PDA

View Full Version : The Bible alone



FollowTheBanner
Jun 22nd 2008, 05:58 AM
How do we establish sola scriptura?

Literalist-Luke
Jun 22nd 2008, 07:01 AM
Simple - Anything in the Bible may be regarded as absolute Truth. Anything that comes from any man (Pope or otherwise) is just another sinner's opinion. Any questions? :D

FollowTheBanner
Jun 22nd 2008, 07:10 AM
Simple - Anything in the Bible may be regarded as absolute Truth. Anything that comes from any man (Pope or otherwise) is just another sinner's opinion. Any questions? :D

I'm discussing Catholicism with someone and sola scriptura came up. Does the Bible present itself as the ultimate authority for believers--above the authority of the Church?

Literalist-Luke
Jun 23rd 2008, 07:06 AM
I'm discussing Catholicism with someone and sola scriptura came up. Does the Bible present itself as the ultimate authority for believers--above the authority of the Church?Yes.

2 Timothy 3:16 - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

Galatians 1:8-9 - "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be under God's curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let that person be under God's curse!"

I'd say Paul makes it clear that "all Scripture" is imbued with total authority, and if anybody preaches anything contrary to what is contained within the pages of the Scriptures, "let that person be under God's curse".

Any other questions? :D

seamus414
Jun 23rd 2008, 03:49 PM
How do we establish sola scriptura?

You cannot. It is a faulty teaching that ought to be jettisoned.

It has a few faults that are not relevant to your question, however, relative to your question, the teaching cannot be "established" because its logic is interally inconsistent.

There are two main issues to address relavtive to your question:

(1) Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible is the sole (i.e.: Sola) source for doctrinal/dogmatic teaching. However, Sola Scriptura is, itself, a doctrinal/dogmatic teaching. So, one would think that the Bible would contain the teaching of the doctrinal/dogmatic teaching Sola Scriptura as the BIble is the only source for doctrinal/dogmatic teachings. However, the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura at all whatsoever. Therefore, there is no Biblical basis for the teaching that says all teaching has to come from the Bible. Sola Scriptura is a teaching absent from our spiritual forefathers, the Jews, and an alternative to Sola Scriptura is suggested by Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 in his suggestion to heed the teachings passed by word of mouth (as opposed to writing).

(2) Every holy book claims to be the Word of God written including the Quaran, the Book of Mormon, and the various Hindu writings, etc. That a book may internally claim to be God's Word does not make it so. I realize that you believe (as do I) that the Bible is the only inspired Scripture. I do not doubt that. However, many people "feel led" to believe one holy book over another and over the Bible. So, how does one know that the Bible is the holy book of God as opposed to, say, the Quaran? Therefore, by definition, there had to be some extra-biblical authority to establish the Bible as God's holy book. That the Bible is God's holy book is not self-evident, but was established as such by the Community of Believers. Therefore, as there was, by definition, an extant authority to identify the Bible as God's Word, there cannot be Sola Scriptura as an alternative source of authority has been identified.

The are other issues to contend with but these two answer your question: no there is no way to establish the teaching.

The more appropriate teaching is Scriptura Suprema which is described in another post below.

seamus414
Jun 23rd 2008, 04:14 PM
I'm discussing Catholicism with someone and sola scriptura came up. Does the Bible present itself as the ultimate authority for believers--above the authority of the Church?

The Bible makes no assertion for itself as the only authority. Indeed, the Bible demonstrates the authority of the Church in Acts 15 where the Community of Believers resolved an issue not by using Scripture only but by the conscensus among Christians.

That the Church, and only the Church, was able to write, identify, and compile the Bible indicates that the Church, by definition, has authority on the level of the Bible. For example, Luke, a member of the Church, wrote much of the NT. Unless we afford him authority in the Name of the Church, there is no reason to read his writings as Scripture. Further, the Church later identified Luke as an inspired writer, not because Luke was self-evidently inspired, but because the Church identified him as inspired. Finally, the Church compiled Luke's writings with others and called it "Scripture". So, by definition, the Church has authority.

Of course, the issue is, of course, the relationship between the CHurch and the BIble. God has given us three (3) sources of authority (corresponding with the Trinity): the Bible, the Church, and wisdom. Through this three-legged stool we have come to understand the Bible as supreme, or Scriptura Suprema. This paradigm places the Bible at the so-called "top of the heap" in terms of authority. No teaching, however church-based on wise is a legitmate teaching if it conflicts with the Bible. However, Scriptura Suprema acknowledges the fact that the Church wrote, identified, and compiled the Bible so, under this paradigm, the Church still retains authority, but that authority is checked and balanced by the Written Word. Finally, that the Bible ought to be the supreme is wise and logical as the written word never changes whilst the doctrine-du-jour always does. Therefore, here you see the third leg of the stool come into play. It is, of course, checked by the Bible and the CHurch.

This sort of paradigm does not force one to accept logically impossible teachings (i.e.: Sola Scriptura) or clearly erroneous conclusions by ignoring Christian history (i.e.: the Church has no authority) while, at the same time, allowing for the acknowledgment that the Bible is, indeed, supreme. It also cuts down on schism. Sola Scriptura has caused Christendom to divide into thousands of very small fragments. As there is no firm basis by which one can measure one's BIblical interpretation. Sola Suprema cuts down on schism and allows Christians to be intellectually honest and admit that on some issues there is no clear teaching on an issue and allows for individual conscience to decide without dividing up.

Indeed, the above is probably one of the main faults of Sola Scriptura which is its failure to give a basis to determine one interpretation over another. Protestants, all of whom adhere to Sola Scriptura, are completly divided as there is no way to determine, objectively, whether one person's interpretive paradigm is superior or more correct than others. As a result, you have Bible-Only Baptists with one belief and Bible-Only Presbyerians with another, and Bible-Only Lutherans with a third, and Bible-Only nondenominationals with innumerable others and so on. There is no objective way to chose which BIble-Only church actually got it right.

Under Sola Suprema one has two other sources of authority by which one can measure one's teachings: the Church and Wisdom. This paradigm acknowledges the Bible's supreme authority but allows for the Church and Wisdom to play a roll in determining how the Bible is read.

This is vastly different from the Roman Catholic Church's position that the Church is the one and only authority. This position is in error and has led to other errors in teaching.

God's gift of the Bible ought to be kept in its place of supreme authority, but it ought to be used in the wisest sort of way.

seamus414
Jun 23rd 2008, 04:15 PM
Yes.

2 Timothy 3:16 - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

Galatians 1:8-9 - "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be under God's curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let that person be under God's curse!"

I'd say Paul makes it clear that "all Scripture" is imbued with total authority, and if anybody preaches anything contrary to what is contained within the pages of the Scriptures, "let that person be under God's curse".

Any other questions? :D

2 Tim 3:16 says Scripture is "used for" various things and is God breathed. It does NOT say that Scripture is the ONLY source of authority or that nothing else can be led by God-the Holy Spirit.

The Galatians passage really is not relevant as no one is suggesting things being taught against the Gospel.

Sold Out
Jun 23rd 2008, 04:24 PM
How do we establish sola scriptura?

I've debated Catholic's on this issue, and the only way I've been able to do it effectively is to show them the contradictions between Scripture & Sacred Tradition. If they contradict, then one is in error and can't be from God. They have to make a choice on what they want to rely on as absolute truth. It can't be scripture AND tradition.

seamus414
Jun 23rd 2008, 04:28 PM
I've debated Catholic's on this issue, and the only way I've been able to do it effectively is to show them the contradictions between Scripture & Sacred Tradition. If they contradict, then one is in error and can't be from God. They have to make a choice on what they want to rely on as absolute truth. It can't be scripture AND tradition.

I think it is significant to define "Sacred Tradition". Sacred Tradition to a RCC includes church pronouncements after the Great Schism of 1054. The Church's authority was greatly compromised after that and certainly no one denomination has universal authority. The problematic teachings flowing from Rome occured after the Schism.

