Question for Sola Scripturists.

[jason_the_ecumenicalist]

Here is a thought as well ... Nice try in attempting to put me in my place. Do you really want to debate Greek??!!!

Ii Timothy 3:16...good one. Thats one of my favorite verses to disect.

lets translate accuratley.

"Only Orthodox scripture is useful for teaching..."

The word for Godbreathed (θεοπνευστος (theopneustos) ) only occurs once in the entire bible.

the word θεοπνευστος (theopneustos) is used as a term for measuring orthodoxy or correct teaching in all other ancient texts that use the word!

I will sign any doctrinal statement that claims the Bible is inspired and infallible, because the chruch has taught so forever. But the word you are using should not be equated with inspiration.

believing the bible is inspired and infallible is important, but it is not necessary for salvation and that is all I was saying.

I was just joking aswell. It is only a couple of proffessors who I will ever allow to be "put in my place" by. I have signed my name to doctrinal statements of inspiration and innerancy so i believe in them. I just like playing devils advocate. But I stand by my greek translation. I have yet to hear a good arguement explaining it away. So believing in the God-dictation of scripture is something that you half to believe in faith. Because there is a much broader context to what 2 Timothy 3 is actually saying. Further, I half to disagree with the princetons though. I will not limit inspiration and infallibility to the orignal manuscripts.

 

[Nehi]

I think you can be a Sola Scripturist without being dogmatic about it's "inerrancy".

You certainly can.

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is the authority for doctrine (Protestants affirmed this in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church that authority resides in Scripture and the teaching of the Magisterium -- Holy Tradition).

Inerrancy is a statement regarding the nature of Scripture, which is a different issue.

It is possible to deny Sola Scriptura and also to affirm inerrancy.

~ Nehi

 

[John16:2]

I hope that nobody is offended that I return to ask a question. I also understand that I cannot post this question in another thread because I believe things that make my participation elsewhere unacceptable.

In keeping with my desire to ask those who embrace a certain doctrine to define it for me I would like to ask Sola Scripturist the following question. IRL I have gotten some answers that surprised me and I wanted to see if there is a spectrum of belief or a uniformity of belief within Evangelical / Protestant circles. I am also hoping to discover if there is a particularly orthodox view.





On to my question:



I have been asking a few folks this question and the answer I am getting disturbs me a little. I will tell you what the answer I am getting means to me so as not be baiting anyone and so if one gives me this answer they might explain why my understanding of it is flawed.



As I understand it one of the foundational beliefs of Sola Scripturists is that the Bible is inerrant. What I am beginning to hear however is that in order for the Grace of God to be active (and result in salvation) one must not only have faith in Christ, but one must also believe in an inerrant Bible. According to this as it has been expressed to me by a few folks, a Christian may believe every thing taught in the Bible (salvation by Grace alone through Jesus Christ who was the Son of God, the second member of the Trinity, and who died for our sins and was resurrected), but not believe that the Bible is inerrant and the Grace of God will not result in salvation.



I have no specific problem with believing in an inerrant Bible. In truth I guess I do not believe in this, but I also do not disbelieve any word in the Bible. But, when one suggest that it is through faith in Christ AND faith in the inerrancy of the Bible that we are saved I think we have elevated a book (even a God breathed book) to a position of worship. It is ok to believe the Bible is inerrant, but when you make this believe something without which we are damned, I think you cross a line. To me this is a form of polytheism.



So to those who are Sola Scripturists, is it necessary for salvation to believe that the Bible is inerrant? And if you answer, “yes,” why am I mistaken when I say that this is elevating the Bible to a worshiped position?



Charity, TOm

I'm not Sola Scriptura by definition, but I want to reply anyhow. They say the Bible is inerrant, and I strongly believe in the Bible, but not in those who've passed to us, (as official) only part of the original group of scriptures. The most tampered with verse in the Bible versions is 2 Thessalonians 2:8, that I've found. Many different wordings are available in various versions. So which version is inerrant? Was it inerrant for most modern Bibles to censor the name Lucifer from Isaiah 14:12? What I'm saying is the Bible is still being tampered with, so may not be totally inerrant. In the Inquisition, Catholics killed the Bogomil Christian & Cathar Christian churches and seized their scriptures, and some scriptures are still not available that were before the Inquisition killed millions of Christians. The Nag Hamaddi Library was hidden to keep them safe from the enemies, and contains a book written by Jesus (supposedly) titled "Dialogue of the Saviour". The problem is much of it is unreadable, missing. The Vatican surely has multiple copies in the archives, but doesn't release the rest, though it has been discovered as part of what was someones' "Canon" before the murderous cover-up of scriptures in the Inquisition. Many other books are still unavailable.

 

[Dukey]

I hope that nobody is offended that I return to ask a question. I also understand that I cannot post this question in another thread because I believe things that make my participation elsewhere unacceptable.

In keeping with my desire to ask those who embrace a certain doctrine to define it for me I would like to ask Sola Scripturist the following question. IRL I have gotten some answers that surprised me and I wanted to see if there is a spectrum of belief or a uniformity of belief within Evangelical / Protestant circles. I am also hoping to discover if there is a particularly orthodox view.





On to my question:



I have been asking a few folks this question and the answer I am getting disturbs me a little. I will tell you what the answer I am getting means to me so as not be baiting anyone and so if one gives me this answer they might explain why my understanding of it is flawed.



As I understand it one of the foundational beliefs of Sola Scripturists is that the Bible is inerrant. What I am beginning to hear however is that in order for the Grace of God to be active (and result in salvation) one must not only have faith in Christ, but one must also believe in an inerrant Bible. According to this as it has been expressed to me by a few folks, a Christian may believe every thing taught in the Bible (salvation by Grace alone through Jesus Christ who was the Son of God, the second member of the Trinity, and who died for our sins and was resurrected), but not believe that the Bible is inerrant and the Grace of God will not result in salvation.



I have no specific problem with believing in an inerrant Bible. In truth I guess I do not believe in this, but I also do not disbelieve any word in the Bible. But, when one suggest that it is through faith in Christ AND faith in the inerrancy of the Bible that we are saved I think we have elevated a book (even a God breathed book) to a position of worship. It is ok to believe the Bible is inerrant, but when you make this believe something without which we are damned, I think you cross a line. To me this is a form of polytheism.



So to those who are Sola Scripturists, is it necessary for salvation to believe that the Bible is inerrant? And if you answer, “yes,” why am I mistaken when I say that this is elevating the Bible to a worshiped position?



Charity, TOm

i have found that the doctrine of sola scriptura is not solely scriptural, in and of itself, insofar as it originates from extra-biblical origins....ask any sola scripturean to give you a biblical basis for the doctrine of sola scriptura....in other words, have them quote solely from scripture, without extra-biblical commentary....just say "verse reference please"....you will find that the basis for sola scripturean doctrine is not solely biblical, insafar as sola scriptureans will begin quoting extra-biblical sources for the basis of their doctrine