Results 1 - 14 of 14
|
|
|||||
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 | dschaertel | 48445 | ||
"Mathison, while not being infallible (which as I had previously stated, for those with reading comprehension disabilities, is characteristic of the Bible alone), has documented himself superbly and is very persuasive and well-reasoned." So let's tie this together. If Mathison, being persuasive and well reasoned, and having documented his work superbly, began to teach that the doctrine of the trinity was a fabrication and can't be proved historically or in scripture, would you believe him? You see the early church, you know, the guys that actually wrote the NT, didn't teach the doctrine of the trinity. This was developed by the church later on. Yes, they can point to scripture that eludes to it, but it apparently isn't as obvious as you seem to think it is. Or they were just really stupid back then. I am not saying that I don't believe in the trinity. I think I have to spell that out for you. You apparently have trouble with hypothetical stuff. You say the Bible is the only reliable source of truth, but what do you do if two people disagree about what it says, or what it means? How do you resolve this? Do you appeal to a person, like Mathison? |
||||||
2 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48450 | ||
"So let's tie this together. If Mathison, being persuasive and well reasoned, and having documented his work superbly, began to teach that the doctrine of the trinity was a fabrication and can't be proved historically or in scripture, would you believe him?" Of course not. As I said, the man is not infallible, and the nature of God, when taking infallible Scripture together as a whole, is clearly Trinitarian. And that is true regardless of whether the Council of Nicea was ever convened or not. You wrote: "You see the early church, you know, the guys that actually wrote the NT, didn't teach the doctrine of the trinity." They did teach that there is one God, that the Father is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, and that Jesus is God. It is also clear from their writings that the Father is not the Son nor the Spirit, and that the Son is not the Spirit. Put 'em together, what do you have? Instant TRINITY! See? The doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example of what I am talking about. The Council of Nicea was not a bunch of folks sitting around saying to each other, "I wonder what God is like." It was not some political manuvering or scheming or acquiescence to paganism. It was learned, gifted men of the church coming together, examining the Scriptures, taking into account the writings of the early church fathers (who did express Trinitarian elements), and coming to the conclusion that God is one Being, eternally existing in three Persons. The Council of Nicea was not infallible, but they were right, and they used as their basis the authoritative writings of Scripture, and not merely human conjecture or opinion. "I am not saying that I don't believe in the trinity. I think I have to spell that out for you. You apparently have trouble with hypothetical stuff." My problem is not that I think you deny the Trinity, but that you seem to think that the reason that the Christian God exists in three Persons is because the church says he does, rather than the church saying that God is triune because HE has revealed Himself to be such. Again, the church does not create truth, nor is it infallible. But God has gifted the church so that, using the Scriptures as their sole infallible guide and the sole source of revelation after the apostolic age, they can come to an understanding of the truth. "You say the Bible is the only reliable source of truth, but what do you do if two people disagree about what it says, or what it means? How do you resolve this? Do you appeal to a person, like Mathison?" I did not say that the Bible is the only RELIABLE source. I said it was the only INFALLIBLE source. The church is reliable as far as it adheres to the apostolic tradition, which is infallibly inscripturated in the New Testament. The church does play a very important role in the correct discernment of truth. However, it is not a separate source of revelation nor infallible. And that is the difference between the early church (i.e. pre-medieval) and the later RCC: the more it saw itself as beyond the possibility of error; the more it saw itself not as a community coming to a correct discernment of the truth, but bound by the pronouncements of the Bishop of Rome; and the more it saw itself as a source of God's revealed truth rather than the interpreters of it, the more it drifted from being correct. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48482 | ||
" The Council of Nicea was not infallible, but they were right, and they used as their basis the authoritative writings of Scripture, and not merely human conjecture or opinion. " You must understand that the reason to have a council of Nicea, or any other council is becaue there was disagreement. You seem to think they all got together and just agreed on everything. But the bigger question is how do you know they were right? If others thought differently, how do you know they were wrong? Is it becaue of the council's decision. You say not. So I guess what you are doing is exhibiting the character of Sola Scriptura, which is I am right no matter what you say. Sola Scriptura is just a word for everybody interpret what they want and you are right if you say so. So I am right, and you are right, and we are all right. Because Sola Scriptura says that all truth is found in the Bible and it is self evident to whoever reads it. So if I read it and disgree with you we are by definition both right. But if we are both right, then the Bible contradicts itself. Ooops! we can't have that. Forget it, you are wrong and I am right. There, that's better. Sola Scriptura, it's great! |
