- Aug 4, 2012
- 7,730
- 3,466
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Methodist
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Upvote
0
I disagree.entire bible
2 timothy 3:15-17
2 peter 1:20-21
Hebrews 1:1-2
ephesians 3:1-5
You mentioned a table of contents. That is a way a publisher organizes books or chapters. By asking me if I thought the Holy Spirit did not know the table of contents to the Bible is like asking did He know we would put verse numbers and chapter numbers in the Bible. Which is really not very informative as your point I'm sure is we need a self assured infallible human magisterium to figure out a table of contents and thus are the arbiters of what is and is not Divine writings or Truth.That's a relief. The idea that the Holy Spirit knew the contents and the table of contents of the scriptures before they were written is elementary theology. And that being so if the Spirit intended the holy scriptures to be "self authenticating" and "self interpreting" (both of which are concomitants of sola scriptura) then why isn't there a Spirit inspired table of contents in the text of scripture? We all appear to agree that there is no such list of inspired books in the bible (no matter which bible canon you happen to subscribe to). Since there is no list of inspired books that is itself inspired it follows with unassailable inevitability that the list of inspired books that you subscribe to is a tradition of men or your own personal 'revelation' from God. The former is true the latter lies in the realm of self deluded modern day 'prophets'.
I disagree.
No, I am not disagreeing with anything Jesus or God are quoted as saying in the Bible.you're disagreeing with God's Word?
Sorry but the above post appears to be blathering about irrelevancies. The pertinent issue is can the definition from the original post be supported by the teaching we find in scripture. The truth is that it cannot. So it follows that the definition given in the original post is a doctrine of men accepted as a tradition of men by those who subscribe to it.You mentioned a table of contents. That is a way a publisher organizes books or chapters. By asking me if I thought the Holy Spirit did not know the table of contents to the Bible is like asking did He know we would put verse numbers and chapter numbers in the Bible. Which is really not very informative as your point I'm sure is we need a self assured infallible human magisterium to figure out a table of contents and thus are the arbiters of what is and is not Divine writings or Truth.
The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Which means she upholds the structure. She is not the creator of Truth. Just as the Louvre is not the creator of the Mona Lisa but the curator.
No, I am not disagreeing with anything Jesus or God are quoted as saying in the Bible.
Do we not as Christians hear the Gospel and respond in faith?Can you? What supernatural gift do you have that enables you to tell just by hearing (a translation) read aloud?
Actually what I posted to you is the very opposition @Tree of Life must consider in his paper. The opposing view to his proposition of Sola Scriptura is in fact Sola Eccelsia.Sorry but the above post appears to be blathering about irrelevancies. The pertinent issue is can the definition from the original post be supported by the teaching we find in scripture. The truth is that it cannot. So it follows that the definition given in the original post is a doctrine of men accepted as a tradition of men by those who subscribe to it.
I do not know what "What did souls respond in the NT?" means.What did souls respond in the NT?
Still doesn't solve your issue of discernment. You are now shifting from a Sola Ecclesia model to the position we cannot be certain of the Truth.Godly people gain discernment from wisdom. It is said that wisdom comes from God. It is not said that an individual who claim to have discernment has wisdom that is as authoritative as scripture. So returning to the thread's topic and ending this brief diversion into 'discernment' we can all see that scripture nowhere ever claims to present a canon for scripture that is as exhaustive and detailed as a table of contents or as exhaustive as a canon list from the early church councils or from reformers like Martin Luther or John Calvin or the Westminster Divines. The early church councils, Luther, Calvin, and the Westminster divines are all human beings and their opinions are traditions that people either accept or reject. It appears that the original post was written with the assumption that the Westminster divines' tradition is the one to follow. But it is a man made tradition. We even know the names of the men who made it. And why they made it and what sources they used to make it.
How did people respond to the message of the Gospel in the NT?I do not know what "What did souls respond in the NT?" means.
Paul was either an apostle of Jesus Christ or false prophet. You can't have it both ways. He was either telling the truth or deceiving. As Christians one can't hide behind the "red letter" canon for long before exposing what is meant by it....No, I am not disagreeing with anything Jesus or God are quoted as saying in the Bible.
No, he said women not speaking in church was the rule in all the churches.And the thing he said about women not speaking in church.
I'm writing an academic paper for my seminary program AND teaching two Sunday school classes on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. My basic thesis will be something like: "The Bible teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and therefore we should accept it."
In order to do a bang-up job I need to confront and dispatch the most formidable objections to the doctrine. What objections are you aware of? Also, if you could recommend a good book or scholarly article, perhaps from a Catholic perspective, which seeks to argue against Sola Scriptura, I would appreciate it!
Edit: By the way, let me define Sola Scriptura. The definition I'm working from is this:
The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
Indeed. However how many disagreements are on the clear teachings in Holy Scriptures as opposed to the traditions of man who apply eisegesis to peddle their traditions?
I believe the Lord spoke through the prophets. I think the Apostles were wise men who usually said the right things.but you reject all the prophets and apostles whom God spoke through?
No, Paul was a very wise man who had most things right.Paul was either an apostle of Jesus Christ or false prophet. You can't have it both ways. He was either telling the truth or deceiving. As Christians one can't hide behind the "red letter" canon for long before exposing what is meant by it....
I don't think the Lord approved of that rule.No, he said women not speaking in church was the rule in all the churches.
He was either an apostle who taught the Truth or he wasn't.No, Paul was a very wise man who had most things right.
I do.I don't think the Lord approved of that rule.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?