Otherwise, I agree, nothing can conflict with the Bible.

davidandme
Jun 23rd 2008, 07:03 PM
Yes! And there is Scripture to prove it.

timmyb
Jun 23rd 2008, 08:19 PM
the difference between the Bible and the Quran and other 'words of the Lord' is that there is no backing for it... I don't know of muslims raising people from the dead... they kill people in the name of their God...

if you don't believe the Bible is the true word of the living God, then how can you be so sure of the words of Christ... you doubt the very Christ you believe and have faith and place your salvation in... If man can write a more complete book than the Bible, I have yet to see it... no book backs itself up more than the Holy Bible... To not believe in Sola Scriptura is to say that God really didn't mean what he said and he needed back up... which is a libel on the character of God and glorifies man...

Sola Scriptura, there is no other way.

Toolman
Jun 23rd 2008, 08:53 PM
The Bible makes no assertion for itself as the only authority. Indeed, the Bible demonstrates the authority of the Church in Acts 15 where the Community of Believers resolved an issue not by using Scripture only but by the conscensus among Christians.

Through this three-legged stool we have come to understand the Bible as supreme, or Scriptura Suprema. This paradigm places the Bible at the so-called "top of the heap" in terms of authority. No teaching, however church-based on wise is a legitmate teaching if it conflicts with the Bible.

Seamus,

I see no difference between what you term "Scriptura Suprema" and what the reformers termed "Sola Scriptura" or for that matter what the OP stated when he said:

"I'm discussing Catholicism with someone and sola scriptura came up. Does the Bible present itself as the ultimate authority for believers--above the authority of the Church"

The reformers certainly never suggested tossing our history, church, reason, logic, etc. What they did maintain was that scripture was the FINAL authority on all matters of faith. If the Church's (or reason, logic, whatever) teaching contradicted the clear teaching of scripture then scripture has the FINAL authority.

So, call a dog "cat" but it still barks. Sola Scriptura, as defined by the reformers, never suggested to disregard other sources of God's direction but that scripture, and scripture alone, is the final authority on matters of faith.

seamus414
Jun 23rd 2008, 09:14 PM
Seamus,

I see no difference between what you term "Scriptura Suprema" and what the reformers termed "Sola Scriptura" or for that matter what the OP stated when he said:

"I'm discussing Catholicism with someone and sola scriptura came up. Does the Bible present itself as the ultimate authority for believers--above the authority of the Church"

The reformers certainly never suggested tossing our history, church, reason, logic, etc. What they did maintain was that scripture was the FINAL authority on all matters of faith. If the Church's (or reason, logic, whatever) contradicted the clear teaching of scripture then scripture has the FINAL authority.

So, call a dog "cat" but it still barks. Sola Scriptura, as defined by the reformers, has never suggested to disregard other sources of God's direction but that scripture, and scripture alone, is the final authority on matters of faith.


I disagree. You talk of the "clear teaching of Scripture" as if it were, indeed, clear. If that were the case, there would not be thousands of Protestant denominations all claiming to represent the "clear teaching of Scripture". This where Sola Scriptura has gotten the Reformation churches.

One of the net results of the Reformation was to essentially proceed with Biblical interpretation without the benefit of history and the authority of the Church. For example, until the begining of the 20th Century, Baptist CHurches did not celebrate Christmas because there is no Biblical instruction to do so. As a result, this tendancy has stretched into other areas, such as the rejection of the Apostolic Succession, sacraments, pedobaptism, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and many other things. Allowing Scripture to be supreme, while allowing the Church to illuminate it, will not allow one to forgo these important, and Scriptural. teachings.

seamus414
Jun 23rd 2008, 09:17 PM
the difference between the Bible and the Quran and other 'words of the Lord' is that there is no backing for it... I don't know of muslims raising people from the dead... they kill people in the name of their God...

if you don't believe the Bible is the true word of the living God, then how can you be so sure of the words of Christ... you doubt the very Christ you believe and have faith and place your salvation in... If man can write a more complete book than the Bible, I have yet to see it... no book backs itself up more than the Holy Bible... To not believe in Sola Scriptura is to say that God really didn't mean what he said and he needed back up... which is a libel on the character of God and glorifies man...

Sola Scriptura, there is no other way.

I do not disparage the BIble or its inspiration however it ought not to be used in a way that is contrary to its purpose. The Bible was never meat to be or represent itself to be the ONLY source of authority for the Christian.

I never said "God really didn't mean what he said". How is it you have drawn that conclusion?

I have no doubt in Christ as one does not need the Bible to have faith in Christ, but thank God that we do! Why do you think I doubt Christ? I think the BIble is inspired. Not believing in Sola Scriptura does not mean I do not believe the BIble is inspired.

Toolman
Jun 23rd 2008, 09:30 PM
I disagree.

With which part? What you called "scriptura suprema" is the exact same thing the reformers called "sola scriptura". There is no difference in the definition of the 2.

I think you are confusing "solo scriptura" with "sola scriptura".


You talk of the "clear teaching of Scripture" as if it were, indeed, clear. If that were the case, there would not be thousands of Protestant denominations all claiming to represent the "clear teaching of Scripture". This where Sola Scriptura has gotten the Reformation churches.

Exactly where God would have His church.


One of the net results of the Reformation was to essentially proceed with Biblical interpretation without the benefit of history and the authority of the Church. For example, until the begining of the 20th Century, Baptist CHurches did not celebrate Christmas because there is no Biblical instruction to do so.

As they should. There is no biblical cause to celebrate Christmas. Romans 14 clearly gives the believer liberty to follow his conscience in these areas.


As a result, this tendancy has stretched into other areas, such as the rejection of the Apostolic Succession, sacraments, pedobaptism, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and many other things.

All secondary doctrines that should be questioned and bare no result upon salvation or are essential for salvation. Many of these things were debated amongst the educated within the Church for centuries before Luther. Printing press (and public education) just made those debates available to the "lay man".

You even said so in your definition of "scriptura suprema":
"No teaching, however church-based on wise is a legitmate teaching if it conflicts with the Bible"


Allowing Scripture to be supreme, while allowing the Church to illuminate it, will not allow one to forgo these important, and Scriptural. teachings.

The problem becomes when the Church's illumination of it contradicts it. Then scripture becomes the final authority, as the reformers pointed out.

Toolman
Jun 23rd 2008, 09:33 PM
I do not disparage the BIble or its inspiration however it ought not to be used in a way that is contrary to its purpose. The Bible was never meat to be or represent itself to be the ONLY source of authority for the Christian.

Seamus,

That definition is "Solo Scriptura" not "Sola Scriptura".

Solo - The bible is the ONLY authority on matters of faith.

Sola - The bible is the FINAL authority on matters of faith.

seamus414
Jun 23rd 2008, 09:46 PM
Seamus,

That definition is "Solo Scriptura" not "Sola Scriptura".

Solo - The bible is the ONLY authority on matters of faith.

Sola - The bible is the FINAL authority on matters of faith.

My understanding is that Sola Scriptura is part of a group of three (3) "Solas" - (1) Sola Scriptura; (2) Sola Gratia; and (3) Sopla Fide. In English: Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, and Faith Alone. The word alone seems closer to "only" than "final".

Toolman
Jun 23rd 2008, 11:22 PM
My understanding is that Sola Scriptura is part of a group of three (3) "Solas" - (1) Sola Scriptura; (2) Sola Gratia; and (3) Sopla Fide. In English: Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, and Faith Alone. The word alone seems closer to "only" than "final".

Nevertheless, one must go back to what the original definition and purpose of the "solas" was and not just an elementary, literal understanding of a couple of words.

Sola Scriptura means that the FINAL authority on matters of faith is SCRIPTURE ALONE.

That is not the same as the ONLY authority on matters of faith is SCRIPTURE ALONE.

Read any of the reformers and study/understand the history and there is NO way one can arrive at the reformers rejecting history, logic, reason, church, creeds ALL as being relevant to matters of faith. Their point was that "only scripture" is the FINAL authority.

And just for the record there were 5 Solas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas):

Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Solus Christus
Soli Deo Gloria

davidandme
Jun 24th 2008, 02:59 AM
Every thing written or orally said must be tested against Scriptures. If they don't past the test. It is not from God. The Bible is the final authority. God bless.

Literalist-Luke
Jun 24th 2008, 11:34 PM
You cannot. It is a faulty teaching that ought to be jettisoned.

It has a few faults that are not relevant to your question, however, relative to your question, the teaching cannot be "established" because its logic is interally inconsistent.That is a bold-faced lie. The Bible's record of 100% accuracy in fulfilled prophecy is the absolute proof of its authenticy as the sole, only true Word of God. All other writings such as the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, etc., can make no such claim of accuracy regarding future predictions. The Bible's record of fulfilled prophecy is how we know that it is the true, sole voice of authority in this world. Anything else is nothing more that the opinion of other sinners, including the Pope or any other church figure.
There are two main issues to address relavtive to your question:

(1) Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible is the sole (i.e.: Sola) source for doctrinal/dogmatic teaching. However, Sola Scriptura is, itself, a doctrinal/dogmatic teaching. So, one would think that the Bible would contain the teaching of the doctrinal/dogmatic teaching Sola Scriptura as the BIble is the only source for doctrinal/dogmatic teachings.I have already provided places the the Bible makes exactly that claim. So it's either true or the Bible is a pack of lies. Which is it? There is no middle ground.
However, the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura at all whatsoever.2 Timothy 3:16 - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

Galatians 1:8-9 - "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be under God's curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let that person be under God's curse!"
Therefore, there is no Biblical basis for the teaching that says all teaching has to come from the Bible. Sola Scriptura is a teaching absent from our spiritual forefathers, the Jews, and an alternative to Sola Scriptura is suggested by Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 in his suggestion to heed the teachings passed by word of mouth (as opposed to writing).Following the teachings of men is precisely how this world got so messed up to begin with. No person's opinion separate from the Bible should be trusted.
(2) Every holy book claims to be the Word of God written including the Quaran, the Book of Mormon, and the various Hindu writings, etc. That a book may internally claim to be God's Word does not make it so. I realize that you believe (as do I) that the Bible is the only inspired Scripture. I do not doubt that. However, many people "feel led" to believe one holy book over another and over the Bible. So, how does one know that the Bible is the holy book of God as opposed to, say, the Quaran?As I said, by the Bible's unique record of 100% accuracy in fulfilled prophecy. No other "holy book" can make that claim.
Therefore, by definition, there had to be some extra-biblical authority to establish the Bible as God's holy book. That the Bible is God's holy book is not self-evident, but was established as such by the Community of Believers.The Qur'an was "established as such by the Community of" Muslims. So who's to say they aren't right? How do you know the Muslims don't have it right? What's your proof?
Therefore, as there was, by definition, an extant authority to identify the Bible as God's Word, there cannot be Sola Scriptura as an alternative source of authority has been identified.That is one of the most dangerous bold-faced lies from the pits of hell that anybody could ever utter.
The are other issues to contend with but these two answer your question: no there is no way to establish the teaching.

The more appropriate teaching is Scriptura Suprema which is described in another post below.:no:

Literalist-Luke
Jun 24th 2008, 11:41 PM
2 Tim 3:16 says Scripture is "used for" various things and is God breathed. It does NOT say that Scripture is the ONLY source of authority or that nothing else can be led by God-the Holy Spirit.

The Galatians passage really is not relevant as no one is suggesting things being taught against the Gospel.John 17:17 - "Your Word is Truth."

Max_Kolbe
Jul 1st 2008, 03:16 PM
Simple - Anything in the Bible may be regarded as absolute Truth. Anything that comes from any man (Pope or otherwise) is just another sinner's opinion. Any questions? :D

Where is that teaching "anything in the bible may be regarded as absolute Truth" in the Bible?

Max_Kolbe
Jul 1st 2008, 03:17 PM
Every thing written or orally said must be tested against Scriptures. If they don't past the test. It is not from God. The Bible is the final authority. God bless.

Where in the Bible does the Bible say that the Bible is the final authority?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 1st 2008, 03:25 PM
Sola Scriptura is an implicit idea taken from the Bible. Seeing as how all of the authors, in order to validate their doctrine, would turn to other Scriptures instead of oral tradition at the time, and their heavy emphasis on using the Scriptures and searching the Scriptures, it follows that they would believe in Sola Scriptura.

Also, whoever said that sola scriptura means the Bible is the only source of authority - they haven't kept up on reading their Luther. The Reformers taught that all authority must be checked by Scripture, but not all authority and knowledge came solely from scripture (i.e. Calvin's natural theology). It's when we begin to make arbitrary rules that have no basis in scripture that we begin to violate the principles of scripture.

Being implicit instead of explicit it allows us more leeway in showing how it functions and operates.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 1st 2008, 03:27 PM
Where is that teaching "anything in the bible may be regarded as absolute Truth" in the Bible?

I would hope all scripture is true. The Bible says that all Scripture is God-breathed (self-authenticating), thus if all scripture is not true then either it is not God breathed or God is a liar (or both).

HisLeast
Jul 1st 2008, 03:31 PM
What did the Bereans do when they were confronted with unfamiliar teaching?

Buck shot
Jul 1st 2008, 03:32 PM
Where in the Bible does the Bible say that the Bible is the final authority?


Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Just to simplify things the Word=the Bible

Trailblazer
Jul 1st 2008, 04:03 PM
I'm discussing Catholicism with someone and sola scriptura came up. Does the Bible present itself as the ultimate authority for believers--above the authority of the Church?

Yes!

If the Church was the final authority...we'd all have some serious problems...which denomination is the TRUE Church of Christ? God would NEVER put a burden on us like that...His Words are the FINAL authority.

If you don't go to Church but BELIEVE upon the Lord Jesus Christ, are you unsaved? Absolutely NOT. Salvation is a FREE gift from God through our faith in Christ, not of works lest any man should boast.

The bottom line...your FAITH in Christ is what saves us...Church as well as all other works are nothing more than obedience to that faith...the book of James is clear, your works will show BY your faith, your works will not save you but will show THROUGH your faith.

If you believe the Bible to be the infallible, preserved Words of God, which I do, then it will be your final authority in all practices of faith and growing in grace.

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing cometh by the Word of God. In other words, read your Bible! :D

Buck shot
Jul 1st 2008, 04:06 PM
I'm discussing Catholicism with someone and sola scriptura came up. Does the Bible present itself as the ultimate authority for believers--above the authority of the Church?


Another way I look at it, the church is the bride of Christ. The Bible is His written word. Who has the authority, the husband or the wife? :hmm:

Literalist-Luke
Jul 1st 2008, 04:53 PM
Where is that teaching "anything in the bible may be regarded as absolute Truth" in the Bible?


Where in the Bible does the Bible say that the Bible is the final authority?I. These Words Are from God
- A Message Originating with God

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revelation 19:9 - John claimed "These are true words of God".

Consider what other Bible writers claimed for their writings. Did they actually claim God guided their writings or is this something modern people attributed to them though they never claimed it? Are there just one or two references about it, or is this something they claimed frequently?

A. Old Testament Writers Claimed Their Message Was from God
Isaiah 1:2 - The Lord has spoken.
Jeremiah 10:1,2 - Hear the word which the Lord speaks. Thus says the Lord...
Ezekiel 1:3 - The word of the Lord came expressly.
Hosea 1:1,2 - The word of the Lord that came ... the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said...
Jonah 1:1 - The word of the Lord came to Jonah.
Micah 1:1 - The word of the Lord that came to Micah.
Zech. 1:1 - The word of the Lord came to Zechariah.

[See also Joel 1:2; Amos 1:3,6, etc; Obad. 1:1; Zeph. 1:1; Hab. 2:2; Deuteronomy 30:9,10; Numbers 12:6-8; 23:5,12,16,19; plus see references in other sections.]

B. New Testament Writers Claimed Their Message Was from God
1 Corinthians 14:37 - The things I write are commands of Lord.

Ephesians 3:3-5 - The things Paul wrote were made known to him by revelation. Formerly these things were not known but have now been revealed by the Spirit to apostles & prophets.

1 Thessalonians 4:15 - We say by the word of the Lord.

1 Timothy 4:1 - The Spirit expressly says.

[2 Thessalonians 3:12; John 12:48-50; Acts 16:32; Romans 1:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:5]

C. Inspired Men Claimed that What Other Writers Wrote Was from God.
Matthew 1:22 - A quotation was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.

Matthew 2:15 - Another passage was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.

Acts 1:16 - The Spirit spoke by the mouth of David.

Acts 28:25 - The Holy Spirit spoke by Isaiah ... prophet.

Hebrews 1:1,2 - God spoke in times past to the fathers by prophets. But now He has spoken to us by His Son.

