Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
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 | Reformer Joe | 48595 | ||
"Chronoogical or not, it clearly says what day Adam was created in." Genesis 1 does, yes. Day 6. Genesis 2 says nothing about which day. What it does say is that no plants of teh field had sprouted, and that there were no shrubs of the field (Genesis 2:5). However, there apparently was some vegetative processes going on, for God was causing a mist to rise out of the earth to water the whole surface of the ground (Genesis 2:6). Therefore, it is not far-fetched at all to assume that while there was no developed, grown plants of the field, that vegetative life existed prior to this point. Not that my arguments are going to be carefully weighed by you or anything, but there they are in any case. You wrote: "You know, like Sola Scriptura. I still haven't seen the scriptural evidence. Can anybody produce it? Why do you keep avoiding this question? How can you say you believe in the authority of the Bible when you desparately hang on to a doctrine that is not supported by the Bible." I have produced a great deal of evidence from Scripture speaking of the authority of God's word. You have alternatively cut it out of your responses, dismissed it, or said that it doesn't apply to the Bible at all because ALL of the Bible wasn't written yet. You have clearly shown that you do not understand sola Scriptura as it was articulated by the Reformers, choosing instead to attack a straw-man version of it that I would reject myself. I have pointed you to more than one source that demonstrates from history that the position of the early church was one of sola Scriptura. You responded by ad hominem arguments, suggesting that I consider secondary sources to be, avoiding the material arguments themselves made by these scholars. You have shown a misunderstanding of what the very word "infallible" means according to both Protestants AND Roman Catholics. Yes, even a good Roman Catholic would say that you don't get what they mean when they speak of the church and the pope being infallible. You claim that the church is the final authority, but you cannot even point out to me WHICH church you consider to be the authoritative, final authority. If someone were to come up to you and ask you personally where one can go in your city for the unquestionable truth about God, what would you tell them? So you are not sure who God's infallible people are, but you are dead set against giving Scripture the authority that God lends to it. I have shown you how the apostle Paul held to a literal Adam in his theological discourse in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, and you have shown yourself unable to even analyze a handful of verses with clarity, ignoring my very clear arguments which demonstrate that we might as well tear entire chapters out of the New Testament if Adam is not ONE MAN by whose ONE transgression the many were made sinners. All this, and you still ask me, "Where is the evidence?" Is there anyone else reading these posts who thinks that I have been evasive? You wrote: "I don't mean to attack anybody, nor the authority of the Bible." Well you are doing a bang-up job of the latter. Please tell me what authority the Bible has in itself? You have said that without the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer, that the Bible is "nothing." You have twisted the very words of Jesus in his High Priestly Prayer of John 17 to argue that Jesus was talking about the "Word made flesh" (i.e. Himself) rather than God's message. You have little or no regard for the Bible other than a nice book which has no bearing on our lives except where the church assigns it that authority (whatever the "church" is in your mind). I will let you have the last word as far as this discussion goes. Not much more can be said than has been said here, and I will be delighted to see which sentence you take out of context to form another straw-man to knock down. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48799 | ||
"Therefore, it is not far-fetched at all to assume that while there was no developed, grown plants of the field, that vegetative life existed prior to this point." I don't think I am taking this out of context. It does show my point very clearly though. It is not far-fetched to assume? Good way to study the Bible I'd say. Don't worry what it says, just assume. we can make it be anything we want it to. Actually it is my respect for the scriptures that causes me to continue to ask the question. You assume that which is a direct contradiction to what the scripture says, and then say I have no regard for the scripture. I demand for myself the truth of what the scripture says. There are plenty of ambiguities and dificult issues to resolve in the scriptures whithout adding our own assumptions. Sola Scriptura is an assumption because the Bible teaches it nowhere. While you say that you have provided plenty of evidence, all you have really given me is opinion and assumption. I am simply asking for some scripture that bears witness to this doctrine that seems so indefensible. And you have provided none of that. Book, chapter, verse? Telling us what the Bible is to be, and how it is exclusive and sufficient? That's all. And as for my knowledge of Catholic belief.. try again. I got it right from the horses mouth so to speak. You have demonstrated that you are willing to make assumptions to make your case. |
||||||