Scripture as my measure

[sunlover1]

What are you talking about? You need to stay on topic, we were defining an Arabic word for some people who didn't know what it means. What does this have to do with praying with Mormons? (which I don't think is ethical)

I did know what it means but thanks for being so helpful.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ortho_cat Lol, u called him "IBS"....

Irritable Bowel Syndrome

It's my pet name for him.
He's cool with it lol.

If he is kewl with it sunny, so am I

Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for YNG
(bowels)
occurs 41 times in 39 verses in the YNG

1st time used:

Young) Genesis 15:4 And lo! the word of YHVH [is] unto him, saying, "this [one] doth not heir thee;
but he who cometh out from thy bowels, he doth heir thee;'

Last time used:

Young) 1 John 3:17 and whoever may have the goods of the world, and may view his brother having need and may shut up his bowels from him--
how doth the love of God remain in him?

 

[ivebeenshown]

It reminds me of the movie 'Along Came Polly'

 

[sunlover1]

If he is kewl with it sunny, so am I

Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for YNG
(bowels)
occurs 41 times in 39 verses in the YNG

1st time used:

Young) Genesis 15:4 And lo! the word of YHVH [is] unto him, saying, "this [one] doth not heir thee;
but he who cometh out from thy bowels, he doth heir thee;'

Last time used:

Young) 1 John 3:17 and whoever may have the goods of the world, and may view his brother having need and may shut up his bowels from him--
how doth the love of God remain in him?

LOL.. yeah, he's cool.
He's a superbaby producer..
WTG IBS!

It reminds me of the movie 'Along Came Polly'

The thread or the IBS talk?
It's hard to follow the 'conversation' here.

 

[razeontherock]

Maybe I can ask: how does one live the Scriptures in Sola Sciptura ?

Are the demonstrated teachings as important as the spoken teachings ?

I think this whole SS thing is a strawman. The closest I've ever seen to anyone living SS or trying to includes asking elders, their Pastor, (etc) opinions when questions arise, and pretty much everything else you'd expect.

Doesn't really fit the bill of 'ss,' now does it?

 

[razeontherock]

But I don't think laboratory Physics has the same spiritual significance as the Holy Scriptures (and it takes a great deal of effort, it would seem, to defy the laws of Physics in ones living

This strikes me as coming from a very warm Spirit; plus i needed a laugh so thanks for that!

 

[razeontherock]

hmm not sure about all this norma norma stuff, getting kind of confusing

Isn't it time somebody Cliffed the Cliff?

YouTube - Cheers - The Two Faces of Norm (2 of 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcFTsQC_Dw8&feature=related

 

[Thekla]

Isn't it time somebody Cliffed the Cliff?

YouTube - Cheers - The Two Faces of Norm (2 of 3)

Thanks

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I would entirely agree. However, that makes it UNDER Scripture - it would make at (at most) "norma normata" (that which HAS BEEN normed by the norm), it would not be a case that Scripture is correct because it agrees with the Nicene Creed but the other way around. A nice application of Sola Scriptura, btw.

.

yes the creed is a clear and reliable exposition of scripture

Again, I fully agree!

And your post is an EXCELLENT example Sola Scriptura.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But I don't think laboratory Physics has the same spiritual significance as the Holy Scriptures

You didn't ask anything about spiritual signficance or about the nature of Scripture, you asked how embracing Scripture as the rule in the evaluation of disputed doctrines among us: "how does one live the Scriptures in Sola Sciptura ?"


I gave the best answer I could. Of course, I DO think that truth matters in Christian doctine and ergo I embrace accountability, norming (evaluating the truthfulness/correctness/validity) of doctrines among us - and thus the need for a sound rule for such.


IF you want to discuss the significance of Scripture in our lives, I'd love to chat about that but that's not the discussion here and CF does not permit hijacking threads. Start a thread on that and I'll gladly post.





.

 

[sensational]

Note that the first part of 1 Timothy 3:15, which simply says that the house of God is the church, doesn't change what the second part of 1 Timothy 3:15 says, that the living God himself is the pillar and ground of the truth; this is what other verses show as well (John 14:6, Ephesians 4:21, cf. 1 Timothy 2:4, John 17:3).

We must never try to replace God himself with the church as our source of truth, because the church is fallible. It's only by sticking close to God's own infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16), which is his truth (John 17:17), that we can be sure not to be led astray by anyone in the church who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31, Mark 8:35-38).

Why do you think we should trust the church that decided to include/exclude Christian writings of antiquity that hundreds of years after their creation formed the NT?

Was this church right on this important of an issue (canon) but wrong with most other issues?

It seems the early church used scripture as authoritative but when push came to shove the early church fathers appealed to their historical church connection or succession to the first and second generation of Christians and to the church's rule of faith or orthodox teachings when arguing against the heretics because of the apparently incalcitrant views the early heretics (Sabellianists, gnostics, montanists) espoused using the same scriptures. The obvious reason they did this it seems is because as Irenaeus tells us these heretics would twist and misinterpret the sciptures to support thier own false cosmologies.

To my mind this provides an early example of the logical paralysis that one who subscribes to sola sciptura or the "me, the bible and Jesus" only belief must deal with. Historically the church and tradition played such an important role that the statment that "the Bible was born in the cradle of the church" is not hyperbole but historical reality.

BTW most of us implicitly or explicitly interpret scripture throught the lens of particular church traditions regardless of which group you fall into ie EO, RCC, Anglican, Luther, Calvin etc and yes even you Non denoms out there.

In Christ,
JMS

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This strikes me as coming from a very warm Spirit; plus i needed a laugh so thanks for that!

Warm doesn't hack it with the Lord

KJV) Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm/cliaroV <5513>, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

5513. chliaros khlee-ar-os' from chlio (to warm); tepid:--lukewarm.

 

[heymikey80]

Maybe I can ask: how does one live the Scriptures in Sola Sciptura ?

Are the demonstrated teachings as important as the spoken teachings ?

It's a an approach to authority. Limited power on specific matters. Advisory authority on certain matters of faith and worship. Properly applied it keeps the bishop from becoming a dictator or a brainwasher, as in the censure of Galileo. Or the extended powers to effect certain inquiries into the faith of people.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=sensational;Why do you think we should trust the church that decided to include/exclude Christian writings of antiquity that hundreds of years after their creation formed the NT?

Trust God, but keep an eye on the church.

Was this church right on this important of an issue (canon) but wrong with most other issues?

What do your "ears to hear" tell you?
I think it was about as right as the idea of a canon can be, but who are you gonna believe? It would make sense that if any church was gonna get anything right, God would make sure the canon would be it. Even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

It seems the early church used scripture as authoritative but when push came to shove the early church fathers appealed to their historical church connection or succession to the first and second generation of Christians and to the church's rule of faith or orthodox teachings when arguing against the heretics because of the apparently incalcitrant views the early heretics (Sabellianists, gnostics, montanists) espoused using the same scriptures. The obvious reason they did this it seems is because as Irenaeus tells us these heretics would twist and misinterpret the sciptures to support thier own false cosmologies.

People of every denomination do that to some degree. Does the first one to point the finger & scream heretic win? No, it's the one who has relatives in office & on the police force.

To my mind this provides an early example of the logical paralysis that one who subscribes to sola sciptura or the "me, the bible and Jesus" only belief must deal with. Historically the church and tradition played such an important role that the statment that "the Bible was born in the cradle of the church" is not hyperbole but historical reality.

That the church was able to recognize & collect even an arguable collection in spite of the many unscriptural & non-apostolic traditions is proof there is a God.

BTW most of us implicitly or explicitly interpret scripture throught the lens of particular church traditions regardless of which group you fall into ie EO, RCC, Anglican, Luther, Calvin etc and yes even you Non denoms out there.

