- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
"The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God..." (Romans 8:16)
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God..." (Romans 8:16)So it seems I just have to trust them I guess with the most important thing in my life.
You believe many of them are - that doesn't make it so
Of course it means they have to be married. And yes - have obedient children.That doesn't mean they HAVE to be married; if it did, then they would also HAVE to have children, be able to control them, be sober, not have a temper etc etc.
It is what he says. When he says in 1 Corinthians 5-7 "The Lord says", he is referring to explicit Old Testament teachings. But when he says: "I, not the Lord" he is saying that the OT doesn't say anything about it, but he is giving his apostolic judgment.
So the only parts of the Bible that are authoritative are the red words of Jesus and quotes from Yahweh in the OT?
The problem is:
How do you know what the bible says?
And endless Protestant schisms show that they agree the words , but they cannot agree what it says, i.e. Meaning.
The only ones that have the word of God are those that have the right meaning: every one else just has words,
true meaning is carried by authority ( power to bind and loose) and tradition ( the faith handed down by succession) which is why the church is the foundation of truth.
All of which: scripture, history even simple logic show sola scriptura is bunk which is the source of your problem.
How do you know he means the OT when he says "The Lord"?
Also, do you consider his apostolic judgement to be God's word?
I think anything in the Bible can be considered authoritative if convicts/inspires us to seek and follow God to a greater degree.
It's the explanation that makes the most sense and it was a common manner of speech to refer to OT writings.
So what's authoritative depends on how we feel about it? There are some things in the Bible that don't "do it" for me. Can I safely ignore these things because I'm uninspired by them?
I invite you to read the verses again. As with the Prophets of old, the apostles were proclaiming the Word of God when they were preaching the Gospel.Did you know that over 33% of the NT is the OT inferred or directly quoted? The "Word of God" (when speaking of the written word) or "Scripture" when mentioned in the NT, is NOT a reference to the NT. Everything messiah did was foretold either directly in prophecy or indirectly through the pictures presented in the Feasts and sacrifices. So when the Apostles, who didn't add or take from what was already Scripture, proclaimed whatever was in the Word of God (again, speaking of that which was written) they were NOT referring to themselves and their own work. Paul did not write a letter to Ephesus thinking we might one day see his work alongside the rest of the canon. He didn't know that, he had no way to know that... and if we remove our bias and just think about it for a minute... we'll find it doesn't change anything other than... it might add a little weight to the OT. But then that is really the issue here even if nobody will be willing to admit to it.
Blessings.
Ken
Please elaborate.Indeed we have manuscripts which differ from one another.
This thread isn't about Sola Scriptura, Mike. So how do you vote?
Do you speak for LCMS as well?Those distinctions are still relevant in Lutheranism.
Not everything was written down, like you guys imply.It was orally transmitted to the writer who wrote it down. Meaning when a "thus saith the Lord" was pronounced the prophet received inspiration from God, it was proclaimed publicly and then written down. This seems to be a trend in the Holy Scriptures.
Your own catechism confirms Sacred Scriptures are not in error and are the inspired words of God.But sola scriptura is totally implicit in it.
Because You assume you know what the bible says, ie has unique meaning.
So You cannot answer yes or no, because you do not know what the bible says , without addition of other authority.
When you have that other authority. You have the word of God. Which is why Catholics are sola dei verbum.
Is Jesus the I AM?Christ as I am speaking of is primarily understood in terms of the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth who went about inaugurating the Kingdom of God by preaching the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
Why not and what exactly was not?Not everything was written down, like you guys imply.
Yet the instruction and words of God are infallible.
It's amazing the attacks we get from people for knowing that the Bible is Gods word.This thread isn't about Sola Scriptura, Mike. So how do you vote?
Because the Bible does not say so? Because Paul had letters that were lost? Because Paul talks about traditions both "oral and written"?Why not and what exactly was not?
I've added a poll. I am alarmed that there are so few Christians who believe in the inspiration of Scripture. I am further alarmed that so few who say that the Bible is inspired are willing to say that the Bible is the very words of God. Anyways, if you could vote, that would better show how this all lays out.
I don't believe those two things can be meaningfully separated.
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?