Subject: why five stones |
Bible Note: Dear Meta, Sola Scriptura is the basis on which Lockman translated the Scriptures. It is the basis of our forum -- see the Terms of Use. The approach you are using is not uncommon in the history of the church -- indeed, it has been a crucial aspect of debate for more than two millennia. Right up through today, it is a question that divides the liberal from the conservative. I can think of no better way to put than how the authors of Chicago Statement of Biblical Hermeneutics stated it (Article I): "We affirm that the normative authority of Holy Scripture is the authority of God Himself, and is attested by Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church. "We deny the legitimacy of separating the authority of Christ from the authority of Scripture, or of opposing the one to the other. "This first article affirms that the authority of Scripture cannot be separated from the authority of God. Whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms. And what the Bible affirms (or denies), it affirms (or denies) with the very authority of God. Such authority is normative for all believers; it is the canon or rule of God. "This divine authority of Old Testament Scripture was confirmed by Christ Himself on numerous occasions (cf. Matthew 5:17-18; Luke 24:44; John 10:34-35). And what our Lord confirmed as to the divine authority of the Old Testament, He promised also for the New Testament (John 14:16; 16:13). "The Denial points out that one cannot reject the divine authority of Scripture without thereby impugning the authority of Christ, who attested Scripture's divine authority. Thus it is wrong to claim one can accept the full authority of Christ without acknowledging the complete authority of Scripture." In Him, Doc |