Matthew 15:4 - Jesus Himself confirmed that Scriptures were from God. He quoted the Law revealed through Moses and said it was what God commanded.

Matthew 22:29-32 - He said the Scriptures were spoken by God.

Luke 10:16 - He also confirmed the inspiration of the New Testament for He told the apostles who wrote it: He who hears you, hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me and rejects Him who sent Me

John 16:13 - He promised the men who penned the New Testament that the Spirit would guide them into all truth

To deny or question that the Bible writers spoke from God is to deny and reject the truthfulness of their own statements about themselves, their statements about one another, and Jesus' statements about Scriptures.

[Matthew 19:4-6; John 10:35; 2 Chronicles 34:14-19; Isaiah 2:1-3; Matthew 22:43; Romans 1:1,2; Hebrews 3:7; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20f; 3:15f; Acts 4:24f]

D. The Writers Denied They Wrote by Human Wisdom
Some people think the writers wrote some ideas that were their own. Hence, the Bible may contain some things from God, but it may also contain some things the writers originated without Divine guidance. What do the Bible writers say about this?

Jeremiah 14:14 - If a man speaks as though he has a message from God when God really did not speak to him and the message is just his own idea, that man is a false prophet and deserves to be punished and rejected as a prophet (23:16,26; Ezekiel 13:2-7,17).

Clearly if the Bible writers wrote a message of their own origin, then they are condemned as false prophets by their own words.

Ezekiel 3:26,27 - A prophet was not to speak until God opens his mouth ... When God did move him to speak it would be a thus says the Lord God.

Matthew 10:19,20 - It is not you who speaks but the spirit of the Father speaks in you.

1 Corinthians 2:4,5 - Preaching was not with words of human wisdom. Their faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but power of God. Faith is based on the message preached (Romans 10:17). To the extent the message is human in origin, then the faith rests in the men who originated it. Paul expressly did not want their faith to rest on human wisdom but in God's wisdom and power.

Galatians 1:8-12 - The gospel came not from man but was revealed from Jesus. To preach another is to be accursed. Hence, to preach a message that is human in origin is to bring God's curse upon us.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 - The message is not word of men but the word of God.

2 Peter 1:20,21 - Prophecy never came by will of man, but holy men spoke as moved by the Holy Spirit.

Revelation 22:18,19 - If men add their teachings to the book, God will add the plagues written. They were not just forbidden to write something entirely human. They were forbidden to take a message from God and then add something human to it.

The writers themselves say they did not write human ideas, but it was God's will. They said if anyone did put in human ideas, God's curse would be on them and they deserved to be destroyed. If we claim there are human ideas in the writings, then we are calling the men liars, false teachers, deserving of punishment.

[Numbers 22:35; chap. 23 (see below); Deuteronomy 18:18-22; Matthew 15:9]

E. The Writers Claimed Inspiration for Everything in Scripture
The writers did not claim that part of their writings were God's will and maybe part was not. They claimed everything they wrote was from God so it was all authoritative.

This follows from the last point. The writers were prohibited from adding anything human. If anything human was added, they were under a curse. Hence, if none of it is human, then all of it must be of God.

Note also the following Scriptures:
Exodus 24:3,4,7,8 - God's will included all that was written. The people agreed to keep it all. But man-made teachings are not authoritative such that men must obey them in religion (Matthew 15:9). If all must be obeyed, then all must be from God.

Deuteronomy 17:18-20 - The king was to copy the law and keep all that was written.

Joshua 1:7,8 - Joshua was to observe all written in the book.

Matthew 4:4 - Man must live by every word from the mouth of God.

2 Timothy 3:16,17 - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching & furnishing to all good works.

The belief that we should obey everything Scripture requires of us goes hand in hand with belief that it is all God's word. Invariably when people begin to say there may be some parts of the Bible that are not from God or not accurate, you soon find there are Biblical requirements that they do not want to obey.

There is simply no reason to believe you must obey all Biblical requirements unless you believe it is all accurately God's word. Bible passages claiming we must obey it all, then are saying necessarily that it is all inspired.

Note especially these passages from 2 Peter:
2 Peter 1:20,21 - No Scripture is of private interpretation; for prophecy never came by will of man, but men spoke as moved by the Holy Spirit. Consider the significance of "interpretation" here. The context shows the reference is to the prophets who wrote the Scriptures, not to the readers of the Scriptures.

Note: For (this explains the previous statement) prophecy never came by will of man, but men spoke as moved by the Holy Spirit. The passage is discussing how prophecy came and how prophets spoke, not how it is studied.

If God just gave ideas and men explained them as they thought best, Scripture would be of private interpretation (like the difference between what the president says and what the news commentators say about what the president said)! But this is not the case with any Scripture or any prophecy.

Instead, the men spoke as moved by the Spirit. The Spirit carried them along to a destination of His choosing, not of the prophets' choosing (like a person carrying a burden - Luke 23:26, or a ship being borne by the wind - Acts 27:15,17). This passage directly disproves the view that God gave men ideas and they explained them as best they could by human wisdom.

2 Peter 3:15,16 - This concept of inspiration applies to the New Testament as well as to the Old Testament, because later in the same book Peter said writings of Paul in the New Testament are Scripture like "other Scriptures." [Cf. 1 Timothy 5:18 to Luke 10:7]

[John 14:26; 16:13: Deuteronomy 31:9-13; 18:18-22; Josh 23:6; Jeremiah 25:13; 30:1-4; 26:1-4; Acts 3:22,23; Mat. 28:18-20;

Literalist-Luke
Jul 1st 2008, 04:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. These Are Words of God
- God Gave the Words.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revelation 19:9 - These are true sayings ("words" - ASV) of God. God did not just give the ideas and let men choose the words to express them. God guided the men in the very words they chose so that every word was the word God wanted, not the words the men chose by human wisdom. This is exactly what 2 Peter 1:20,21 said. Note other Scriptures.

Exodus 4:14-16; 7:1,2 - In calling Moses, God defined the work of a prophet. Aaron was Moses' "prophet" like Moses was God's prophet. A prophet was a spokesman. The one who originated the message put the words in the prophet's mouth.

The point is that Moses claimed he could not speak well. He thought it would be up to him to express the ideas God gave him (like some people think today). God said He would be with the prophet's mouth. It wasn't up to the prophet to decide the words. He just spoke what words God put in his mouth.

Exodus 24:3,4,8 - Moses gave the words the Lord spoke.
Deuteronomy 18:18-22 - God put His words in prophet's mouth.
2 Samuel 23:2 - The Spirit's word was on my tongue.
Isaiah 51:16 - I [God] put my words in your mouth.
Isaiah 59:21 - My words which I put in your mouth.
Jeremiah 1:4-9 - I have put My words in your mouth.
Jeremiah 30:1-4 - Write all the words I have spoken.
Jeremiah 36:1-4 - Write all the words I have spoken.
Ezekiel 3:4 - Speak with My words to them
Zech. 7:12 -The words the Lord sent by His Spirit.
Matthew 10:19,20 - Given by Spirit what and how to speak.

1 Corinthians 2:4 - Preaching was not in words of human wisdom, so faith would not stand in man's wisdom but in power of Spirit. This could only be so if the words were given by the Spirit, not by the man.

1 Corinthians 2:10-13 - The message spoken was given to the men by the Spirit. Then they spoke in words taught them by the Spirit not by man. If the Spirit just gave the ideas and the men chose the words, this would be just the opposite of what this verse teaches.

What these passages describe is sometimes called "verbal" inspiration. To truly believe the Bible is inspired, one must believe every word is exactly the word God wanted.

This does not mean there is no human element in the words, for God used the men as they were with their human language, human vocabulary, human forms of expressions, and sometimes even the knowledge they had gained by research of personal eyewitness, etc. (Luke 1:1-4; 1 Cor. 15:1-8). But God then used them as they were and guided them to speak the words that accurately expressed His will.

[Exodus 32:15,16; 24:12; 34:1, 27,28; 31:18; 20:1; Numbers 22:35; 23:5,12,16; Ezek 1:3; Hos 1:1; 2 Peter 1:20,21; Jeremiah 25:13]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. These Are True Words
- No Errors in Scripture

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revelation 19:9 - These are true sayings of God. If the men chose the words in the writing of Scripture, some say maybe there are errors in it. But if every word is from God, then there cannot be errors because God is infallible and makes no errors.

Numbers 22:35,38; 23:5,12,16,19,20 - A prophet must speak what God says. But God does not lie nor repent. He does not deliberately tell things not true, and he cannot make mistakes because of lack of knowledge since He knows everything. So there cannot be anything untrue in what He reveals.

Deuteronomy 18:18-22 - The test of a prophet is, if he makes a mistake in prophetic utterance, he is not from God. Don't fear him.

Note: if a man claims to be a prophet, but he makes a mistake in his prophetic speech, then the thing you know is that God did not send him at all, so don't accept anything he says as being revealed by God. In truth he is a false teacher. Some say they accept some of the Bible, but reject other parts of it; this passage says take it all or reject it completely.

Psalm 19:7-9 - God's word is perfect, right, true.
Psalm 33:4 - God's word is right & done faithfully.
Psalm 119:128,142,160 - All God's precepts are right.
John 17:17 - God's word is truth.
Romans 3:4 - Let God be true, though men may lie.
Titus 1:2,3 - God, who can't lie, manifested the word.
Hebrews 6:18 - It is impossible for God to lie.
Revelation 21:5 - The words written are true and faithful.

If one claims that the Bible errs, then either he must completely reject the Bible as God's will, or else He is saying that God is not infallible. For the Bible says it is all from God, and it says any teacher should be rejected if he says he speaks for God when he doesn't. If the message is in error anywhere, then either the speaker is not from God at all or else God made a mistake!

Hence, we must conclude that there are no errors at all in the Bible writings. This is sometimes referred to by saying the Scriptures are "infallible and inerrant." To truly believe the Bible is inspired one must believe there were no errors in what the men wrote.

[Psa 147:4,5; Job 37:16; 1 Peter 5:12; Galatians 1:20; John 10:35; Jas 1:25]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The Consequences of Denying Infallible, Verbal Inspiration

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When people say the words of the Bible are not all God's words but some are human in origin, or when they say there may be errors in the Bible, consider the consequences.

A. We Are Left without Any Reliable Source of Authority or Guidance in Religion.
Matthew 22:32 - Jesus claimed the Bible language was so exact we can make arguments that rely on the tense of verbs. But if in fact there could be errors in the writings, no such arguments would be reliable. How would we know what parts are correct and reliable and what parts are incorrect and unreliable?

2 Timothy 3:16,17; John 10:35; Acts 3:22,23; Matthew 28:18-20; John 12:48 - Bible writers said the Scriptures were reliable sources of authority and guidance in religion because they were God's will. They said we must accept all that is taught or stand condemned. They said we will be judged by what is taught. They said we must reject all human doctrines that differ from Scripture (Matt. 15:9; Gal. 1:8,9). But if there may be errors in Scripture, then we should obey only the parts that are true. How can we decide what is true and what is not?

B. We Begin a Course of Continual Rejection of Bible Teachings.
When we conclude that the Bible may be in error on some points, we almost invariably begin to question and deny more and more of what it teaches. People may start out saying they don't believe creation (or the Flood, or some other miracle) occurred the way the Bible describes it . Or they may say they don't believe the Bible is correct in its teaching about women being subject to men, or they reject the writings of Paul.

But such denials leave us with no grounds for believing anything else the Bible says. Disbelief is progressive. Whenever we say, "I know the Bible teaches this but I still cannot accept it as true," we have opened the door for more and more unbelief. The camel's nose is in the tent. We have started down the slippery slope. There is no logical stopping point. Soon we deny more and more miracles or more and more doctrines, etc., because we have undermined the foundation of belief.

C. We Deny the Claims of the Bible Writers, Necessarily Implying They Are Liars or False Teachers.
We have seen that the writers said they did speak from God, they did not speak their own ideas, all they said was from God, and therefore it could not be in error. To deny these claims is to say they were lying or insane. In any case, they were not true teachers of God, but by their own statements they must be false teachers. If so, we should not follow their words as having any authority in religion, but should completely reject them as we do the Koran or the Book of Mormon.

The claims of the Bible writers are such that they will not let us take a middle ground, as modernists try to do. Either we must accept the Bible as completely God's word - it is not the word of men, but every word was given by God with no possible errors - or else we must completely reject it as having no authority in religion at all. In that case we must conclude that the Bible is the product of evil, hypocritical men. We cannot say the Bible is a good book but may teach error sometimes.

D. We Deny that Jesus Is God's Divine Son and Make Him too a False Teacher.
Some want to say they believe in Jesus, but don't necessarily believe that everything in the Bible is true.

But the Bible is the only way to know anything about Jesus' life and teaching - John 5:46,47; 20:30,31; Acts 17:23; 18:28; etc.
How can you know Jesus is God's Son and a true prophet without appealing to Scripture? In fact, what good would it do you to believe in Jesus without the Scriptures, since you would have no idea what He did or did not teach?

We have seen that Jesus claimed the Bible was from God, and that both Old and New Testament writers spoke God's will.
He quoted the Old Testament writers as authoritative, and He said the New Testament writers would be guided by the Holy Spirit. If we say this is not true, then we have rejected Jesus and His teachings just the same as we saw, in the last point, that we are rejecting the Bible writers.

Luke 10:16 - Further, Jesus said that, if we receive His apostles and prophets we receive Him, but if we reject them we reject Him and His Father. Hence, if we say these men may have taught error, then as we have seen, we are rejecting what they said, and therefore rejecting Him.

E. We Bring the Curse of God on Ourselves.
To claim there are errors in Scripture is to reject the claims of the Bible writers and the claims of Jesus Himself. We cannot disbelieve those teachings and yet have the blessings those teachings offer.

Galatians 1:8,9 - If we preach a different gospel, we are accursed. But the gospel says, even in the context of this passage (vv 11,12), that the message is from God not man, therefore it is infallible, etc. If we say this is not so, we preach a different gospel and we are accursed.

1 Thessalonians 4:8 - To reject what the inspired men said is to reject, not men, but God, because God guided the men by the Holy Spirit. The men said what they wrote was God's word, not their own. If this is true and you reject, then you have rejected the word of God Himself.

Conclusion
There is no middle ground. We must accept the Bible as exactly what it claims to be: God's verbally inspired and infallible word. Or else we must reject it completely and give it no weight of authority in our lives at all.

Max_Kolbe
Jul 1st 2008, 05:01 PM
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Just to simplify things the Word=the Bible


That quote does not say that the Bible is the final authority. Doesn't say anything close to it. You may interpret it that way, but how do you know your interpretation is correct?

Max_Kolbe
Jul 1st 2008, 05:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We must accept the Bible as exactly what it claims to be: God's verbally inspired and infallible word. Or else we must reject it completely and give it no weight of authority in our lives at all.

Which verse in the Bible says that "We must accept he Bible as exactly what it claims to be: God's verbally inspired and infallible word?"

timmyb
Jul 1st 2008, 05:04 PM
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Trailblazer
Jul 1st 2008, 06:01 PM
"It is written"
Sola Scriptura

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them,
and they follow me" -John 10:27.

