Sola Scriptura

eldermike · Jan 7, 2004

What is your anchor? Mine is the bible. If I leave a church I leave with the bible. If I go to a church, I go with the bible. The bible not only teaches "bible alone" it is alone, by simple observation. Any reference to any other anchor (Tradition, reason, whatever) uses the bible for support (correctly or incorrectly). It is alone.

stephen1964 · Jan 7, 2004

eldermike said:
What is your anchor? Mine is the bible. If I leave a church I leave with the bible. If I go to a church, I go with the bible. The bible not only teaches "bible alone" it is alone, by simple observation. Any reference to any other anchor (Tradition, reason, whatever) uses the bible for support (correctly or incorrectly). It is alone.

But how can you read and understand the Bible if you don't use your reason? Comprehension of the text requires processing the words through our own experience. We can pray for guidance by the Holy Spirit, but the very act of reading and studying scriptures is an intellectual process.

kimber1 · Jan 7, 2004

but don't you see the Bible and Tradition going hand in hand?

EdmundBlackadderTheThird · Jan 7, 2004

Tradition is a wonderful thing, however any tradition must be held up to the scriptures and if they don't match then it is the tradition that is wrong and not the Bible. The Bible is the final authority on all matters.

stephen1964 · Jan 7, 2004

flesh99 said:
The Bible is the final authority on all matters.

But what happens when the Bible contradicts itself??!
There are two seperate and different creation stories in Genesis. If the Bible is without error, then wouldn't there just be one creation story?

EdmundBlackadderTheThird · Jan 7, 2004

There is no condradiction in Genesis about creation. Genesis 1 is an account of all six days and Genesis 2 is a recap and an in depth look at the sixth day. The animals are not mentioned until after Adam because they are of no import to the sixth day until Adam designates their purpose. There is no contradiction there.

stephen1964 · Jan 7, 2004

It still looks like two seperate and different accounts to me...

EdmundBlackadderTheThird · Jan 7, 2004

It is much like the account of Noah, the first time it mentions the animals it tells that two of each time are taken and the second time it goes into specifics. This happens more than once in the Bible and if you look at the original languages you will see that it becomes more obvious. The Bible does not contradict itself as all scripture is God breathed and God certainly does not contradict Himself.

eldermike · Jan 7, 2004

But how can you read and understand the Bible if you don't use your reason?

Reason will lead you to justification of yourself, it's all it can do. You cannot reason with Truth, truth is just truth. Your experiences can be applied to the future and your ability to reason can improve over time, but it should not take a life time of mistakes to get to know God.

The best way to understand scripture is to apply it. Understanding something and not doing it has no purpose. One of my favorite people, Ed Cole, says that the only scripture we understand is the one we obey.

eldermike · Jan 7, 2004

It still looks like two seperate and different accounts to me...

Sorry, but I can't resist this. I had this spoken to me my a teacher once.

Take the parts you understand and apply them first.

Greeter · Jan 7, 2004

kimber1 said:
but don't you see the Bible and Tradition going hand in hand?

No. Man plays too big a part in Tradition. There are too many ways for man to make mistakes with it.

Miss Shelby · Jan 7, 2004

Greeter said:
No. Man plays too big a part in Tradition.

Really? How so?

Michelle

Reformed Baptist · Jan 7, 2004

Try www.carm.org for the answer on so-called 'ccontradictions.'

arnold777 · Jan 7, 2004

Reformed Baptist said:
The Bible teaches that it is God breathed and speaks nothing of tradition being God breathed. I will follow the Bible. Oh, but what is the tradition of the apostles?

"For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. [sounds like tradition] The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURETH FOR EVER. And this is the Word which by the Gospel is preached unto you." (1 Pet. 1:24-25).

They taught what became the written word of God and that will last forever.

Does this mean scripture alone?
BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURETH FOR EVER.

Reformed Baptist · Jan 7, 2004

arnold777 said:
Does this mean scripture alone?
BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURETH FOR EVER.

Yup. Tradition doesn't come with a 'God breathed' clause...

seebs · Jan 7, 2004

arnold777 said:
Does this mean scripture alone?
BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURETH FOR EVER.

No. It means Jesus, who is the Word. Jesus is eternal.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God."

We know He was there at the beginning; this tells us He continues forever.

EdmundBlackadderTheThird · Jan 7, 2004

Actually the scriptures are commonly refered to as the Word of the Lord or the Word of God. The Word without anything following it is used to refer to Christ.

seebs · Jan 7, 2004

eldermike said:
What is your anchor? Mine is the bible.

Mine's God.

The bible not only teaches "bible alone" it is alone, by simple observation.

I don't see that teaching anywhere in the Bible. I've never seen it say "nothing outside of this is true".

Any reference to any other anchor (Tradition, reason, whatever) uses the bible for support (correctly or incorrectly). It is alone.

I would actually say that the Bible depends rather strongly on Tradition, given that the books of the Bible were selected based on the decisions of people, based on what they believed.

Furthermore, reason does not depend on the Bible in any obvious way. Indeed, the mere fact that people offer arguments for the faith, and arguments for the accuracy of the Bible, suggests that our trust in the Bible must be founded in reason.

What's reason founded in? Pure faith, so far as I can tell.

seebs · Jan 7, 2004

flesh99 said:
Actually the scriptures are commonly refered to as the Word of the Lord or the Word of God.

Yes. This is called "bibliolatry", and is a form of idolatry. It is a willful conflation of a book with the Living Word, used mostly to give human interpretations the semblence of Divine Will.

EdmundBlackadderTheThird · Jan 7, 2004

Actually it usually refers to the gospel as taught by the apostles.

Acts 11:16
"And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

Acts 12:24
But the word of the Lord continued to grow and to be multiplied.

Acts 13:44
The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.

Acts 19:20
So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.

1 Thessalonians 1:8
For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything.

I fact I can find no time that the words "word of the Lord" is used to mean Christ. Your assertion is incorrect.

Sola Scriptura

Pray

Regular Member

mean people suck

Proud member of the Loud Few

Regular Member

Proud member of the Loud Few

Regular Member

Proud member of the Loud Few

Pray

Pray

The Space Invaders did not get by on me!

Legend

Regular Member

arnold777

Guest

Regular Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Proud member of the Loud Few

God Made Me A Skeptic

God Made Me A Skeptic

Proud member of the Loud Few

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency