Results 1 - 20 of 48
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: dschaertel Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48129 | ||
Joe, You may want to check your history a little. Luther clearly removed the apocryphal books. He also wanted to remove Revelation, James, and a couple others as well. These books have been part of the canon since throughout the centuries. They weren't part of the Jewish canon which occurred after the apostolic age. |
||||||
2 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48182 | ||
Joe, After reading the stuff at your link I find nothing that disagrees with me except this guy's own opinion. The RCC declared these books part of the canon because they have been in use for centuries. They didn't just invent the idea. As a matter of fact there have been many canons throughout the centuries. They differ from time to time and from east to west. Parts and all of the apocrypha have been incuded. In fact the Old Testament that we now have is bigger than the original Jewish canon. It all depends on what year and in what context you are looking. Here is a question for you; when did the "protestant" church ever officialy declare it's canon? I missed that in any of the info you referred to. Again, my question was how do you or anybody else determine the authority to decide what is scripture? |
||||||
3 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48216 | ||
Makarios There are plenty of verses that refer to scripture, but show me where is the magic list that tells which books are in and which are out. Tell me where is the criteria for determining this in the Bible, and then tell me how you know that should be in the Bible in the first place? |
||||||
4 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48221 | ||
"(it was actually in the appendix of his translation, just like it was in the Vulgate)" It depends on how you look at this. Sure, Jerome didn't consider these books on par with the others, so they were isolated between the Old and New Testaments. But why do you suppose he left them in? It was because there were others who believed that they should be there and he didn't have enough of an argument to remove them. There was a difference between the Alexandrian texts and the Palestinian texts. The majority of complete manuscripts that come from the Alexandrian variety included the apocryphal books. You seem to think that because it wasn't until Trent that the RCC declared these books scripture that it was a new thing. You obviously don't know how the RCC works. Before they consider it dogma it has been the norm for some time. As you say, Luther originally didn't remove them, but moved them to the back. This shows that they were in there before the reformation. I am not Catholic by the way. But I do respect the doctrine, theology and heritage that they bring. It is very short sighted, in my opinion, to just ignore over 1600 years of Christian history. You ask me how do I tell what is scripture? That is a good question. I don't think there is a right answer to that. That is my point. I am not trying to argue in favor of the RCC Bible. I am trying to say that either position is not Biblical. |
||||||
5 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48299 | ||
Apparently you are missing my point. "Only books that are authoritative, and tell the truth about God as it is already known by previous revelation belong in the Word of God." What makes them authoritative? You are defining your terms with the terms. It is like looking up a word in the dictionary only to find it defined by itself. If I am trying to decide what is authoritatve, how do I go about that? What makes something authoritative? And where do you get that definition from? "Also, no NT author ever quoted from any of these books (that are included in the Catholic Bible) as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired writ. If these books had been inspired, then why did Jesus and the disciples virtually ignore all of these books?" This is just totally false and baseless. The books of Enoch (which isn't even in the Catholic books) and Baruch are quoted from in the NT. Not to mention there are quotations from early church fathers from the apocryphal books. However, there are other books in the Old Testament that are not quoted from in the NT, like Esther for example. This doesn't hold up as criteria for determining canonicity, sorry. "I believe that it is quite obvious when touching upon the text itself" I think this statement shows a lack of understanding of history and how the Bible came about. If it is so "obvious" how come there have been so many lists throughout the years? When Josephus wrote at the end of the first century he sites only 22 books in the Jewish canon. Throughout the years different books have been in and out. Luther did not want James and Revelation in the Bible. Say what! How does he come to that? I think if you put the blinders on and repeat the rhetoric, life is a bowl of cherries. But that doesn't chagne the facts. |
||||||
6 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48301 | ||
"John 10:35 "If he called those to whom the word of God came 'gods' (and the Scripture cannot be set aside)," [ISV]" Was Jesus referring to the books of Mark and Matthew, or John when he said scripture cannot be broken? Or maybe he had read Paul's letter to Timothy? Or was it the book of Hebrews? I don't think these were written yet and I don't think Jesus taught from them, nor did he quote them, nor did he ever refer to them. The Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura because the Bible does not define itself. If we were to use the scriptures that Jesus used, or only use the books that he quoted from, we wouldn't have the Bible. Paul exhorts Timothy to carry on what he taught him. He says: 2Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. I don't see any mention of the Bible here, do you? Did Paul say read the Bible and observe it only? I don't think so. |
||||||