By Richard Bennett (bereanbennett@juno.com)
SCRIPTURE ALONE IS INSPIRED AND INHERENTLY AUTHORITATIVE.
The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), He was speaking of God's written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional, i.e. logical, written sentences. God's declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals. Thus there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord's people in the Church.
THE TRUTH AND THE SCRIPTURE
The Lord Jesus Christ, in His great high priestly prayer, declared clearly the truth of God's Word. He said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, "thy law is truth." The Lord Himself therefore identified truth with the written Word. There is no source other than to Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer's standard of truth.
In the New Testament, it is the written word of God and that alone to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, "It is written" as for example, in Matthew 4:4, "he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." In stating "It is written," the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord's total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18, "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."
OTHER SOURCES OF AUTHORITY CONDEMNED
Furthermore, in refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their tradition on a par with the Word of God. He condemned them because they were attempting to corrupt the very basis of truth by equating their traditions to the Word of God. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 "[You are] making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye." Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority¾ and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.
The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5,6 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God's Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated. Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord's strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." The truth is this: since God's written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.
THE EXPRESSION "SOLA SCRIPTURA"
From the time of the giving of the Decalogue on Mt. Sinai, when Holy God wrote with His finger on the tablets of stone (Exodus 31:18), until this present day, the written word of God has been extant in the world. The term "sola Scriptura" or "the Bible alone" as the measure of truth is short hand, as it were, for the emphatic and repeated statements of Scripture and of the commandment of God. The very phrase " It is written" means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. It separates from all other sources the corpus what a man is to believe. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.
In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19)
His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself. (Psalm 119:160)
THE PRESCRIPT AND INTERPRETATION
The principle of "sola Scriptura" is consistent with the very way in which the word of truth that comes from God, is to be interpreted, as Psalm 36:9 explains, "For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light we see light". God's truth is seen in the light of God's truth. This is exactly the same as the Apostle Paul says, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Corinthians 2:13). It is precisely in the light which God's truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (Cp. John 3:18-21, II Corinthians 4:3-7.)
The Apostle Peter, under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, declares, "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:20-21). Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God's written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself. Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture?since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit's light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord's to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth "it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth" (I John 5:6).
Those truly desiring to be true to Lord in this very matter of the standard of "sola Scriptura" must turn to the Lord to obey His command, "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you" (Proverbs 1:23). If one is yearning of truth in this essential matter, in the attitude of Psalm 51:17 "with a broken and a contrite heart", the Lord God will not despise, but reveal to him or her the basic foundation where the Lord Christ Jesus stood, as did the apostles. In the words of the Apostle John, "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." (John 21:24). The Apostle John wrote, as did Peter and Paul, in order that those who are saved should know that his testimony is true.
THE ADEQUACY OF SCRIPTURE
The total sufficiency of Scripture is declared by the Apostle Paul, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). For final truth and authority, all that we need is the Scripture.
THE CLAIM THAT SOLA SCRIPTURA WAS NOT POSSIBLE
In an attempt to justify a tradition as an authority, an appeal is often made to the very last verse in John's gospel where it is stated, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen". (John 21:25) Of course there were many of the deeds and sayings of the Lord, which are not recorded in Scripture. Scripture is the authoritative record that Holy God has given His people. We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to a tradition for authority when Holy God did not give it is futile. The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true.
Another desperate attempt to justify tradition, is the statement that the early church did not have the New Testament. The Apostle Peter speaks about the writings of the Apostle Paul when he states, "…even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter also declares that he was writing so that the believers could remember what he said. So he wrote, "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth" (2 Peter 1:12).
From the earliest times a substantial part of the New Testament was available. Under the inspiration of the Lord, the Apostle Paul commands his letters to be read in other churches besides those to which they were sent. This clearly shows that the written word of God was being circulated even as the Apostles lived. The Lord's command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written. "…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another" (1 Corinthians 4:6).
THE REGULATION AND OUR LOVE OF GOD
The Lord brings the topic of truth to bear on our love for Him. This again underscores its importance. "Jesus answered and said to him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent Me" (John 14:23-24). And then again "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).
The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. "The law of the LORD is perfect" (Psalm 19:7). The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: "Thy Word is truth."
Richard Bennett can be contacted through his web page at:
http://www.integrityonline.com/cl/berean (http://www.integrityonline.com/cl/berean) or
Audio site http://findlife.interspeed.net/bbradio (http://findlife.interspeed.net/bbradio)

Buck shot
Jul 1st 2008, 06:10 PM
That quote does not say that the Bible is the final authority. Doesn't say anything close to it. You may interpret it that way, but how do you know your interpretation is correct?

Because I'm never wrong...ask my wife :P










:rofl::lol:

Mark F
Jul 1st 2008, 06:30 PM
Isaiah 55:8-11

“ For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
9 “ For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
10 “ For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower
And bread to the eater,
11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it."


Psalm 19:7-11

7 "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul;
The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold,
Yea, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11 Moreover by them Your servant is warned,
And in keeping them there is great reward."


Hebrews 4:12-13

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account."


John 1:1-3;14


1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."


God allows man to choose to elevate His word or discount His word, I believe that our choice reflects our appraisal of His charachter, nature, and His soveriegnty.

Psalm 138:2

2 "I will worship toward Your holy temple,
And praise Your name
For Your lovingkindness and Your truth;
For You have magnified Your word above all Your name."

Literalist-Luke
Jul 1st 2008, 08:41 PM
Which verse in the Bible says that "We must accept he Bible as exactly what it claims to be: God's verbally inspired and infallible word?"The ones that I supplied. Or did you just skim over all of that?

Literalist-Luke
Jul 1st 2008, 08:44 PM
Max, if you can't accept that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, then please prove to me that the Muslims are wrong. If we can't depend on the Bible as being 100% trustworthy, I think I like a heaven with seventy-something virgins waiting for me, so I'm going to convert to Islam this weekend.

Max, what good reason can you give me for not doing something that stupid? Prove the Muslims are wrong.

Max_Kolbe
Jul 1st 2008, 10:59 PM
The ones that I supplied. Or did you just skim over all of that?

None of those verses say "We must accept he Bible as exactly what it claims to be: God's verbally inspired and infallible word?"

The word Bible isn't in the Bible.

You may interpret those verses to mean that but there are many others who interpret those verses differently. So what is your authority to interpret those verses that way? Why should I accept your interpretation rather than someone else's?

BTW, that's a real question, not rhetoric.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 1st 2008, 11:01 PM
None of those verses say "We must accept he Bible as exactly what it claims to be: God's verbally inspired and infallible word?"

The word Bible isn't in the Bible.

You may interpret those verses to mean that but there are many others who interpret those verses differently. So what is your authority to interpret those verses that way? Why should I accept your interpretation rather than someone else's?

BTW, that's a real question, not rhetoric.

Could you please answer my posts from the second page?

Max_Kolbe
Jul 1st 2008, 11:02 PM
Because I'm never wrong...ask my wife :P



I would never dispute your wife. I understand that kind of infallibility. ;)

Max_Kolbe
Jul 1st 2008, 11:05 PM
Could you please answer my posts from the second page?

I didn't see any specific questions from you on the second page. Did you want me to comment on your posts?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 1st 2008, 11:06 PM
I didn't see any specific questions from you on the second page. Did you want me to comment on your posts?

Well I feel they adequately answered your objections (that you continue to repeat). You're working off a faulty understanding of sola scriptura, which is causing you to misunderstand its warrant.

Literalist-Luke
Jul 2nd 2008, 03:08 AM
I'm still waiting for you to tell me why I shouldn't convert to Islam. How do we know the Qur'an isn't just as true as the Bible? Please answer.

Buck shot
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:09 PM
I'm still waiting for you to tell me why I shouldn't convert to Islam. How do we know the Qur'an isn't just as true as the Bible? Please answer.

I know your not asking me but just so folks that happen on this thread thru a search don't think your actually thinking of trusting something other than te Bible;

I like to ask folks what year it is.
Why is it 2008?
What happened around 2000 years ago that would impact a world to cause it to change the way we count years?
Are their any other religions that follow the man (Lord) that caused this?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:19 PM
I know your not asking me but just so folks that happen on this thread thru a search don't think your actually thinking of trusting something other than te Bible;

I like to ask folks what year it is.
Why is it 2008?
What happened around 2000 years ago that would impact a world to cause it to change the way we count years?
Are their any other religions that follow the man (Lord) that caused this?
In fair defense, it is only 2008 on Western calendars that were heavily influenced by Christianity. Furthermore, the calendar change actually occurred prior to Christ's birth by a Roman Emperor.

Now it is true that "AD" (Anno Domini) means "In the Year of our Lord," but this system was developed around the 6th century.

I tend to argue that the Bible stands on its own. It is simply a logical conclusion from reading Scripture that God intends for us to check all authoritarian claims with Scripture. Thus, if someone says, "It is a sin to do X," that person should have Scripture to validate that claim.

IBWatching
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:30 PM
I'm discussing Catholicism with someone and sola scriptura came up. Does the Bible present itself as the ultimate authority for believers--above the authority of the Church?

You have encapsulated the problem as it pertains to catholics. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the Bible as Absolute Truth.

The issue with the RCC centers more on the RCC being the absolute authority on the earth rather than the Bible (Word of God). Non-catholic Christians such as myself recognize only the Word of God as the sole authority for the Church on this earth, not the RCC...or the Pope. The problem with "debating" this issue is that it is an irreconcilable difference which can't be bridged without a complete abandonment of one's underlying belief system. Catholics simply will not accept the idea of the Bible as Absolute Authority if it means them abandoning the Pope and centuries of traditions and superstitions which they have come to accept as their "comfort zone".