BTW, my particular church tradition was RCC until I became an adult & discovered Reform Theology.
A lot of Protestantism has reverted to Roman soteriology. I only agree with Calvin on his soteriology, We (Calvin & I) part ways on ecclesiology especialy in the area of church discipline.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Thekla Maybe I can ask: how does one live the Scriptures in Sola Sciptura

Acts:17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Whenever a new preacher or a new message of spiritual importance arrives...
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Check the scriptures to see if it's even plausible that what you've heard or read is possible in light of what revelation you are sure of.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Of course it doesn't work with everybody. Not everybody was placed "in Christ" (Eph 1:4)

 

[sunlover1]

Was this church right on this important of an issue (canon) but wrong with most other issues?

What do your "ears to hear" tell you?
I think it was about as right as the idea of a canon can be, but who are you gonna believe? It would make sense that if any church was gonna get anything right, God would make sure the canon would be it. Even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

Agreed.
I agree with you here, but does that mean
that you are right on most other issues?

 

[Rick Otto]

Agreed.
I agree with you here, but does that mean
that you are right on most other issues?

If you butter me on one side & drop me,
I'll land butterside down.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

If you butter me on one side & drop me,
I'll land butterside down.

hmm i'll take your word for it...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Trust God, but keep an eye on the church.

I think that the Orthodox have done a much better job of demanding accountability of their hierarchy over the last several decades. Their doesn't seem to be this veil of secrecy over their hierarchs like there is over the Vatican, which I think is a good thing. Of course, I the RCC is making strides in this area as well.

 

[Bible2]

sensational said:

Why do you think we should trust the church that decided to include/exclude Christian writings of antiquity that hundreds of years after their creation formed the NT?

Biblical Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-4:4, John 8:31) not because of some intellectual trust on their part in a purportedly infallible church, but because Biblical Christians have been granted God's miraculous gift of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5) and some measure of God's own Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16).

And Biblical Christians know that the Bible is the Word of God not only because of the spiritual evidence of faith (Hebrews 11:1), but also because Jesus Christ himself confirms that all of the Old Testament was from God (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44-48). And all of the New Testament was written by eyewitnesses of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24, 1 Peter 5:1, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19) or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). Also, the New Testament agrees with what the Old Testament prophesied (Acts 17:11, Acts 26:22-23, Luke 24:44-48; e.g. Isaiah 53, Psalms 16:10, Acts 2:31). Also, no teaching in the Bible has ever been proven false. So there's no reason for any Christian to reject anything taught by the Bible.

sensational said:

Was this church right on this important of an issue (canon) but wrong with most other issues?

Who has said that the church is wrong on most other issues? And can you give some examples of what other issues are being referred to?

sensational said:

It seems the early church used scripture as authoritative but when push came to shove the early church fathers appealed to their historical church connection or succession to the first and second generation of Christians and to the church's rule of faith or orthodox teachings when arguing against the heretics because of the apparently incalcitrant views the early heretics (Sabellianists, gnostics, montanists) espoused using the same scriptures. The obvious reason they did this it seems is because as Irenaeus tells us these heretics would twist and misinterpret the sciptures to support thier own false cosmologies.

To my mind this provides an early example of the logical paralysis that one who subscribes to sola sciptura or the "me, the bible and Jesus" only belief must deal with. Historically the church and tradition played such an important role that the statment that "the Bible was born in the cradle of the church" is not hyperbole but historical reality.

BTW most of us implicitly or explicitly interpret scripture throught the lens of particular church traditions regardless of which group you fall into ie EO, RCC, Anglican, Luther, Calvin etc and yes even you Non denoms out there.

Can you give some examples of how a scripture has been misinterpreted to support a false doctrine? For it should be able to be shown that other scriptures counter that misinterpretation (2 Timothy 3:16, Isaiah 28:9-10).