Question...

[DeaconDean]

Can someone explain to me how this:

1. We follow the (_______________) in forming our theology. We recognize scripture as authoritative and our primary source, however we also consider tradition, reason, and experience.

Is compatible with this:

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
3. Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";

Because I do not see "tradition, reason, and experience" as being fully compatible with "Sola Scriptura".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[sealacamp]

Can someone explain to me how this:



Is compatible with this:



Because I do not see "tradition, reason, and experience" as being fully compatible with "Sola Scriptura".

God Bless

Till all are one.

I don't either. Tradition, reason, and experience being subjective can mean anything and everything which would not correspond and agree with Gods word therefore making any such thing irrelevant.

For example my church, like many southern baptist churches, has outlawed dancing. Yet that does not correspond with scripture and as far as I have read we are to rejoice and praise the Lord with everything we have, including dancing.

Many people say they adhere to Gods word until they come to some part of it they disagree with then the ignore or change what Gods word says so that His word agrees with them.

Sealacamp

 

[savedandthankful]

"We follow the (_______________) in forming our theology. We recognize scripture as authoritative and our primary source, however we also consider tradition, reason, and experience."

I don't see how it's compatible either, but I get the impression that most churches go along with the above these days. Or at least they do back in my home country anyway.

 

[1watchman]

Such thoughts as "tradition; reasoning; experience" seems the norm in this declining church age. Most professing Christians really want their own ideas and liberty for the flesh, rather than obey and honor the Lord --don't you think?

I see our present day as the "end times" spiraling downward at a great speed. "Even so, come Lord Jesus" (Rev. 22:20).

- 1 Watchman

 

[2intime]

Because the Bible has changed so much over the years it is hard to see how it can be inerrant. Take for instance Mark. The last true verse in Mark is 16:8. The rest was added later by someone who felt that the ending kind of left people hanging. Also, if you read the resurrection accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke you will find they don't match. They differ wildly in fact. Therefore, the Bible is not inerrant. Only one can be correct. These are just a couple of examples out of multitudes.

 

[mikeyc1945]

Because the Bible has changed so much over the years it is hard to see how it can be inerrant. Take for instance Mark. The last true verse in Mark is 16:8. The rest was added later by someone who felt that the ending kind of left people hanging. Also, if you read the resurrection accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke you will find they don't match. They differ wildly in fact. Therefore, the Bible is not inerrant. Only one can be correct. These are just a couple of examples out of multitudes.

You've been reading Bart Ehrmann again, you naughty boy. Poor Bart doesn't understand proper textual criticism when it comes to the Bible. All the discrepancies can be harmonized. You need to read F.F. Bruce, and not claptrappers like Bart Ehrmann. As far as credentials are concerned, F.F. Bruce's credentials trump Bart Ehrman's by a long way.

There are indeed human errors that have been made in copying the various manuscripts down through the years. A vast majority of those errors involve spelling, a word left out, transpositions, etc. As for the supposed "major" errors, which are few and far between, those "discrepancies" can be resolved with proper textual criticism.

I believe we don't have the original manuscripts because God wants us to worship the One that is written about and not the writing itself.

I would be happy to forward to anyone a good article published by Ron Rhodes concerning the accuracy of the Bible. This article makes it clear that we have more than enough manuscripts that date back to within a generation of the original manuscript, and writings from the early church that quote the scriptures to assure us of an accurate Bible that indeed has not changed one iota since it was written.

So much for human reasoning. Now let's see how God has handled these supposed discrepancies.

2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

John 14:16-17 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

Numbers 6:24-26

 

[mikeyc1945]

DeaconDean,

In my feeble human reasoning I can imagine instances of "tradition, reason, and experience" that agree with the scriptures and thus would not contradict "Sola Scriptura". However, anytime "tradition, reason, and experience" contradicts or is given authority over the scriptures there is an irreconcilable difference that is unacceptable.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. No other authority required.

Numbers 6:24-26

 

[lismore]

Can someone explain to me how this:



Is compatible with this:



Because I do not see "tradition, reason, and experience" as being fully compatible with "Sola Scriptura".

God Bless

Till all are one.

Hello

Perhaps it is in reference to how the scripture is interpreted, i.e how to rightly 'divide the word of truth'.

I'm currently attending a Baptist Church, they use a lot of traditional teaching and experience to interpret and apply some passages. E.G The minister last time was explaining about the miraculous catch of fish, did the number of fishies have a meaning? He quoted Calvina and Spurgeon, then some older traditions like St Polycarp, what they said on the matter in order to reach a reasonable interpretation.

 

[mmmcounts]

Can someone explain to me how this:



Is compatible with this:



Because I do not see "tradition, reason, and experience" as being fully compatible with "Sola Scriptura".

God Bless

Till all are one.

Is "levels of authority" an acceptable answer?

Take the Jews, for example. They've always had the Torah, the Tanakh, the Law/Prophets/Writings, the inspired Word of God, whatever you want to call it. That's always been regarded as the highest authority because is proceeded from the mouth of God.

They've also had the Mishnah for quite some time, as well. This is also considered authoritative, but always- and I quote- "second in authority to Scripture."

Would you argue that their system is also inconsistent? If so, why?

 

[savedandthankful]

There is nothing wrong with using tradition and reason providing it doesn't contradict scripture, but even then we have to be careful about not allowing man made rules to creep in. Tradition and reason can sometimes turn into rules if a church isn't careful.

 

[Son of Israel]

Is "levels of authority" an acceptable answer?

Take the Jews, for example. They've always had the Torah, the Tanakh, the Law/Prophets/Writings, the inspired Word of God, whatever you want to call it. That's always been regarded as the highest authority because is proceeded from the mouth of God.

They've also had the Mishnah for quite some time, as well. This is also considered authoritative, but always- and I quote- "second in authority to Scripture."

Would you argue that their system is also inconsistent? If so, why?

As a prior Jew, I came to recognize Jesus came and fulfilled all the prophecies God made to Israel in the New Covenant in Christ's blood as promised.
For years, I hung onto all sorts of traditional writings and ideas of Judahism and Christian dispensationalism. Finally, I came to receive Christ as my Comforter and trashed every book and Jewish related publication and Christian publications and became sola scripturural with only concordances and lexicons to help my word studies. Not until then did I get released from the death traditions of the Jews and their writings. Not until then did I experience Christ in me leading and guiding. I know now that Jews aren't even "Jews" unless entered into Christ. (Rom 2:28,29). Jewish traditions were spiritually killing me as dead as a Pharisee. Observing days, forbidding meats, thinking we were somehow God's "chosen". Calling non-Jews goyim cattle etc etc please forgive me. Especially the "God's chosen" thing I thought we were. I am sure glad to have shaken that apostate idea. I realize from Holy Writ that there is nothing special about me, that is why I needed Christ. He alone is the only true Husband to the Israel Church Bride of Christ. With Christians now, we are His Children. We are the Children of God born out of our Heavenly Jerusalem Mother and her Husband, the Lamb.
I could speak volumes, but suffice it to say, there are Jewish fables alive and well today and my family is still trapped in their death religion, I so pray for them have mercy on us all Lord Jesus!

 

[Faith.Man]

Can someone explain to me how this:

Is compatible with this:

Because I do not see "tradition, reason, and experience" as being fully compatible with "Sola Scriptura".

God Bless

Till all are one.

I cannot explain it, because you are 100% correct. We may differ on Scriptural interpretation, but we go to the same source for the answers. Tradition comes from imperfect man; the Bible comes from the Spirit of the living God. I know which one I'd trust.