Results 21 - 40 of 48
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: dschaertel Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48794 | ||
"The tree was simply a test of obedience." So you don't see the signifcance of the fact that the tree was called the knowledge of good and evil? You think this is just some useless extra information? Personally I think if that is the case you are missing the whole meaning of the story. The tree is signicant. They get kicked out of the Graden because they became like God by eating from this particular tree. Read it again. I think you are missing something. "But, the New Testament does recoginize, and deal with, the fact that only some books are God-breathed" Actually it says that "ALL" scripture is God breathed. Not just some of it. The question is of course what is scripture? Where does the Bible tell us what it is? You can't just say the Bible. Men wrote it and decided which books were in it. If you are going to say it is ordained by God which books are in it, show me where that ordination is? Where is the prophecy that there would be a New Testament with 27 books? |
||||||
22 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48594 | ||
"A normal reading would indicate that Gen. 1-2, like the rest of Genesis, is an historical account! This is why people are bothered by the term parable. " You make a reasonable point. But if we actually examine the text of the story, I guess I have to question it as being literal history. The imagery is quite fanciful and symbolic. Again, think about the meaning of these things. The tree of knowledge of good and evil. When you read about this tree, do you think that it is a literal tree? Is that the point of the story? Did God really want us to know that there is a tree somewhere that makes us to be like him? What about the serpent that must eat dust and crawl on his belly "all the days of his life"? I am not a science expert, but I am not convinced that is how the snake was created. And what happened to the Garden when the flood came? Did it get washed away and did the serpent die then? Didn't every creature on earth die except those in the ark? Do you think that it is possible to find the Garden somewhere? Is the Angel still there guarding the entrance? Has God allowed his paradise to vanish from the earth, and he didn't tell us? I curious, when do you think man became artistic? When did he learn to tell stories that express things without being literally true? Where did he learn to do this? From God, or somewhere else? But again, not to belabour a point... but still.. nobody has answered the question. Where in the Bible does it tell us anything about Bible? and where does it teach anything about Sola Scriptura? |
||||||
23 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48590 | ||
"The Genesis 1 account is chronological; the Genesis 2 account is not." I'm sorry, I guess my Bible didn't come with the official footnotes that tell me that. Chronoogical or not, it clearly says what day Adam was created in. Have you found it yet? ""2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum." " I don't mean to attack anybody, nor the authority of the Bible. I am willing to challenge the false beliefs about the Bible though. 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. P.S. as for me not posting here... you don't have to respond. I'll stop this thread as soon as people stop responding. Why is it you think I should stop and not you? Again I turn your attention to the question at hand. |
||||||
24 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48574 | ||
"Well, why can't Jesus just be a parable, then?" Because I believe that the written eye witness testimonies (by those who gave their lives and who were empowered by Jesus to teach and baptize) that he was in fact the Son of God and did in fact rise from the dead. I am confused here. Can you tell me why you can't allow for parables and truth to coexist? I just don't get why the Garden story being a parable somehow destroys one's faith. |
||||||
25 | 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. |
||||||
26 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48572 | ||
Hank, let's think about this a minute. Suppose that you told me that you had hamburger for dinner one day. So, if I follow YOUR line of reasoning, am I to believe that you have hamburger every day? Don't be silly. If I did think the Garden story was a parable, that doesn't mean that I think all the stories are. How do you get to that reasoning? I also wasn't comparing the Garden story with Santa Claus and George Washington's cherry tree. I was tryng to make a point. One can teach, or convey truth using parables, metaphor, symbolism and a host of other literary tools. The use of these styles in no way validates or invalidates the truth of the message. The important part is the message. Now I think we are getting a little off topic here. The question still stands and I haven't seen any takers yet. Where in the Bible does it say anything about the Bible? How many books, which ones? how we are to determine that they are scripture? etc... Any takers? Oh, and Hank, take another look at the Garden story. There is some intersting things. Like for instance, God is walking and can't find them. What kind of God is that? He has leggs, and can't see through the trees. Also, what is the tree of knowledge of good and evil anyway? Tell me you think this is a literal tree and if we eat literal fruit from it we literally become like God. Oh, and the tree of life as well. If we eat from that tree we can live forever. Who needs Jesus, we can just eat form the tree. Or is Jesus the tree? Ooops. That was a clue. Second, the beasts and fowl were all created after Adam, where they were created before mankind in the first creation account. CONTRADICTION!!!!!!! Third, maybe you can take this as a homework assignment. What day was Adam created on? Wait.. it wasn't day six. The story tells us what day, and it definately wasn't day six. CONTRADICTION!!!! You see, the story doesn't hang together if it is literal. That is of course unless you just ignore what it really says. |
||||||
27 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48547 | ||
"If Adam is an allegory, then we can safely conclude that Jesus is as well. Your comparison to Hercules doesn't fit at all with Paul's arguments. " Not at all. You are real aren't you? Yet Hercules isn't. Jesus can in fact be real even if Adam is a parable. Sorry, you have proven nothing here except that you wish Adam to be a real person. Please, don't get me wrong here, I am not saying that I believe he wasn't a real person. But I find no problem with the idea that it is a parable. And I find no real evidence that it isn't. I do see that it was in the character of Jesus Christ to speak in parables and it wouldn't be a surprise to me if the Garden story is a parable. What I do find problematic is people's religous devotion to it being literally true. It seems that they can't have faith if it isn't. This causes me to wonder what their faith is in. Is it in Jesus Christ, or the idea that evolution is wrong. If I were to take a sample of evengelical mass media, and divided it into topics, I would be willingto bet that there is more about things like evolution and Israel and the land then there is about God's Grace through Jesus Christ. I am just wondering what the "church" is turning into. Let me ask you this; When you found out that George Washington didn't really cut down the cherry tree, did it cause you to think that telling the truth is no longer a good thing? When you found out that Santa Clause is not real, did it cause you to no longer think that giving is a good thing? I think this obsession with the "literal truth" stuff is clouding people's view of what is really true. The Garden story isn't there so that we believe it is a real story and can argue against evolution. It is there to show how man strives to have the knowledge of good and evil (to judge), and there by become like God. Yet God, though just, is merciful, and seeks reconciliation with his people. I'll ignore the stuff about the comforter for now since you obviously can't keep up with an argument that is beyond tit for tat contradiction. You totally missed what I was saying there. "Just out of curiosity, you have claimed that you let the church determine truth for you. Since you have said that you are not Roman Catholic, exactly WHICH church are you referring to as the arbiter of "your truth"? " This is a great question. I have studied for some time now the idea of authority. How do we know what we know and why do we believe what we believe. In other words, what is hype and what is not. When two Christians disagree, how do you know who is right? Or are they both wrong, or both right? I resent it when people assume that I, or others, are some how less Christian because we see something a little different than they do. This idea to me totally misses the point of Grace and who Jesus Christ is. Not to mention it shows a rose colored view of church history. Sometimes the facts just stare you right in the face and you can choose to ignore them, or accept them. Accepting them doesn't always leave you with a pat answer though. When we ignore them, we can make our answers fit nice and neat. |
||||||
28 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48484 | ||
"Is there any ambiguity in the One you worship? The one that is spoken of in parables is not the One that we worship. " I am confused by this. Are you saying that a parable and ambiguity are the samething? Jesus says that the Kingdom of Heaven is like.... and gives us several parables. Are you suggesting there is some question as to the truth of what he is saying because he used a parable? I'm not sure what you mean. |
||||||
29 | 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! |
||||||
30 | 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. |
||||||
31 | 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. |
||||||
32 | 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? |
||||||
33 | 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. |
||||||
34 | 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. |
||||||
35 | 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? |
||||||
36 | 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? |
||||||
37 | 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. |
||||||
38 | 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. |
||||||
39 | 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. |
||||||
40 | 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. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |