1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Sola Scriptura

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by Uncertaindrummer, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    Okay.

    Yes, it is. No one is doubting that.


    That is a huge jump. Nowhere in there did anything say the Bible was sufficient, or that we should use only the Scriptures for our salvation. Indeed the Bible says quite the contrary, in Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 3: 15, for starters.

    You are makign the classic mistake of assuming "Word of God" means the Bible. It does not always mean the Bible. JESUS is the Word of God so of course the Word saves us.

    Once again you assume these thigns are talking about Scripture. Not only that, but you then assume they are talkign about Scripture ALONE. Nowhere does it say either.

    Notice something there? "Preached" to you. Peter doesn't say "The words which were written to you", he says "preached". Now why would he do that?

    The Bible warns

    Once again you equate "Word of God" with "Scripture alone". You have given no basis for this gigantic assumption.




    Here's why you need something more. Do you believe Baptism is necessary for salvation? Well either way, there are TONS of Protestants who disagree with you. Which means that SOME of you are TOTALLY WRONG about whether or not you need Baptism to be saved. Now who answers the question? Who has the final authority? You can't say the Bible because you are ALL claiming to go on the "Bible alone".

    Another reason you need something else. No book can verify itself. That is a fact. You can't verify a book from within. Totally circular logic. Until someone answers me that I will never even HOPE to udnerstand how you live with this amazing logical inconsistency in your belief system.

    And then of course, there IS NO LIST OF BOOKS in the Bible. Now if Everythign we need to know is in the Bible, and the list of what CONSTITUTES the Bible isn't in the Bible... Well, there goes that theory!

    Finally, as a reiteration, you simply have no idea which books are inspired, and without some other authority, you can't SAY with certainty which books are inspired.
     
  2. glasgowchick

    glasgowchick Gives Glory to God !!!

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    603
    Ratings:
    +78
    Hi UD, I feel we don't need to look anywhere else than the Bible to teach us about Jesus and how to obtain salvation..I believe that is the trouble with having the bible and whatever the something else maybe..I believe having something else only leads to confusion.

    As far as who has the Authority, well the highest Authority is the creator, God..If the Scriptures that are written in the Bible is the word of God then it has ALL Authority.

    Do you not believe God when He inspired the Apostle Paul write "ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD." All means all, if someone said they had cut off ALL of their fingers, you wouldn't ask how many now would you ?..

    I have no reason to doubt what has been written in the bible. If you look at the Bible as a whole then you would understand why I feel that way..

    66 books where written by 36 men within a period of 1500 years, [ 1400 B.C. TO 100 A.D.] From different periods, from different countries, men, many of them who didn't know each other were guided by God to tell His truth, All the books produce a coherent revelation of Gods plan for mankind through Christ Jesus His Son. and finisher of the plan, as the binding thread throughout ALL BOOKS, Could all of this be achieved by coincidence ?...

    The Books have been passed on through nations now extinct, through captives, wars destruction, persecution and attacks from enemies and critics throughout the ages of their existence..could these books ALL have survived to become the Bible of today without overall guidance ?

    The Bible has come from translations of manuscripts, copies of the text, in original language, made by hand.
    Versions- translations into other languages the oldest being the Septuagint Old Testemant only, from Hebrew [ and Aramaic ] into Greek translated about 250 B.C. Others each called a codex, a book, have names generally reffering to place of discovery, Viz. Vatican, Sinitic, Alexandrian.

    Copies and quotations - sections and parts of the Bible, found at different times and places, compared to Manuscriptes and versions and to each other and used in new translations. All documents, discovered in such diversity, compare favourably and as far as I know the bible has never been proved to be contradictory..Could man have accomplished this ?

    Many archaeological finds have been made throughout the years, yet none has contridicted bible facts. Many Bible facts have been corroborated by archaeology..For example the Existence of Abraham denied until Ur of the chaldees descovered. Hittites of Hethare extinct, it was claimed they never existed until thier capital city was discovered by Winckler. The barns of the pharoahs, pithom and rameses were discovered showing different layers of construction of bricks, made with straw, stubble and clay only- this is consistent with the account of Israel's enslavery in Egypt. Relics of widely different civilisations have been discovered above and below a thick layer of soil in different of the middle East. There are no signs of life in the thick layer indicating a break in history..This is consistent with the Biblical account of the flood..Nineveh is not mentioned in secular history, but only in the Bible, Critics of the Bible denied its exsistence until it was discovered in 1845 revealing the palaces of sargon and sennacherib, previously only known in the bible..Also it was asserted that moses could not have written the Pentateuch, as writing was not known in his time, this claim was refuted when writing was found to be in existence at least a 1000 years prior to moses..

    The Amarna Tablets were found in 1887 near the nile about 190 miles South of Cairo, they refere to Egyptian records in the times of the two Pharoah's, Amenophis III AND IV, around 1400 B.C. Bible History of that time is confirmed in detail.

    The moabite Stone was discoveredin 1868, East of Jordan in Palestine, It recorded its errection by King Mesha in 850 B.C. to commemorate his battle with the king of Israel [ see 2 Kings 3:4-27 ].

    In 1947 the dead sea scrolls were found, they included copies of Scripture from the Old Testemant written around 100-120 A.D. No significant difference between them and the current translations of the bible was apparent.

    During the american Space programme in 1960's Moon rocks brought to Earth were determined by geologists to be older than the Earth, Evolutionists claimed that the moon broke away from the Earth. who was right ?

    Jesus as Savior [ Messiah ] told from the beguining to the end of Scripture. Gods plan for man revealed and evidence given of its fulfillment. GOD REVERED-SIN REBUKED..chaos to perfection seen. A hope for each individual to be made right with God, the Father the creator, the one God.

    The writers from different ages, cultures, backgrounds, places, languages ect, give a compleat account of harmony, agreeing with eachother. Could human mind and plan have accomplished this?

    Truths are presented which apply to all people, at all times, they are eternal.
    The purposes of the Bible show continuity and unity. The Law and Entire Old Testament prepare for the coming of Christ [ Galations 3: 23-29 ]

    The Gospels present Christ as the son of God [ John 20:30-31 ] fulfilling the prophecies,

    Acts of Apostles show how to accept Christ as Saviour [ Acts 2,8,9,10 and 16 ] The Epistles direct on how to live as followers of Christ [ 2Peter 1:5-11 ]

    The revelation indicates the promises in Christ and Gods judgment of the unfaithful and his enemies.

    The unity is one of logical progression around Christ, for nearly 2000 years, men have criticised, scrutinised, sought errors and contridictions within the bible, but time after time the bible has been vindicated by history, futher knowlege, new discoveries and archaeology. Adverse criticism will continue, Not once has any claim against the bible been proved.

    Prophecy and facts 1Timothy 4:1-3 warns of false prophets, such false teaching is still evident today. see matt 24:4-13.

    Ezekiel 26:12-14- destruction of Babylon is prophesied, Secular History records its fulfilment some 350 years later by Alexander the Great.

    Jer 13:19 dispersion of Israel fore told [ see 2 kings 17 for dispersion of nothern kingdom and 2 kings 24&25 for Dispersion of the Southern kingdom.

    Christ fore told the destruction of Jerusalem [ Mat 24:2, 15:22 ] It happened 70AD.

    Theory of planetary movement by Copernicus A.D. 2543 [ See Job 38:31-32..]

    Its getting late, time for bed..UD If you have a problem with accepting the Bible or Scriptures or to whatever you prefere to call them along with something else, thats ok by me. Books might not be able to verify themselve, but History can speak for itself and all the facts can and both can be found in the Bible.. :D
     
  3. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,859
    Ratings:
    +1,390
    Religion:
    Catholic
    From day one there has been "something else". Let me copy and paste something I wrote in a formal debate. I'm not sure if this will have any affect this late in the debate But here goes.

