Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sola Scriptura?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sola Scriptura?

    What are your thoughts on this key Protestant doctrine?

  • #2
    It was always reasonable to me that God would give us His entire message singularly and concisely. So all I knew was at first that I was a bible believer christian untill I learned that also put me into the catagory of protestant.
    Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
    C. S. Lewis

    Comment


    • #3
      The Bible is the one, final, objective, dependable authority on life as God created it. Anything else is subjective and is undependable, apart from Scripture. That includes the Pope or any other religious figure who are every bit as sinful and lost without Jesus as I am. Just because they wear a robe, have a title, and a fancy hat doesn't make them of any more authority in the Kingdom of Heaven that anybody else, including you or me.
      ----------------------------------------------
      When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

      Comment


      • #4
        [quote=Literalist-Luke;1754722]The Bible is the one, final, objective, dependable authority on life as God created it.

        Verse?

        Anything else is subjective and is undependable, apart from Scripture.

        Including any sort of commentary?

        That includes the Pope or any other religious figure who are every bit as sinful and lost without Jesus as I am. Just because they wear a robe, have a title, and a fancy hat doesn't make them of any more authority in the Kingdom of Heaven that anybody else, including you or me.

        Yep - the Pope is just as much a sinner as the writers of the NT and the OT; or you and me.

        So, I guess I have a few more questions for you.....

        1. Who decided which books where actually infallible and should be included in the NT?
        2. Could the Protestant Reformation have occurred without removing authority in the Church and placing it solely into the Bible Alone?

        blessings



        Comment


        • #5
          Its the essence of the Berean spirit.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ravenlorre View Post
            What are your thoughts on this key Protestant doctrine?
            Well my first thought is how much it's misunderstood. Some believe it means Sole Scriptura instead of Sola Scriptura. Which is (Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone")) the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ravenlorre View Post
              2. Could the Protestant Reformation have occurred without removing authority in the Church and placing it solely into the Bible Alone?

              Could have. But Isreal could have communed with God directly... but they cowered instead and demanded a mediator. From that point on it all came through Moses and the law. So... yes, "Could have", but didn't.

              Comment


              • #8
                [quote=ravenlorre;1754835]
                Originally posted by Literalist-Luke View Post
                The Bible is the one, final, objective, dependable authority on life as God created it.

                Verse?

                Anything else is subjective and is undependable, apart from Scripture.

                Including any sort of commentary?

                Commentary's are never a source of final, objective, dependable authority.

                Their usefulness, is similar to a dictionary, encyclopedia, or thesaurus.

                They assist the Bible student in certain passage, gain a fuller knowledge about a location of a city, the meaning of a word, the reign of a king, or the external political or social issues going on surrounding a passage that the bible passage itself may not go into detail about.

                Here is a good example for the usefulness of a Commentary to aid in the understanding of a scripture.

                KJV-Genesis 2:14 "And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."

                This is a passage depicting the rivers of Eden.

                Most folks reading it alone, would have no idea what or where the Hiddekel river was/is.

                A commentary will explain in more detail to the reader, that the Hiddekel was the ancient Summerian name of what is today called the Tigris river.

                So an example of the usefullness of a commentary, but also not showing the commentary to be the final, objective, authority either. If you don't want to believe a commentary, then don't believe it....or it could be wrong or opinionated. The Bible however, won't be.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ravenlorre View Post
                  Verse?
                  There are too many to list, so you can start with Psalm 119.
                  Originally posted by ravenlorre View Post
                  Including any sort of commentary?
                  Commentaries are only the opinion of other sinners like you and me.
                  Originally posted by ravenlorre View Post
                  Yep - the Pope is just as much a sinner as the writers of the NT and the OT; or you and me.
                  Are you agreeing with me? It’s hard to tell.
                  Originally posted by ravenlorre View Post
                  1. Who decided which books where actually infallible and should be included in the NT?
                  There was a collection of writings that came to be generally accepted as the New Testament over a period of about 300 years following Jesus’ ascension. By the Council of Nicea, the Church was mostly in agreement over which “books” should be considered canon. There were some disputes, however, and those disputes even still go on today, such as in the case of the Apocrypha, for instance.
                  Originally posted by ravenlorre View Post
                  2. Could the Protestant Reformation have occurred without removing authority in the Church and placing it solely into the Bible Alone?
                  The Protestant Reformation did not remove authority from anything. They simply stopped pretending that a man in Rome with robes and a tall hat had more authority on earth than any other believer.
                  ----------------------------------------------
                  When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by David Taylor View Post
                    Commentary's are never a source of final, objective, dependable authority.

                    Their usefulness, is similar to a dictionary, encyclopedia, or thesaurus.

                    They assist the Bible student in certain passage, gain a fuller knowledge about a location of a city, the meaning of a word, the reign of a king, or the external political or social issues going on surrounding a passage that the bible passage itself may not go into detail about.

                    Here is a good example for the usefulness of a Commentary to aid in the understanding of a scripture.

                    KJV-Genesis 2:14 "And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."

                    This is a passage depicting the rivers of Eden.

                    Most folks reading it alone, would have no idea what or where the Hiddekel river was/is.

                    A commentary will explain in more detail to the reader, that the Hiddekel was the ancient Summerian name of what is today called the Tigris river.

                    So an example of the usefullness of a commentary, but also not showing the commentary to be the final, objective, authority either. If you don't want to believe a commentary, then don't believe it....or it could be wrong or opinionated. The Bible however, won't be.
                    Agreed, 100%.
                    ----------------------------------------------
                    When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I interpret the bible as I see, and compare it to what I believe.

                      I do not believe any man has authority over me, even if others think he does.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ChristianKnight View Post
                        I interpret the bible as I see, and compare it to what I believe.

                        I do not believe any man has authority over me, even if others think he does.
                        I assume you mean from a solely spiritual point of view? Like a priest or a pastor? Hopefully you're not talking about government officials, like a police officer.
                        ----------------------------------------------
                        When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          From Strand Study Bible

                          Originally posted by ravenlorre View Post
                          [

                          1. Who decided which books where actually infallible and should be included in the NT?
                          Our LORD fixed the limits on the extent of the “canonical” books of the Old Testament at the 39 books we have today when He accused the religious crowd of his day of being guilty of killing all the prophets God had sent from Abel (Genesis – the first book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible) to Zecharias (II Chronicles – the last book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible). The question of which books belong in the Bible is called ‘the question of the canon.’ The word “canon” means rule or measuring rod and refers to the collection of books, which passed a test of authenticity and authority.
                          In the case of the Old Testament some assert that all 39 books were collected and recognized by Ezra in about 450 B.C.
                          In the case of the New Testament all 27 books were collected and “canonized” by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.
                          The question is: How was that collection made? Why were some books “canonized” and some not (the Book of Jasher, the Gnostic Gospels, the 12 books of the Apocrypha, etc.)? What tests were applied to determine authenticity and authority? The following questions determined legitimacy:

                          1. Was the book written by a prophet (Moses, David, etc.), a leader in Israel (Joshua, Ezra, etc.), or an Apostle (Paul, etc.)?

                          2. Was the book given the “stamp of approval” by CHRIST and the apostles?

                          3. Which books were considered authentic and authoritative via historians?
                          *Josephus, the first century Jewish historian (c. 95 A.D.), listed the 39 books of the O.T. as being authentic and authoritative.
                          *The Council of Jamnia (c. 90 A.D.), comprised of a synod of Jewish leaders, also listed the 39 books of the O.T. as being authentic and authoritative.
                          *Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.), Bishop of Carthage, recognized a number of N.T. books as authoritative and was the first to use the expression “New Testament.”
                          *Athanasius of Alexandria published a list of divine books in about 367 A.D. It contained the 39 books of the O.T. and the 27 books of the N.T. Historians claim it is the first listing that matches perfectly with the Bible as we have it today.
                          *Jerome recognized the same 27 books of the N.T. as being authentic when he translated the Latin Vulgate in about 385 A.D.
                          *Two North African councils (Hippo in 393 A.D. and Carthage in 397 A.D.) also officially endorsed the canons of both Testaments and decided that nothing else should be read in the churches.

                          4. Which books were discovered to be authentic and authoritative via archaeology?
                          *The Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947, which dates back to the second century B.C., gave us a Hebrew text consisting of all but one of the 39 O.T. books (Esther).
                          *Two small silver amulets containing Numbers 6:24-26 discovered in 1986, which dates back to the seventh century B.C.,
                          * More than 5,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament exist today, which makes the Greek New Testament the best-attested document in all ancient writings. Contrast that with the writings of Julius Caesar or

                          5. Which books brought about a unity of theme?
                          * Written over a period of some 1,500 years by nearly forty different authors in several languages, the miracle of the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament becomes all the more obvious when the Book is studied as a whole.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ChristianKnight View Post
                            I do not believe any man has authority over me, even if others think he does.
                            What do you make of Heb 13:17?

                            Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ChristianKnight View Post
                              I interpret the bible as I see, and compare it to what I believe.

                              I do not believe any man has authority over me, even if others think he does.
                              Where is that in the bible?

                              The bible in addition to what was pointed out by Bethany67 also records Jesus saying in Matthew 18:16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

                              I submit to the authority of the church Jesus gave us it seems like a good thing to do.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X