Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[plmarquette]

the only way you can say sola-tradition or sola-scriptura is to put people alone, without tv, internet, or books... and leave them a bible...

our culture, language, upbringing, church, denomination.... all play a part in how we view the bible or the church in general

the issue is, which is more scriptural or more accurate... what we have done for years or what it written in the bible ...should there be a conflict... if it ain't broke, don't fix it so to speak

neither works, because neither permits deviation from the preconceived frame work

 

[simonthezealot]

the only way you can say sola-tradition or sola-scriptura is to put people alone, without tv, internet, or books... and leave them a bible...

You sure you understand what SS is?
Simply put: The view that scripture is our only infallible rule of faith.

Has NOTHING to do with interpretations.

It does not require some high level of genius to understand.

 

[Philothei]

You sure you understand what SS is?
Simply put: The view that scripture is our only infallible rule of faith.

Has NOTHING to do with interpretations.

It does not require some high level of genius to understand.

No it does not !! Yet it is open to thousands or trilllions upon billions of interpretations...

 

[DeaconDean]

No it does not !! Yet it is open to thousands or trilllions upon billions of interpretations...

That is true.

What I believe is what it says in my historic Baptist confessions:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down, or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/pc01.htm

Everything we need to know about, God's glory, man's salvation, faith, and life are necessarily contained in the scriptures. And nothing needs to be added to it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Philothei]

That is true.

What I believe is what it says in my historic Baptist confessions:



philadelphia confession-chapter 1

Everything we need to know about, God's glory, man's salvation, faith, and life are necessarily contained in the scriptures. And nothing needs to be added to it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

It does not say the Bible is what we need "ONLY"
Also being open to trillion interpretations does not help eitehr... as even if you are not adding you still swim into a sea of interpretations.... Interpretations are indeed man's opinions ADDED to the meaning of what the Gospel says

 

[DeaconDean]

It does not say the Bible is what we need "ONLY"

Oh but it does:

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience;

philadelphia confession-chapter 1

But I also want to point out that no matter what bible you use, your using an "interpretation".

Just pointing that out.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Anoetos]

What you say and the way to view the scripture stil stands in contradiction of the gospel of John where it says God is love. Necessity of evil is NOT doing evil. The fact God allows evil does not mean He inflicts it.

I think you mean the first epistle of John.

Anyhow, John defines this love for us in the subsequent verses (9-10). It is not a generalized diffuse and radiating attitude of benevolent care for everyone, nor is he really making a categorical statement about the essence of God's nature. He is pointing to the centrality of the cross as the definitive statement of God's love for His people. When he identifies this love with God, he is pointing out that this propitiation by which believers are redeemed is the sine qua non of love and at the very heart of His dealings with men. That the verses even further on encourage believers to love one another with the same kind of love defines the boundaries even more clearly: it is a household love, not a universal love.

So it's far more specific than the kind of "feel good" interpretation many put upon it. It says nothing about his attitude toward those who do not believe; the Bible is quite clear about that elsewhere.

 

[StThomasMore]

1. Did any of the major or minor prophets choose not to be prophets?
2. Did God only give them a special dispensation and not sanctifying grace?
3. Did the Assyrians or the Babylonians have a choice not to raise against Israel?

some prophets did not want to be prophets, like Moses and Jonah. Or were doubtful of their abilities. But in the case of Moses God gives him Aaron for his doubts regarding speech. God foreknew they would be great people and they were unique. Yes they had sanctifying grace. But they also had God's power and dispensation to work great miracles and wonders and had access to the things of God that the general population didn't. That is why only Moses could walk up mount Horeb. Like Christ, Moses was the only unique mediator along with Aaron.

The Assyrians as a nation probably did not have a choice because of their hardened hearts. Or a better explanation would be God used their conquering powers as a tool to punish Israel. But we are talking about the actions of a nation as a whole, and not individual human free will.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

You sure you understand what SS is?
Simply put: The view that scripture is our only infallible rule of faith.

Has NOTHING to do with interpretations.

It does not require some high level of genius to understand.

sola scriptura doesn't seem to be working very well on our baptism thread...

 

[ivebeenshown]

sola scriptura doesn't seem to be working very well on our baptism thread...

Nor does it seem to be working for all the Watchtower folk. Those poor guys don't have the Holy Trinity. :o

 

[sunlover1]

You sure you understand what SS is?
Simply put: The view that scripture is our only infallible rule of faith.

Has NOTHING to do with interpretations.

It does not require some high level of genius to understand.

Nor does it seem to be working for all the Watchtower folk. Those poor guys don't have the Holy Trinity. :o

So because someone twists the Bible we should NOT have God's Words
be our plumbline?

No offense but that's poor logic.
Called the fallacy of false cause.

Because if Jesus Christ was standing right there in the flesh
speaking to them, the very words that they READ that He
said,, there would be no difference.

Whether they HEAR it, or READ it, it says the same thing.
So it's not the READING or the HEARING.. then it must
be something else.

And that 'something else' is found right in Scripture.

WT folks arent the only ones who mess up in this way either.

kwim?

 

[Philothei]

Oh but it does:



philadelphia confession-chapter 1

But I also want to point out that no matter what bible you use, your using an "interpretation".

Just pointing that out.

God Bless

Till all are one.

That is not in the Bible... I think it is in your Chruch's manual only.

If you are using a Bible of course you are using an interpretation. But still if your interpretation is closer to the original language of the Bible the better I say

 

[Philothei]

So because someone twists the Bible we should NOT have God's Words
be our plumbline?

No offense but that's poor logic.
Called the fallacy of false cause.

Because if Jesus Christ was standing right there in the flesh
speaking to them, the very words that they READ that He
said,, there would be no difference.

Whether they HEAR it, or READ it, it says the same thing.
So it's not the READING or the HEARING.. then it must
be something else.

And that 'something else' is found right in Scripture.

WT folks arent the only ones who mess up in this way either.

kwim?

So the non -Trinitarians are not reading it right? Why ? How do you differentiate then? I can interpret the verses that deal with Christ being the sone of God in a different light... I might want to say also that Christ was not a man but he was a woman ...Because that is how I interpret it... A man meaning "human" why would I be wrong? Where in the blible it says he was male? The word "anthropos" means man (female or male ) in some instances in Greek

 

[Stryder06]

So the non -Trinitarians are not reading it right? Why ? How do you differentiate then? I can interpret the verses that deal with Christ being the sone of God in a different light... I might want to say also that Christ was not a man but he was a woman ...Because that is how I interpret it... A man meaning "human" why would I be wrong? Where in the blible it says he was male? The word "anthropos" means man (female or male ) in some instances in Greek

You could interpret it however you want, wouldn't keep you from being wrong. On the same hand, having X amount of years behind you as "evidence" doesn't mean you've been interpreting it correctly either. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. The reason why folk don't get certain things right is simply because the Spirit hasn't finished His work with them yet.

 

[Rick Otto]

Nor does it seem to be working for all the Watchtower folk. Those poor guys don't have the Holy Trinity. :o

I wonder how they score on the 2 greatest commandments.

 

[sunlover1]

So the non -Trinitarians are not reading it right? Why ?

My point actually was that whether they READ it,
or HEAR it (God's words spoken by God directly
or recorded for them in the Bible) isn't the issue.
They will get it or they wont, doesn't matter which
format it's presented in...

Why does someone get confused on something from the bible?
Or something God said in person (as we have read about in the Bible)?

There are a few reasons.
One is that they are spiritually blind and deaf..
but that's because they have HARDENED their own
hearts! They're 'darkened in their understanding'
and "seperated from the life of God" out of
IGNORANCE due to hardening their hearts...

Then there are those who don't desire a diet of meats
but rather of milk..and so milk is all they get.
They are UNSKILLED in the word of righteousness,
meaning one can be SKILLED in handling the Word.
Solid food is for mature Christians , who by reason of
USE have excercised their spiritual senses so that they
can discern what's right and what isn't.

Another is due to not having the spiritual eyes to see.
Unless one is BORN AGAIN, they can't SEE the kingdom.

Another is lack of use of the word, being a hearer only,
and not a doer. What little you have could be taken.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I wonder how they score on the 2 greatest commandments.

I don't know, but 'who Jesus is' is a pretty important thing...

John 8
24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I wonder how they score on the 2 greatest commandments.

Is that all that matters>? BTW, when it says "love your God with all your heart, soul and mind" which god are they loving?

 

[sunlover1]

I don't know, but 'who Jesus is' is a pretty important thing...

John 8
24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

I questioned trinity for several years and God never left me ...
And He continued to fill me with love for His people and all
else that I had prayed for.

We all have it 'wrong' to a point.
But it's not about who has more 'right'.
It's about life and love.

 

[sunlover1]

Is that all that matters>? BTW, when it says "love your God with all your heart, soul and mind" which god are they loving?

I don't know squat about you, but I love you.