    Definitions:
    Doctrinal Authority: Gift given to the Church (thru the Bishops/Pope) by Christ to resolve, define, and proclaim what is and what isn’t doctrine.
    3 Legged Stool: Scripture, Tradition, and the Church.
    Scripture: The written Word of God
    Tradition: The whole apostolic faith (written and unwritten) passed down to Church succesors (Bishops). (Acts 1:20)
    Church: We understand them to have the following meanings, 1. Brotherhood of all believers (mysteriously attached to the Body of Christ) 2. Visible body of believers that can be identified by what they believe (Catholic). 3. Church leaders known as the magisterial (most likely going to be using this one in this debate) 4. An actual building.

    Opening Statements:
    I am going to steal James Rondon’s words by saying:


    “I would like to thank God, through His Son Jesus Christ, for allowing me the opportunity to discuss such an important topic with Dan. I would also like to thank Dan for his willingness to cooperate in such a mutual exchange”


    Dan was kind enough to let me come to his forum to debate an issue that separates us. I think that speaks about his character. Thanks Dan.

    Before I begin it is important that I first establish that doctrinal authority exists outside the Bible and most importantly that it’s indeed biblical. To do this I will use the concept of a stool used by many catholic apologists. The 3 legged stool is the catholic system of authority.



    3 Legged THE STOOL


    Point 1: Tradition – Leg 1

    *It is important to note that this is not a separate body of revelation. As I noted above Tradition includes the Scriptures as well. Just as important to note is that some things in Tradition were not put into writing (Canon-what books belong in the Bible).


    2 Thes. 2:15 - Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.


    1 Cor. 11:2 - I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.


    2 Tim 1:13-14 - Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us.


    In the following verses you can see that Tradition was used for teaching and St. Paul praised the early Christians for keeping the oral deposit of faith. The most basic historical fact of Christianity is that the first generation Christians only had oral Tradition as their source of the Christian faith. The Canon was not assembled until the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. It was Holy Tradition (guided by the Holy Spirit) that allowed and guided the bishops to assemble which books belonged and which didn’t. This leads me into Leg #2.


    Point 2: Church – Leg 2


    Eph 4:11-13 - It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
    So what’s the purpose for God giving us these men? To build and reach unity of faith. This is important to note because I often confront the non-catholic Christian mind that dreads involving men. So if this is the purpose for these men then it would only be proper and reasonable for the Church (definition 3) to be:

    1 Tim. 3:15 - The pillar and foundation of the truth.


    This is exactly why Hebrews tells us to:


    Hebrews 13:17 - Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.


    So we are to obey them to build and reach unity of faith because they are the foundation of truth. The Council of Jerusalem shows this all to well:


    The Jerusalem Council – Acts 15
    6Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouththe Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."
    12Then all the multitude kept silent and listened....



    Two things to point out.
    1. It was a doctrinal issue.
    2. The issue was settled.


    Point 3: The Scriptures – Leg 3


    It would be pointless for me to attempt to show that the Scriptures are authoritative and without error. This is an area that I’m sure we agree. Instead I will quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church to show what her view of the scriptures is:
    Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. . . . Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. (Dei Verbum, 11, November 18, 1965).


    This is what makes up the Catholic system of authority.


    The Least

    ~Victor
     
  4. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    And yet, Protestantism, which all uses ONLY the Bible, is the most divded and confused religion in the world. Why is THAT?

    ? What does this have to do with anything? Of course it is infallible and only contains truth--but it can be misinterpretaed easily I notice you never did explain to me how you settle a disagreement with someone who believes differently abotu whether or not Baptism is necessary for salvation.

    That is an erroneous analogy. Every person--with only extreme exceptions--has five figners. How do you KNOW which books are inspired?

    No, believe me, I would not. You have no reason to doubt what is in the Bible? Then by the same token Muslims have no reason to doubt what is in the Koran.