||||||
4 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48485 | ||
"You must understand that the reason to have a council of Nicea, or any other council is becaue there was disagreement." Of course there was. The Arians, however, can be shown to be in error by the use of Scripture. Taking the whole counsel of God (i.e. the Old and New Testaments) into account, can anyone come up with a reasonable alternative to the trinitarian doctrine that was formulated? I agree with the majority of the council in saying "no." I am open to arguments against it, but groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses have done a very poor job of making their case if the Arian position is the correct one. "But the bigger question is how do you know they were right?" Because the church has overwhelmingly demonstrated in history that the trinitarian nature of God is the only one that completely conforms to SCRIPTURE. Unitarianism, Arianism, and Oneness have far too many problems when looking at the Biblical text. The church looked at Scripture and reliably interpreted it. "So I guess what you are doing is exhibiting the character of Sola Scriptura, which is I am right no matter what you say." That is not the classical Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. "Sola Scriptura is just a word for everybody interpret what they want and you are right if you say so." No it isn't. "So I am right, and you are right, and we are all right." Good grief! Are you able to follow a logical argument in the slightest? Have I once said that Scriptural truth is based on private opinion? Please go back and carefully read the posts I have made. "Because Sola Scriptura says that all truth is found in the Bible and it is self evident to whoever reads it." This is not biblical, nor does it reflect the classical Protestant position of sola Scriptura. Yes, God has revealed Himself infallibly and as completely as He has desired to do so in the pages of Scripture. It does not follow that the truth is self-evident to all. The unregenerate have their eyes blinded to the truth, and God has gifted some individuals in the church with a higher degree of knowledge and discernment, while giving different gifts to other believers. Let me spell the doctrine out as the Reformers understood it, one more time: 1. The Bible is the sole INFALLIBLE source of authority. 2. The Bible is the sole source of revelation for the church today. 3. The church is an authority, but not an infallible one. The church is reliable as long as it faithfully adheres to the apostolic tradition as it is preserved in the New Testament. 4. The church does not have the authority to deem itself infallible, nor to appoint a single individual as unquestionably infallible, nor to add its own tradition to the apostolic revelation found in Scripture and give it the same weight as God's written revelation, nor to consider itself a source of revelation by virtue of allegedly "occupying the offices" of Peter and the other apostles. These types of errors are what gradually led the Roman church astray over the centuries, when the Bible becomes less and less of an authoritative document. Again, I recommend the Mathison book again if you want to really understand sola Scriptura. Because you don't. You are attacking a mischaracterization of it that I would criticize myself. --Joe! |
||||||
5 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48573 | ||
"It does not follow that the truth is self-evident to all. The unregenerate have their eyes blinded to the truth, and God has gifted some individuals in the church with a higher degree of knowledge and discernment, while giving different gifts to other believers. " Then you are saying that the Bible itself is not sufficient? It needs some contribution from it's reader? Some kind of gifting? God given? Hmmm... Interesting. Is this gifting fond to be in certain members of the church and not others? Hmmm.... Interesting. So in effect, you are saying that God chooses people and gives them better ability to read and discern the scriptures than others do? Now the million dollar question. Are you one of the gifted ones? Am I? How does one tell who are the gifted ones and who are not? I think we are getting somewhere, but I dare not celebrate yet. |
||||||
6 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48597 | ||
"Then you are saying that the Bible itself is not sufficient?" No, I am saying that the ability of an unregenerate, fallen human being is insufficient to understand and embrace the truth. The problem is not with the Bible, but with the noetic effects of the Fall. "It needs some contribution from it's reader?" Well, it needs to be READ, yes, which requires a human being. It also requires the enlightenment of the mind that comes from the Holy Spirit's operation in the lives of God's people. However, if I am an unbeliever and reject the truth of the Bible, does it make it any less of a true revelation in itself? "Is this gifting fond to be in certain members of the church and not others?" Well, I wouldn't say it is non-existant in anyone, but Scripture is clear that there are those among God's children who have been bestowed a gift of teaching and/or a gift of knowledge and/or a gift of discernment regarding the Bible. That does not make such people infallible, however, merely better equipped to handle the word of truth as a teaching and corrective tool within the church. "Are you one of the gifted ones? Am I? How does one tell who are the gifted ones and who are not?" Well, we have to examine the Scriptures together to come to the right conclusions. Many of the issues have been adequately settled by the church, using the Scriptures alone as their guide. We do not need to re-hash the Trinity argument in every new generation of the church, because the church has examined God's infallible word and discerned that God is triune. The church used her gifts to interpret Scripture correctly, without looking to opinion or conjecture or the daily newspaper as secondary sources of revelation. However, the issue that I am raising is not the correct interpretation of Scripture, but the development of extra-biblical teaching which has no historical links whatsoever to the traditions of the apostles. It is the Matthew 15:7-9 syndrome, which Jesus rebuked harshly throughout his earthly ministry. --Joe! |
||||||
7 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48797 | ||
Joe, Maybe it's me, maybe I am just not getting the question across. Let's look at this real example. The church is clearly divided over the issue of infant baptism. Now you may have your belief, but if you say that the church has resolved this you are just out of touch with anything real. The Bible apparently isn't sufficient to resolve this issue. So how should it be resolved? You speak from the perspective that your beliefs are right because they are yor beliefs. But if someone who has studied the Bible disagrees with you, how can you say the scripture is sufficient? And the question still stands, where does the Bible speak of the 66 or more books that we call the bible, and where does it say that they are the exclusive and sufficient revelation of God? What prohecy was this? I haven't found it, and nobody I know has found it either. As far as I can tell you are just making that up. |
||||||
8 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48811 | ||
"The Bible apparently isn't sufficient to resolve this issue. So how should it be resolved?" I give up. How? Your previous suggestion was "the church." But as you said, "if you say that the church has resolved this you are just out of touch with anything real." So again, we have three options: 1. Scripture is sufficient, but at least one group is in error in its historical interpretation (i.e. in interpreting the original apostolic revelation). 2. Scripture is insufficient, and the church cannot agree on on the issue, meaning the church is insufficient. 3. Scripture and the church are insufficient, so we all go with our own understanding or "gut feeling" or whatever. So, citing your source of authority, tell us definitively whether infants should be baptized or not. You wrote: "But if someone who has studied the Bible disagrees with you, how can you say the scripture is sufficient?" We do it on this forum all the time. For example, Tim Moran is Arminian. I am Calvinist. We both agree on the sufficiency of Scripture and claim it as the only infallible authory available to us regarding the things of God. We both study the Scriptures, and we disagree with each other. Tim thinks the problem is not with Scripture but with me. I know, however, that my brother is mistaken. :) During our debating, which in the past has been quite extensive, we have not argued on which sounds more pleasing or which church teaches which thing. We have looked at the Scriptures together. That is what the church does. And while we remain divided on this important but secondary issue, we both stand together in affirming that the Bible is God's sole revelation to the post-apostolic church. The problem is that one of us is wrong about what it says. --Joe! |
||||||
9 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48844 | ||
"The problem is that one of us is wrong about what it says. " This is why the tree in the Garden is so important. I don't believe that it is necessarily a matter of who is right or wrong. It is a matter of submitting that human desire to be the judge. Suppose that you thaught infant baptism was wrong. But your church all of a sudden decided that it was going to practice this. What would you do? Is the question one of being right, or one of being submissive and obedient? I have stated that I am not a Catholic. But I believe that there should be one church. I think that the division is wrong, rooted in human pride and an unwillingness to submit. I am not pro-protestant or pro-catholic. These are divisions of men. The Bible can become a destructive tool when we use it as a means to promote our agendas, to feed our egos, to exclude and label people. This certainly is not the purpose of the scriptures. Sola Scritpura is a doctrine that is not taught in the Bible. What it does is it gives every person the "authority" to decide for themsleves what is right. This is what we got kicked out of the Garden for. This choosing what is right doesn't unite people, it divides people. You say there is agreement that the Bible is true, and I agree with that as well. But I don't believe in it's sufficiency, because it isn't a matter of sufficiency, or right and wrong. It is a matter of one's pride and willingness to submit. |
||||||
10 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48846 | ||
So answer my question, then, instead of constantly dodging it. What is YOUR authority? And answer my question regarding infant baptism, citing your authority as the source. You are a confusing individual. You say in one part of your post, in criticizing whatyou think is sola Scriptura: 'What it does is it gives every person the "authority" to decide for themsleves what is right. This is what we got kicked out of the Garden for." So you disapprove of people deciding for themselves what is right. Then you say, "But I don't believe in it's sufficiency, because it isn't a matter of sufficiency, or right and wrong. It is a matter of one's pride and willingness to submit." So the only logical conclusion I can draw is that you think someone else should decide for us what is right? So, who? Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? Muslims? Baha'i? Christian Scientists? Baptists? Catholics? Presbyterians? Anglicans? Methodists? the Way International? To whom do you humbly and willingly submit?!? --Joe! |
||||||
11 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48860 | ||
"What is YOUR authority? And answer my question regarding infant baptism, citing your authority as the source." My authority is Jesus Christ. He is not dead, but He is alive and He reigns in and through His church. So the church is the physical manifistation of Christ on earth and therfore is the authority as it has been given by Him. Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. The problem comes in because man's pride and insecurities still find their way in. The Bible to many people has become a crutch, kind of a security blanket. It is a scary thing to not have all the right answers, to have to trust in Christ when you just don't know if you are right or not. To the degree that we claim to be right we in a sense are simply trying to justify ourselves. But we are justified by faith, not by being right. Can we proceed in faith even when we don't know the answers? I don't think we can begin to realize faith until we don't know the answers. As long as we hold tightly to our crutches, our sacred cows, we can never step out in faith. I honestly don't know the "right" answer regarding infant baptism. I believe it is acceptable, and I in fact prefer it. But the issue isn't whether it is right or not. I don't believe any denomination or sect of Christianity has the exclusive right answers. You listed a bunch of different groups. These could be likened to the Samaratins of Jesus' day. They had a resemblence to the true religion, but had been corrupted by the many pagen beliefs. Yet Jesus on several occasions used the Samaratins to convict the Jews. I wouldn't put down Mormons, because in my judging of them I have become worse than them. We are justified by faith in Christ, not by being right. Faith in Christ means trusting that He is faithful when we are not. That He is right when we are not. So my trust is in Him, not the Bible or any particular interpretation of it. As far as the church goes, there are times when we are probably not right. But can we still trust that as the church, we are justified? |
||||||
12 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48862 | ||
"My authority is Jesus Christ. He is not dead, but He is alive and He reigns in and through His church." What if I attend a church that teaches the bodily resurrection never took place? Who are you to tell me that he is alive? Which church is the one He reigns through? The Protestant one? The Catholic one? The Orthodox one? The Coptic one? The Church Universal and Triumphant? You can't answer that, so in effect you are saying that there is no clear authority. "To the degree that we claim to be right we in a sense are simply trying to justify ourselves." Nonsense. Paul considered himself to be right. So did Jesus. Were they just trying to justify themselves? God revealed truth to us. God wants us to apprehend the truth and live by it. You say the church (whichever one of the contenders is "the church") defines truth. "But we are justified by faith, not by being right." Many churches teach that we are justified by our works. Are they right? If not, why not? "You listed a bunch of different groups. These could be likened to the Samaratins of Jesus' day. They had a resemblence to the true religion, but had been corrupted by the many pagen beliefs. Yet Jesus on several occasions used the Samaratins to convict the Jews." Yet Jesus never approved the beliefs of the Samaritans. Jesus taught truth. Jesus did not teach obscurity. In the same way that God judged Israel in the Old Testament using pagan nations, Jesus the Son had every precedent for shaming the self-righteous by the use of unbelievers in the truth. "We are justified by faith in Christ, not by being right." Again with that statement? Do you mean faith alone? Or faith plus something else? And do you mean Christ the great human teacher, or Christ the created angelic being, or Christ the spirit brother of Lucifer, or Christ the ascended master, or Christ the second person of the Trinity? Where is the identity and nature of jesus of Nazareth authoritatively revealed? "Faith in Christ means trusting that He is faithful when we are not" Where do you get that definition? What if my church defines faith differently? Are we at a stalemate? "So my trust is in Him, not the Bible or any particular interpretation of it." And where do you get your information about Jesus Christ. How do you know it is reliable? What if you are worshiping a false god? Should Jesus even be worshiped? Who says, and why should I listen to that church? "But can we still trust that as the church, we are justified?" Well, you still haven't defined what "the church" is, so I will have to refrain from answering. And dince differing groups define justifcation differently, I can't know if I am justified because I can't get a clear fix on what it means. See, I have this book which defines pretty clearly what it means to be justified, and who Jesus is and what God is like and what faith is and exactly who and what we should put our faith in. It defines what the church is, and tells me a great deal about human nature and this place called heaven. However, you seem to think that none of that information should be trusted (that "crutch" thing, you know), and that we should just have faith (whatever that is) in Christ (whoever He is) and trust that we are justified (whatever that means) and submit humbly to the church (whatever that is). "It is a scary thing to not have all the right answers" You should be a very frightened human being, then! --Joe! |
||||||
13 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48863 | ||
" It defines what the church is, and tells me a great deal about human nature and this place called heaven. However, you seem to think that none of that information should be trusted" That is not what I have said at all. But you demonstrate why I continue to challenge. I have stated that I take the Bible very seriously,and in fact that is why it is so important to me to determine what it actually says and what it doesn't. But rather than impute meaning to it, like Sola Scriptura, I believe that I need to accept that in some cases the Bible just doesn't have an answer. You know, like infant baptism. The Bible just doesn't have an answer. Yet churches divide over this issue and both sides are convinced they are right. In my mind they have missed the point. " Which church is the one He reigns through? The Protestant one? The Catholic one? The Orthodox one? The Coptic one? The Church Universal and Triumphant? You can't answer that, so in effect you are saying that there is no clear authority. " You see, you missed it again. The Bible says there is only one church, one faith, one baptism. These are divisions of men. Scripture doesn't support this. Yet they carry their Bibles to battle over the issues that are not theirs to fight over. In my mind this is an abuse of the scriptures. It is using them for man's own glory, his own need to be right. "What if I attend a church that teaches the bodily resurrection never took place? Who are you to tell me that he is alive? " I can only appeal to the witness of those who were there. And yes, that is recorded in the scriptures. But you missunderstand me if you think that I am saying the scriptures are of no value. I am saying they should not be a crutch for our own pride. The battles over doctrine are nothing more than human pride. I know this discussion has been long winded and a little off course. You seem to think that I am against the Bible or something. I am not. I read it every day, attend several Bible studies, etc.. The topic of this discussion is Sola Scriptura. I believe the scriptures are inspired and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". Let's look at this word profitable. Here are the other two places it is used in scripture: 1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Titus 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. Niether of them mention scripture. They are more concerned with our behavior than our Biblical knowledge. |
||||||
14 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48870 | ||
You responded to my saying that you think that the information in the Bible should not be trusted in this way: "That is not what I have said at all." However, in the post immediately previous to this one, you said: "Faith in Christ means trusting that He is faithful when we are not. That He is right when we are not. So my trust is in Him, not the Bible or any particular interpretation of it." Again, you said that you trust Christ, not the Bible, as if they communicated different things. You wrote: "The battles over doctrine are nothing more than human pride." Paul wrote (not that it matters to you): "Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them." --Romans 16:17 "If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain." --1 Timothy 6:3-5 "For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." --Titus 1:7-9 "But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine." --Titus 2:1 John agrees: "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." --2 John 1:9 There is a direct link between sound teaching and doctrine and having Christ. Striving over truth and doctrine are not "sources of pride," but the key to truly knowing Christ. You wrote: "You see, you missed it again. The Bible says there is only one church, one faith, one baptism." Yes, so in your opinion that means that ANY groupd that identifies itself as "the church" is indeed the church? Where is the deviding line between those who are Christians (i.e. in the church) and those who are not? Different organizations calling themselves "the Church" have contradictory answers? You keep avoiding that issue. Please define for us what is "THE CHURCH." No circumlocution, no frittering around the issue. According to you, what is the church, and what is your authority for defining what the church is? Regarding the use of the word profitable in other contexts, you wrote: "Niether of them mention scripture. They are more concerned with our behavior than our Biblical knowledge." So what? 2 Timothy 3:16 connects it directly with Scripture. Scripture is profitable. Lastly, if you think that sound teaching and proper knowledge about the things of God is not important to Paul, then you have no understanding whatsoever of the bulk of Paul's epistles. Go read Romans 1-11. Pure, unadulterated theology. The directions for living come later, but the first eleven chapters are nothing but information about God, information about us, information about Jesus Christ and what He accomplished, original sin, the role of God's law, the life of the redeeemed and our struggle with sin, our future hope, God's sovereign choice, the nation of Israel and how it fits into the grand scheme of redemption. And you think that truth is secondary to Paul...Looking at the structure of the epistles, we have Paul giving biblical TRUTH and then telling believers to LIVE according to that theological truth. That is so obvious to anyone who takes the time to look that this doesn't even merit debate. You wrote: 'I believe the scriptures are inspired and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".' Do you believe the Scriptures are uniquely "God-breathed"? No, your posts show your confidence that someone today could write something on par with Scripture. To you they are merely good books. Not the very words of God. If you are rejecting the authority of God's message, I must say that you are seriously in trouble and, yes, in need of the correction Paul mentioned in the passages above. --Joe! |
||||||