7 | 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. |
||||||
8 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48353 | ||
Makarios, "Is Revelation 22:18-19 only speaking of the book of Revelation? Or the New Testament? Or the Old Testament?" I believe that this only speaks of the book of Revelation. If you do a study on this you can see, however, that Revelation is loaded with quotations of Old Testament scripture. Because it is so rich in this way I understand it to be highly symbolic. I also am not convinced that Revelation was written around 90 or 96 AD as some say. I believe it was written prior to 70 AD, most likely 68 or so during the reign of Nero. This is most evident from Rev. 17:10 which seems to identify the time. Nero was the sixth Roman emperor. His name in Hebrew also adds up to 666. And there are many more nice fits. The aparent urgency of the prophecy also makes a good fit. Jesus said these things were about to happen very shortly. 70AD is pretty shortly after 68AD. If this was written in 96, then Jesus was apparently misleading us with this urgency stuff, because there are no events that can be identified that fulfill this prophecy at the very end of the first century. |
||||||
9 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48368 | ||
"If the Roman church or any other church were truly infallible, there would not, it seems to me, exist any necessity to revise and update their dogma every so often" If this is true, then how can one place their faith in protestantism, since there exists some 30,000 plus different denominations, all claiming to believe in the truth. If we should rely only on the Bible, and the Bible is infallible, how can their be so many different interpretations? What makes your beliefs correct vs. anybody elses? Maybe the dictionary doesn't capture the actual usage of the word, which isn't unusual, but the church never claimed that every belief within it's walls is true. What it does claim is that when for whatever reason there needs to be a decision regarding doctrine, the decision that the church makes is the right one. It is the right one only because it is the decision of the church. This is the authority that Jesus gave to the church. Infallibility is more about being authoritative, then being correct. It is kind of like going to someone else's house. Maybe you think they do things wrong, but in their house, they are right, because it is their house. |
||||||
10 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48372 | ||
It is interesting that I have asked for evidence from the Bible supporting Sola Scriptura, and you give me this: "Check out _The Shape of Sola Scriptura_ by Keith Mathison for an in-depth analysis of the historical arguments for ONE tradition. " Am I to understand that you consider Keith Mathison to be infallible? Why should I need his argument if the Bible is sufficient? Why is the evangelical church making millions of dollars sellng books telling us how the Bible is all we need? Why are there so many Protestant denominations if they have the clear understanding of the truth? Shouldn't there only be one? And just where do you think the Bible came from anyway? Was it found on a mountain top somewhere? Or was it the church that decided which books were in and which books were out? Or did God speak to someone and tell them, but if so, where is that written so that we can see it? I am not questioning the Bible, I am challenging the worship of it. The Bible says that the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets. It doesn't say on the foundation of the Bible. God has always worked through people. Whether they be prophets, apostles, priests, rabbis etc... The Holy Spirit inhabits people, not books. You ask if the church were to leave the doctrine of the trinity ...? Well, if they did, then we would have to assume that they were doing the right thing, since we are they. |
||||||
11 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48377 | ||
"3.Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals. " Well, there ya have it. It's right in the dictionary. The RCC is infallible! You make a good point. How do you challenge that? After all, the dictionary is always right. |
||||||
12 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48385 | ||
"Claiming that there are divinely-inspired works of fiction in the Old Testament just doesn't sit well with me at all. It just doesn't "fit." " I realize that you probably consider this a heresy, but there are Christians that consider the garden story of Adam and Eve to be a parable. That doesn't mean that it wasn't inspired, or doesn't convey God's truth. It isn't out of God's character to tell parables at all. Jesus did it all the time. The Bible even says that: Hosea 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets. Notice the use of the word "similitudes". If Jesus uses parables, why can't they exist in the Bible? Does it destroy your faith if you find out that God uses parables? I guess you have to ask youself is the Bible a history book, a science book, or a testament of God's grace? I am willing to give on the history and the science. I don't think that was the intention. I think that people have made too much out of the Bible today. It has become an idol for many. They worship it more the Christ himself. Christ indwells the church. We are his body. The Bible is a book. When it comes down to it, I go with the body of Christ. We have the knowledge of the truth through the power of the Holy Spirit, not the Bible alone. I beleive that God can reveal himself to us without the Bible, but the Bible is nothing without the Holy Spirit in us. |
||||||
13 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48387 | ||
I don't know steve, I went to the www.dictionary.com and I can't find where it says that this definition is only for Catholics. In fact, the other definitions we italicized as well. It the word itself only a RCC word? You gotta know I am making fun here, right? |
||||||
14 | 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? |