    Oh yeah? Well I think there were 73 books written. The Septuagint--the OT text used by Jesus and the Apostles--had seven more books than you use, so why do you get rid of seven? What authority lets you do that?

    :rolleyes: The lack of logic is overwhelming. I'd lvoe to see what an atheist has to sya baout this.

    Umm, simply put, YES!!!

    You are arguign for ME here. After showing how logn and far the Bible has come, do you really believe that every single word is written EXACTLY as God intended? What gives you the ability to make that leap in common sense?

    Yes. You are relyign on weak circumstantial evidence. In reality you are relying on tradition. You jsut don't want to admit it.

    What about the idea that Matthew says Jesus is born at one time, and another Gospel says He is born at another? How do you answer that accusation from your vantage point?

    SO WHAT?? At the MOST these prove the Bible is historically reliable. AT THE MOST. At the least they prove nothing. This has ZERO to do with them beign inspired.

    You could also say that the Bible confirms the history of the Amarna Tablets. Dos that make THEM inspired? No.
    Again, you are not proving anythign to do with inspiration.

    :rolleyes: Nothing to do with inspiration.


    You are correct, such a "truth" as Sola Scriptura would have to be true sicne Jesus ascended into Heaven or else it isn't ALWAYS true so in fact could never really be true. So, what did the Christians do before the entire Bible was written? Hmmm... I think the Apostles said SOMETHING about preaching... Don't know why I'm thinking that...

    I don't need to prove anything. The burden of proof is on YOU to tell me where the essential knowledge of the CANON of Scripture is found. Where?

    Yes and any atheist could easily contradict such an argument by saying "Well it was gonna happen SOMETIME". I don't say this because I believe you are wrong. I am jsut trying to show you how incredibly weak your arguments for the bible are.

    Why do you equate "historically correct" with "inspired"? Thats what you just did in your entire post. You didn't offer a SHRED of evidence that argued for the inspiration of the Bible. All you did was try and prove its historical correctness. That does nothing.
     
  5. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Yes. All others are per-versions. Accept no imitations.
    Judith --- no comment.
     
  6. glasgowchick

    glasgowchick Gives Glory to God !!!

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    603
    Ratings:
    +78
    I do NOT consider myself as protestant and I would thank you not to be putting labels on me.
    I agree but because one sees a passage differently should not cause a split in church, but where there is a differance in opinions on what God commands and we fail to do what God says then it becomes a problem. How would Scripture settle baptism, my guess, what shall we do to be saved, " repent and be baptized " .. A simple command yet so many find these simply instructions hard to follow, so in turn do it their way. God decideds how HE wants things done with specific instructions, If God sent us out for a brown thick crust loaf of bread, men come back with a thin sliced white and expect God to be Happy..And who cares if you don't like my logic..I do, I think its great..
    Because the Scripture tells us ALL of them are..
    one only has to compare to what is written in Scripture, My guess Scripture would win hands down, you can take two passages from either the Bible or something else and ask " what does God have to say then compare what God has to say on the matter..I don't know what is writen in the koran...
    So what, Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, Its the Old Testament that brings us to Christ. I don't know why seven books are missing, who had the Authority not to add them ?
    Never said anything about anything being every single word that God intended, but funny how everything happened just as God Planned it.
    Weak evidance " Come on..fufilled prophecies as fore told in Scripture WEAK , Get a grip :areyoucra
    It is Historical FACTS that show the inspiration of the Bible, again everything God said that would happen, happened and it is through history events we can see Gods direction in Everything and its reliability, a book that can be trusted..I really don't understand by what you mean when you talk about inspired..My definition of something that has been inspired, is prophecy and its fulfillment, That Could only come from God Himself.. Prophecy, Genesis 3:15, fulfilled Matt 4:1-11 John 15 :18, 19-30 Galations 4:4 Col 2:15..Prophecy Gen 12:3,,fulfilled Acts 2:1-11 Prophecy EX 12:46 Fulfilled john 19:33 Prophecy LEV 16:7 -22 FULFILLED JOHN1:29 ECT ECT ETC !!!!!!!. I could ask you the same question, how do you KNOW what books are or are not inspired, Scripture claims that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired, you either believe all Scripture is inspired or you have to disreguard ALL Scripture, you can't pick and chose to suit yourself..So what you are trying to tell me that some of the Scriptures are inspired and some are not ???. If some are not, whos Authority do you have to decide these things of God..
    It might do nothing for you but it does do a lot for me..Your the one that has the problem excepting the Bible as it is not me, your the one that needs more to find Christ and salvation again I don't, and it wouldnt matter what I brought to the table all your going to do is trash it anyway..
     
