, there are other proclamations, announcements, decisions - which, I will accept from the Pope and I will not judge him to be right or wrong. I will accept that the Pope has prayed on it, sought counsel and is being guided with truth and honesty. Now, you and I are not obligated to accept the leadership of the Pope, but I choose to. So, now that the full definition of the word is now known, you can see that both you and dschaertel are correct. Brian |
||||||
7 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48328 | ||
Brian: You wrote: "There are some teachings in which the use of your shortened definition list is appropriate, such as when the Pope does confirm that Jesus is God, the Churchs position on the Trinity and so on. "I think we all agree with those infallible teachings of the Catholic Church." I agree with them, but not because the Pope said so. In this case, the Pope is "inerrant" (not in error), not "infallible" (incapable of error). "But, there are other proclamations, announcements, decisions - which, I will accept from the Pope and I will not judge him to be right or wrong. I will accept that the Pope has prayed on it, sought counsel and is being guided with truth and honesty." You will follow without regard for whether the Pope is right or wrong? Doesn't "papal infallibility" mean that the Pope is divinely guarded completely from being wrong in his papal pronouncements? You wrote: "Now, you and I are not obligated to accept the leadership of the Pope, but I choose to." You, as a Roman Catholic, are saying that as Christians are not obligated to accept the leadership of the Vicar of Christ, who occupies the chair of Peter? I guess I will not have to post anymore if you are going to make the Protestant arguments for me. I will go with Scripture again: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." --1 John 4:1 --Joe! |
||||||
8 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brian.g | 48330 | ||
Joe God gave each of us a free will to accept or reject whatever we wish. I have chosen to accept the pastoral leadership of the Pope and the teachings of the Catholic Church. You, may use your free will to accept or reject whatever you decide. Brian |
||||||
9 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48352 | ||
That's nice, but doesn't materially address anything I wrote in my post. --Joe! |
||||||
10 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brian.g | 48365 | ||
Joe Help me out a little. What more are you looking for. Brian |
||||||