With the Holy Spirit this is possible. Without Him, it is not.

Buck shot
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:52 PM
In fair defense, it is only 2008 on Western calendars that were heavily influenced by Christianity. Furthermore, the calendar change actually occurred prior to Christ's birth by a Roman Emperor.

Now it is true that "AD" (Anno Domini) means "In the Year of our Lord," but this system was developed around the 6th century.

I tend to argue that the Bible stands on its own. It is simply a logical conclusion from reading Scripture that God intends for us to check all authoritarian claims with Scripture. Thus, if someone says, "It is a sin to do X," that person should have Scripture to validate that claim.

Not to argue, I live in North America so the folks that I talk to use the same calender as myself. When i ask these questions it is to get them to thinking. Some do answer as yourself but most have no answer at all.

Our of curiousity, what year is it in Asia, Europe, Australia, Africa, South America, and Antartica on their cultural calendars?

I do agree it is the Bible alone that is the authority ;)

apothanein kerdos
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:54 PM
Not to argue, I live in North America so the folks that I talk to use the same calender as myself. When i ask these questions it is to get them to thinking. Some do answer as yourself but most have no answer at all.

Our of curiousity, what year is it in Asia, Europe, Australia, Africa, South America, and Antartica on their cultural calendars?

I do agree it is the Bible alone that is the authority ;)

Well I doubt Antarctica will have a cultural calender since no culture exists there ;)

As for South America, it's primarily Western due to colonization, same with some African countries. Others, however, have their own method, along with Asia. The Hebrew calender is best known different though.

timmyb
Jul 2nd 2008, 09:27 PM
Well I doubt Antarctica will have a cultural calender since no culture exists there ;)

As for South America, it's primarily Western due to colonization, same with some African countries. Others, however, have their own method, along with Asia. The Hebrew calender is best known different though.

i think you insulted the penguins... ;)... your remark may be deleted because it was offensive...:P

Trailblazer
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:26 PM
The word Bible isn't in the Bible.


Hello Max,

What is the Bible? Is not the Bible the "Word of God?" If you do not believe this than there is no point continuing. If you do believe this then the Bible=the Word of God, and that is in the Bible. ;)

Matthew 4:4 (KJV)
4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Job 19: (KJV)
19:23 Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!

19:24 That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!

Beantown
Jul 3rd 2008, 06:18 PM
The Bible makes no assertion for itself as the only authority. Indeed, the Bible demonstrates the authority of the Church in Acts 15 where the Community of Believers resolved an issue not by using Scripture only but by the conscensus among Christians.

That the Church, and only the Church, was able to write, identify, and compile the Bible indicates that the Church, by definition, has authority on the level of the Bible. For example, Luke, a member of the Church, wrote much of the NT. Unless we afford him authority in the Name of the Church, there is no reason to read his writings as Scripture. Further, the Church later identified Luke as an inspired writer, not because Luke was self-evidently inspired, but because the Church identified him as inspired. Finally, the Church compiled Luke's writings with others and called it "Scripture". So, by definition, the Church has authority.

Of course, the issue is, of course, the relationship between the CHurch and the BIble. God has given us three (3) sources of authority (corresponding with the Trinity): the Bible, the Church, and wisdom. Through this three-legged stool we have come to understand the Bible as supreme, or Scriptura Suprema. This paradigm places the Bible at the so-called "top of the heap" in terms of authority. No teaching, however church-based on wise is a legitmate teaching if it conflicts with the Bible. However, Scriptura Suprema acknowledges the fact that the Church wrote, identified, and compiled the Bible so, under this paradigm, the Church still retains authority, but that authority is checked and balanced by the Written Word. Finally, that the Bible ought to be the supreme is wise and logical as the written word never changes whilst the doctrine-du-jour always does. Therefore, here you see the third leg of the stool come into play. It is, of course, checked by the Bible and the CHurch.

This sort of paradigm does not force one to accept logically impossible teachings (i.e.: Sola Scriptura) or clearly erroneous conclusions by ignoring Christian history (i.e.: the Church has no authority) while, at the same time, allowing for the acknowledgment that the Bible is, indeed, supreme. It also cuts down on schism. Sola Scriptura has caused Christendom to divide into thousands of very small fragments. As there is no firm basis by which one can measure one's BIblical interpretation. Sola Suprema cuts down on schism and allows Christians to be intellectually honest and admit that on some issues there is no clear teaching on an issue and allows for individual conscience to decide without dividing up.

Indeed, the above is probably one of the main faults of Sola Scriptura which is its failure to give a basis to determine one interpretation over another. Protestants, all of whom adhere to Sola Scriptura, are completly divided as there is no way to determine, objectively, whether one person's interpretive paradigm is superior or more correct than others. As a result, you have Bible-Only Baptists with one belief and Bible-Only Presbyerians with another, and Bible-Only Lutherans with a third, and Bible-Only nondenominationals with innumerable others and so on. There is no objective way to chose which BIble-Only church actually got it right.

Under Sola Suprema one has two other sources of authority by which one can measure one's teachings: the Church and Wisdom. This paradigm acknowledges the Bible's supreme authority but allows for the Church and Wisdom to play a roll in determining how the Bible is read.

This is vastly different from the Roman Catholic Church's position that the Church is the one and only authority. This position is in error and has led to other errors in teaching.

God's gift of the Bible ought to be kept in its place of supreme authority, but it ought to be used in the wisest sort of way.



Hi Seamus,
I have followed your line of reasoning in this debate. I have a question for you in which I would very much like an answer.

Sola Suprema stands on a three legged stool. The Bible, the Church, and Wisdom. In order for you to use these three as the building blocks of Sola Suprema, you must define the three building blocks. I would like a definition of what these are.

One other point that you should already have comprehended. The Catholic Church bases its beliefs on Scripture, Tradition, and the teachings of the Magisterium. The three building blocks of Sola Suprema sound a lot like Cathlocism.

Beantown

Literalist-Luke
Jul 3rd 2008, 08:41 PM
And I'm still waiting to find out how we can objectively know the Muslims are wrong. This praying toward Mecca five times a day is really hard on the knees..... :D

Beantown
Jul 6th 2008, 01:45 AM
And I'm still waiting to find out how we can objectively know the Muslims are wrong. This praying toward Mecca five times a day is really hard on the knees..... :D


Ahh, thank you Luke. A logical answer for a logical question.

If there are two descriptions of the same object they must agree with each other. If they don't, one is incorrect and the other is correct or they are both incorrect.

1) The God of Christianity is charitable.
2) The God of Christianity is Trinity.
3) Jesus is God.
4) Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity.
5) Jesus has taught us to love our enemies.

That's not bad for a start. A few facts concerning our God. Now, how about Islam?

1) Their God is not charitable or consistent.
2) Islam does not believe in the Trinity.
3) Jesus is a prophet. He's a high class prophet, but a prophet never the less. He is not God.
4) No Trinity, no Jesus is God.
5) The Muslim God teaches them to kill everyone that doesn't agree with their religion. Not exactly "love your enemies.


Now with these few facts in mind, anyone can see that our God is not the same as their god. Not only that, but there is no similarity at all.

Conclusion: The Christian and Muslim God's are not the same. They are opposed to each other. If they don't agree even on the most base fundamentals, they are different. The Muslim religion is a heretic religion.

Beantown.

davidandme
Jul 6th 2008, 02:24 AM
The Bible was never meat to be or represent itself to be the ONLY source of authority for the Christian.


The Bible is not the only Christian source of information. But the Bible is the final authority of faith. God bless.

Literalist-Luke
Jul 6th 2008, 03:19 AM
Ahh, thank you Luke. A logical answer for a logical question.

If there are two descriptions of the same object they must agree with each other. If they don't, one is incorrect and the other is correct or they are both incorrect.

1) The God of Christianity is charitable.
2) The God of Christianity is Trinity.
3) Jesus is God.
4) Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity.
5) Jesus has taught us to love our enemies.

That's not bad for a start. A few facts concerning our God. Now, how about Islam?

1) Their God is not charitable or consistent.
2) Islam does not believe in the Trinity.
3) Jesus is a prophet. He's a high class prophet, but a prophet never the less. He is not God.
4) No Trinity, no Jesus is God.
5) The Muslim God teaches them to kill everyone that doesn't agree with their religion. Not exactly "love your enemies.


Now with these few facts in mind, anyone can see that our God is not the same as their god. Not only that, but there is no similarity at all.

Conclusion: The Christian and Muslim God's are not the same. They are opposed to each other. If they don't agree even on the most base fundamentals, they are different. The Muslim religion is a heretic religion.Certainly, I agree with everything you have said here. After you and I have a chance to get acquainted, you'll see pretty quickly that I'm actually one of the staunchest opponents of Islam you'll ever encounter. My question was directed at Max_Kolbe, because he asserts that the Bible cannot be taken as an independent authority that speaks on behalf of God, that the Bible is dependent on the human authority of the Church for its position as the Word of God. My point was that, if the Bible derives its authority from humans in the Church, then the Qur'an is entitled to the same authority by virtue of its similar declaration as the "Word of God" by Muslims. So how are we to determine which one is the authentic Word of God if we do not accept the Bible as its own independent authority which it claims to be?

Hello Max, I'm still waiting for an answer............

Literalist-Luke
Jul 6th 2008, 03:20 AM
The Bible is not the only Christian source of information. But the Bible is the final authority of faith. God bless.Thank you. :yes:

coffee cup
Jul 6th 2008, 03:51 AM
I'm discussing Catholicism with someone and sola scriptura came up. Does the Bible present itself as the ultimate authority for believers--above the authority of the Church?

TRUE ROMAN CATHOLICHISM SUPPORTED BEFORE ANY OF US SOLA SCRIPTURA.

tHATS NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM THE PROBLEM IS THE same old story "interpetation "-------POPE INTERPETS SCRIPTURE.

When confessional lutherans try to get Catholics to take scripture at face value . Some run to their priests and ask for absolution for such a sin as that.



i have qotes from

ST Augustine
whenever the place has been determined, Let us see to it that the canoconcial codes are on hand and any proofs can be produced on either side . Let us set every thing else aside and bring so a important matter to a conclution.

St Jerome



CHRYSOSTOM


ATHANASIUS



ONE I REALY lIKE IS FROM

POPE PIUS X11 1876-1958




hUMANI SERMONI ASSIMILIA FACTA SUNT EXCEPTO ERRORE


As the Word , the second person of the Trinity being the same essance
with God,became true Man in JESUS, but with out sin,so also Gods Word
in Scripture is truly Human in its various forms and of speech with the exception of errors and mistakes

davidandme
Jul 6th 2008, 10:54 PM
Ahh, thank you Luke. A logical answer for a logical question.

If there are two descriptions of the same object they must agree with each other. If they don't, one is incorrect and the other is correct or they are both incorrect.

1) The God of Christianity is charitable.
2) The God of Christianity is Trinity.
3) Jesus is God.
4) Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity.
5) Jesus has taught us to love our enemies.

That's not bad for a start. A few facts concerning our God. Now, how about Islam?

1) Their God is not charitable or consistent.
2) Islam does not believe in the Trinity.
3) Jesus is a prophet. He's a high class prophet, but a prophet never the less. He is not God.
4) No Trinity, no Jesus is God.
5) The Muslim God teaches them to kill everyone that doesn't agree with their religion. Not exactly "love your enemies.


Now with these few facts in mind, anyone can see that our God is not the same as their god. Not only that, but there is no similarity at all.

Conclusion: The Christian and Muslim God's are not the same. They are opposed to each other. If they don't agree even on the most base fundamentals, they are different. The Muslim religion is a heretic religion.

Beantown.
I have read some of the Koram and the Koram is really an imitation of the Bible. Many stories are the same. They just change the characters name.

davidandme
Jul 6th 2008, 11:05 PM
Seamus,

That definition is "Solo Scriptura" not "Sola Scriptura".

Solo - The bible is the ONLY authority on matters of faith.

Sola - The bible is the FINAL authority on matters of faith.
Please read the following and you will what the Bible says about it.

The Bible says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16. "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21. "The scripture cannot be broken." John 10:35.

So anything that contradicts Scripture is simply false. The Bible is the final authority. It's really that simple. God bless.

seamus414
Jul 7th 2008, 09:39 PM
Hi Seamus,
I have followed your line of reasoning in this debate. I have a question for you in which I would very much like an answer.

Sola Suprema stands on a three legged stool. The Bible, the Church, and Wisdom. In order for you to use these three as the building blocks of Sola Suprema, you must define the three building blocks. I would like a definition of what these are.

One other point that you should already have comprehended. The Catholic Church bases its beliefs on Scripture, Tradition, and the teachings of the Magisterium. The three building blocks of Sola Suprema sound a lot like Cathlocism.

Beantown


Before I answer, please note that the three-legged stool is not my own invention but the development of Blessed Richard Hooker, a great Christian theologian from the 16th Century.

There is a significant distinction between the three-legged-stool and the RCC source of authority. The RCC source of authority is NOT Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium. The RCC source of authority is the Magisterium and the Magisterium alone. The three-legged stool identifies three co-equal sources of authority that serve as a check and balance to the others to preserve fidelity to each without an over emphasis of each.

You asked for definitions - the following is my best effort:

Scripture: the Bible (that is an easy one!)

The Church: this is somewhat multifaceted. Christianity is not new, and neither is the reading of Scripture. Therefore, one should always look at the oldest Christian practices and understanding of Scripture to inform how one reads the Scriptures. The Bible was not written in a vacuum, nor was it intended to have every single bit of information in it. Therefore, we can look at how the oldest of Christians believed and practiced as a way to understand what they meant when they wrote things down (i.e.: the NT). This leg of the stool prevents Christians from reading the Scripture and drawing conclusions about it that are different from the rest of the Christian community and asserting their own conclusions as the definitive understanding of Scripture. Reading Scripture without understanding the history from which it is derived is a significant problem with many of the Christian traditions that flow from the 16th Century. Many well meaning Christians read the Bible in a vacuum and without understanding of how Christians have always believed and innovated many teachings brand new to Christianity. Their defense of "it's in the Bible" is no different than the defense of "it's in the Bible" from the church down the street. How does one know which "it's in the Bible" is closest to what the Apostles taught? One looks at the history of Christian teaching: the Church.

Wisdom: God has given us his Holy Spirit to use and to know in our CHristian lives. The Holy Spirit enables us to understand and discern what God wants us to know and understand. The Holy Spirit inspires Christians - some to write Scriptures (i.e.: the Bible) - but others, most, to live lives and make decisions in their life and discern God's Will. The Holy Spirit allows Christians to know what God wants through its inspiration. Futhermore, in connection with the CHurch (above), God speaks to Christians through the wisdom of the COmmunity of Believers (i.e.: the Church). We see a good example of this in Acts 15. The more Christians together seeking truth the more likely the Holy Spirit is there to guide them.

In my posts above I have mentioned how these legs interact and how their interplay leads one to the Truth. This is the essence of Scriptura Suprema and is essentially why Sola Scriptura really does not work. SOmeone above said that Sola Scriptura holds that the BIble is the final authority, not the only authority. I would like to believe this, but considering how the BIble has been used by those holding to Sola Scriptura I would have to disagree. For example: someone in this very board in an ongoing thread said that altar calls probably should be stopped because there is none in the BIble. This is an example of the typical use of Sola Scriptura and it is a use that I reject. This same paradigm leads people to advocate for things like snake handling, the rejection of celebrating Christiams (this was the position of the Baptists until recently) or the use of instruments in church. THese are just examples. The rationale is that "it's not in the Bible so I do not believe it" -that, to me, is simply aburd and I reject it.

Sola Scriptura is a paradigm that has led to 30,000+ different denominations - if a Christian teaching leads ONLY to division (which is direcrly opposed to Christ's injuction toward unity) then that teaching ought to be reevaluated and reconsidered.

LC3
Jul 20th 2008, 12:51 AM
I am enjoying this post. ;)

Sivsew
Jul 20th 2008, 01:17 AM
I'm very interested in this "three-legged stool" idea. I'm involved in the sola scriptura debate with a friend, and I'd like more information. Do you have any reliable websites or books that could enlighten me on the issue?

Also, according to the idea itself, can the "three-legged stool" be backed up with Scripture, wisdom, and the Church?