  7. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    Okay, genius. A couple of questions: First, where on EARTH does it say that in the Bible, and second, what on Earth are French speaking protestants suppposed to do? learn English so they can read the only true Bible?
     
  8. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    1st of all, what is a 'French-speaking protestant'? I'm not aware that Protestants even exist today; and 2nd of all, the French have the Authorized Version in their own language.
     
  9. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    Sorry. Usually those protesting agaisnt the authority of the Church are consdiered "Protestants" so I didn't think you would mind.

    This is just evading the question. YOU think its obvious but apparently others don't, and with no authority to tell them they are wrong, they can persist in their error forever.

    Thats impossible. You aren't USING logic. If you actually were using critical thinking facilities here, anyoen could tell you that you are using circular logic.

    :rolleyes: Now what did I jsut say about circular logic. This is your argument:

    The Bible is inspired

    We know that because the inspired Bible tells us it is inspired.

    We know this because the Bible is inspired.

    Which we know because the inspried Bible tells us it is inspired.

    If you don't see the ludicrous lack of logic in that... I give up.

    Your GUESS is that Scripture would iwn hands down? Win? Okay now I DO give up.

    The seven books are missing because Martin Luther didn't like 2 Macabees because it destroyed his entire Faith Alone belief system. So he got rid of the deuterocanonical books in order to get rid of a teaching he didn't like. He had no reason to do this other than that he disagreed with the Bible. So basically, the reason you have seven less books in your Bible is because you are following the ideals of Martin Luther, who also wanted to get rid of James and Revelation.



    It certainly says nothing about them being inspired. To use an argumetn I have heard atheists use, do weatherman have the inspiration of God? No? Then how do they know the future?

    That is %100 impossible. Historical correctness does not equal inspiration. Like I said, what about all the books you keep proving the Bible with? Well doesn't the Bible also prove those BOOKS? So wouldn't that make those books inspired by your reasoning? Actually, it would. But you refuse to come to terms with that.

    Amazing how you jump from God's reliability to a Book that can be trusted. You have so much bias here you can't even see that not a non-Christian on Earth could follow your logic. Somehow you go from historically correct books to inspired word of God. It jsut makes no sense.

    Inspired means that God wanted it to be written that way, and kept it free from error. YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING which books those are. You just trust in the fact that your 66 books are inspired. With no reason.

    Because amazingly I don't rely on the Bible for all of my knowledge. I have another authority, the Church. And in fact there is another reason your theory doesn't work. You say eVERYTHING you need to mnow is in the Bible. You say the Bible is necessary. And then you have to admit that the definition of the Bible is not even IN the Bible. Once again, Sola Scriptura fails.

    which has as much credence as me claiming I'm God. My argument would be every bit as reasonable as yours is:

    I'm God.

    You can know this is true because I am God.

    That is what you are arguing. Don't you see the absurdity in that?

    And yet you desregard seven books of Scripture. So are YOU pickign and choosing?

    They would not be "Scripture" if they were not inspired. But you have no clue what Scrpture is. Let me ask you something: How do you know the Acts of the Apostles is inspired? Hmmm... Somehow I don't think I'll be getting an answer to this one.