||||||
15 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48447 | ||
"Non-thinking Christians, maybe. Some of the most important theological arguments made in the New Testament hinge on there being a single, historical pair of human parents. " So, if I said that you were as strong as Hercules, what does that mean? Does that mean that Hercules was a real literal person? Do you not understand what I mean when I say that? Does it mean you have no strength because Hercules was a myth? I think the thruth that God is communicating can be made even if the story is a parable. Now, if your aganda is not the witness of Christ but rather anti-evolution, then you need the literal explanation. If I was trying to prove that Greek mythology was actually true, then I would need Hercules to be a real person. It kind of depends on what your aganda is, doesn't it? ""Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." --John 17:17 " It is interesting you quote John, because John says that the "word" was made flesh and dwelt among us. Have you seen any flesh Bibles lately? John also records for us: John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Are you saying then that the comforter is actually the Bible? That the Holy Ghost is actually the Bible? I still haven't seen any scripture that speaks of the Bible. Remember when the psalms were written, the only scripture was the Torah. Just 5 books. When Paul wrote 2Timothy, there was no New Testament. So when they refer to scripture they aren't refering to the Bible, the Bible didn't exist yet. |
||||||
16 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48448 | ||
I beleive that the Bible clearly identifies the temple of God as the church. And it clearly identifies the Word as Christ, and it clearly identifies the body of Christ as the church. But nowhere does the Bible say anything about the Bible. Hello... is this mic on? Where does the Bible say anything about a collection of 66 books, or what ever number you want, that will be collected in the future that is to be used to discern all truth? Where is this prophecy? Show me? Nobody has even come close yet. |
||||||
17 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48460 | ||
Tim, Very well put, and in fact that is my point. It is the church that recognizes the scripture. The scripture doesn't come with some kind of angelic seal that marks it as such. It is though usage, application, and revelation that we come to accept something as being inspired. But the authority to make this recognition, I believe, has been given to the church. So now we have a dilema. Part of the church says one thing, and part of the church says another. Many of the early church fathers quoted the apocryphal books as if they were scripture. Paul even makes refernce to the practice of being baptized for the dead. John even says that there are many more things that Jesus did that are not recorded in his gospel. If the RCC says that these books are scripture, by what authority would you argue against that? |
||||||
18 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48478 | ||
" The early lists were all in basic agreement and used similar critieria. The problem I have with the RCC list is which 'Church' was right, the one in the late 300's or the one in the 1500's? " I think that there were no fewer than 3 councils that had canon lists in the 4th century. They didn't all agree, so which one do you mean? Also, the first church historian, Eusebius,did not consider Revelation to be scripture, he didn't even believe that it was written by the apostle John. Jude was a book that was in some lists and not in others, Hebrews as well. In fact, Hebrews, by todays standards for canonization doesn't make the cut because we don't know the author. As I mentioned before, there were different version of the Old Testament as well depending on if you were of the Palestinian or Alexandrian persuasion. You say that these apocryphal books were not recognized, and I agree people disagred about it. But the simple fact that it was in the scriptures says that it wasn't some kind of fly by night fad. Especially when Jerome himself didn't recognize them as being inspired. He still incuded them in the Vulgate. Somebody thought they belonged there. It may have a lot to do with the fact that they were in the Septuagint. But my point is that people look through rose colored glasses. There wasn't all this automatic agreement that people seem to think. I think that people have trouble dealing with ambiguity. They don't like the idea that there isn't some kind of solid "correct" list that has God's stamp on it. So they deny the truth. You see, if the Bible is your God, it must be everything you want it to be. If Christ is your God, as long as it points to him, it's good enough. |
||||||
19 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48479 | ||
"By making these statements, you have acknowledged that no written work is or ever can be God's final word. " No, not at all. I am saying that they are not flawlessly self evident. That the church has named a set of books as being inspired by God. The reality is that there are different lists. I don't have a problem with that. Some people do, so they deny the truth and glorify their own imaginations. They must, because they worship the Bible and there can't be any ambiguity in the one you worship. Yes, I am against Bible worship. I do believe it is inspired. I read and study it every day. I have no less than 7 translations that I read. I take what the Bible says very seriously. But if there is an ambiguity, or if God uses parables to make a point, I'm OK with that, because I don't worship it. If all my Bibles were destroyed and I was unable to read them anymore, I wouldn't lose anything of eternal value. Because I beleive in the finished work of Jesus Christ, and that He lives to day in and though His church. |
||||||
20 | 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! |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |