Subject: Sola Scriptura supported by bible? |
Bible Note: "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! |