    Whose authority do YOU have to SAY these are things from God?

    I have no problem accepting the Bible from a legitimate authority, and I do accept it. You on the other hand, can't even tell me with certainty what Scripture us.

    I certainly need to know WHAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE. And I do. And you don't.

    If you ever come up with an argument that doesn't break all laws of logic reason and sensical thinking, I won't.

    Here's a problem you simply have no answer for so I don't expect one:

    To prove the Bible is the Word of God you need an outside source. You CANNOT prove a book on its own merits, otherwise we'd all be muslims and mormons.

    You claim we need no outside sources.

    Hence, it is an impossible impass.
     
  10. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    Amazingly, Protestants do exist (over twenty thousand denominations), and also, they do not have the exact same translation you do.

    And of course you didn't answer my first question :rolleyes:
     
  11. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    The problem with this is that whilst Scripture most certainly tells us that all Scripture is inspired, it does not say what the contents of all Scripture actually is. At the time that Scripture was written, the OT accepted by the diaspora Jews was the Septuagint (which actually contained more than just the additional 7 books UD mentioned) and so all Scripture surely covered all of those books. This causes a problem for Protestants (and all those who follow a Protestant canon such as the current version of the KJV) because the Reformers clearly didn't respect their own Scripture as much as they claimed to and decided that all didn't really mean all after all and removed several books from the OT.

    James
     
  12. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    How ON EARTH would that be in the Bible?

    I love an 'intelligent debate'.

    Me: Smoking is wrong.
    He: Show me that in the Bible.
    Me: Our bodies are holy temples now.
    He: You haven't shown me "smoking" is wrong.
    ---
    Me: Rapture is coming.
    He: Show me "Rapture" in the Bible.
    Me: It's in 1 Thessalonians 4.
    He: I don't see the word "Rapture". Answer my question, please.

    People love for Christians to spoon-feed Scripture to them.

    Would it help if the Bible (written in 1611) would come out and say the NIV (written in 1975 [or whenever]) is wrong?

    Of course it would! Then you could claim it was 'doctored up'.
     
  13. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Would you (or anyone reading this) please tell me what a Protestant, per se, is?

    And they don't have the exact same translation as I do? That's probably why there's over 20,000 denominations, then.
     
  14. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Not going to read the whole debate... been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

    On one hand you have people who feel that the scriptures must be "translated" for us. This really means that" and "No, this wasn't in the original text, but do it OUR way and not like it says in the Bible". The church is the ONLY way to get it all straight! So in the end they subscribe to men's traditions on how others interpret the scriptures.

    Then you have people who have no idea what "sola scriptura" is and could really care less. They were brought up in the tradition of the "Holy Bible" (usually KJV) as being the end all. They follow the scriptures as far as the scriptures agree with them. They still follow tradition, but they will argue to their last bit of strength that they don't.

    Then there are a few who really understand what "living word" means. This is the understanding of the scriptures as guided only by the Spirit of the living God. That's why he is our Counselor. The Spirit is able to use ALL things to bring us to an understanding of growing in the grace of Jesus. Me, the next poster, the Bible as we call it even a body of believers. This living word is ACTIVE, and SHARPER than any scalpel. It reveals what? Our doctrinal deficiencies? Well, that's not what it says, now is it? It reveals our heart, our conscience, even our soul!

    II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. NIV

    Do you see the goal of the scriptures? To create COMPLETE saints. But, that's only the beginning; it means nothing without the Spirit guiding other saints to teach, rebuke, correct and train!

    So only scripture? Not for me. Scripture AND the Holy Spirit? Now that's a winning combination.

    BTW, many of God's scriptures only become understandable AFTER we obey them. If you are having issues with a particular passage ie, we see what it says but disagree that it could be right. Go ahead and FOLLOW the scripture and see if you don't end up understanding it afterwards! :D
     
  15. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    This just further convicnes me that to believe in Sola Scriptura you must first disable and eject all critical thinking facilities and logic. Your analogy has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. It has no logical bearing on it AT ALL. It would, if you could show me ANY evidence, explicit or implicit, that the Bible says that the KJV was the only inspired version and that the Bible was intended to not exist until the 17 century. You haven't shown anything remotely like that being in the Bible.

    On a sidenote, Thessalonians 4: 16 (if that's what you are talking about) certainly does not resemble the rapture. Paul is talking about trumpets blowing and loud noise--not some mysterious dissapearance of true believers.
     
  16. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    Heh, indeed... :D

    Not men's traditions. Sacred Christian Tradition which we are explicitly ordered to hold to in the Bible. ("hold fast to the traditions..." "I commend you for holding fast to the Traditions you recieved from us")

    This is true, although there are certainly mroe categories than just this one.
    I'm sure you count yourself among them :rolleyes:



    Read James 1:4. It tells us: "And let perseverance be perfect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing"

    So following your reasoning, the Bible tells us that all we need is perseverance. Do you believe that? Because James uses way stronger language than Paul does in 2 Timothy.

    True but in what does the Holy Spirit manifest itself? The individual believer? Yes. But does He give every individual believer infallibility? No. Which means without some guiding authority which DOES possess infallibility we have no way of being certain in anything. And don't tell me that the Bible is that authority becasue without an outside authority we can't even establish what the Bible IS.

    Good point, ND. So do you take disagreements to the Church? (Matthew 18: 15-18) Do you partake of the Lord's Flesh and Blood (John 6), were you Baptized (1 Peter 3: 21)?

    Just wondering.

    Anyway, the basis of your belief is that the Holy Spirit guides everyone ND (correct me if I'm wrong). But then it begs the question. If the Holy Spirit guides us all, how come He is telling you different things then He is telling AV6166?
     
  17. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,859
    Ratings:
    +1,390
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Acts 15 tells us loud and clear how to resolve doctrinal issues. I suppose you are exempt from this because you have the power of your intelligence to lead you into all truth. This is really all you got. Good Luck.

    The Catholic system is designed to resolve disputes. Church leaders only get involved if when necessary. You and millions of others are living proof that you can get at least some things straight. But you and millions of others are also living proof that the Bible is not clear and can get things wrong.

    Do share how you managed to not get contaminated with this?

    All things? You mean whatever you feel comfotable with.

    How's this working out? Let's see how the early Christians did it:
    I can rip apart your interpretation of Timothy but I will leave at that for now.


    Good Luck.

    ~Victor
     
  18. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    So UD,

    what or who is infallible? Only God is perfect. God has ALWAYS worked though the imperfect until Jesus appeared on the scene. Even Paul instructs us to only follow him as he follows Christ.

    We all respond differently to the very same message.

    I Corinthians 8:1Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But the man who loves God is known by God. NIV

    So Victor,

    you and I have a different outlook on the raison d'etre for the Catholic church. :D But that is not relevant.

    Acts 15 tells us "loud and clear" ONE WAY to resolve doctrinal issues: debate. But it's not the ONLY way to do it and it doesn't imply that it's the ONLY way to do it. You can also "search the scriptures", merely disagree (as Paul did with Barnabas), confront each other (as Paul did to Peter) as well as others. Why restrict where the scriptures don't restrict? As in the words of Peter:

    Acts 15:10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? NIV

    I meant what I said. What would make you infer otherwise?

    Sadly this speaks volumes. As it said in II Corinthians; Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. What you "know" is not as important as "how you love".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,417
    Ratings:
    +6,086
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    So only scripture and the Holy Spirit? Not for me. Scripture, the Holy Spirit AND living prophets called by God? Now that's truly not only a winning combination, but the one the Savior himself established! :D
     
  20. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    All prophecies from God ended in 96 AD with the completion of Scripture.
     
Loading...