Jump to content
IGNORED

Ecumenism: "Why Can't We Be Friends?"


Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,021
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   962
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

The problem with Sola Scriptura is that the Bible itself says that it's not the only authoritative source of information about God.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

So if you accept Solar Scriptura, you must accept that Sola Scriptura is false.

But since God doesn't care about that kind of thing, it's not really an issue.    Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself, and you've done His will.  

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  22
  • Topic Count:  194
  • Topics Per Day:  0.12
  • Content Count:  11,053
  • Content Per Day:  6.67
  • Reputation:   9,009
  • Days Won:  36
  • Joined:  09/12/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/09/1956

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

The problem with Sola Scriptura is that the Bible itself says that it's not the only authoritative source of information about God.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

So if you accept Solar Scriptura, you must accept that Sola Scriptura is false.

But since God doesn't care about that kind of thing, it's not really an issue.    Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself, and you've done His will.  

 


 

THe creation doesn't speak contrary to scripture and scripture is a more direct communication using language as its tool.

I learn much from observing His creation, but it has always and only confirmed what I have learned of Him through scripture augmented by my 'experience' of Him.

I am fortunate, in that I have scripture to read and study---not all men have had this blessing.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  48
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  839
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   634
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/12/2019
  • Status:  Offline

you do have some interesting perspectives here.  thanks for shareing :) 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  18
  • Topic Count:  165
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  3,997
  • Content Per Day:  1.58
  • Reputation:   2,607
  • Days Won:  15
  • Joined:  04/29/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The problem with Sola Scriptura is that the Bible itself says that it's not the only authoritative source of information about God.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

So if you accept Solar Scriptura, you must accept that Sola Scriptura is false.

But since God doesn't care about that kind of thing, it's not really an issue.    Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself, and you've done His will.  

 


 

Sola Scriptura affirms that the authority of the Bible on theology, doctrine, and all Christian life is sound, and all that is needed. But what is the authority of the Bible, where does it derive its authority? Scripture derives its authority from God: 

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) 

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation, For no such prophecy was ever brought about through human initiative, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21) 

God wrote the Scriptures through His prophets and apostles to give us the canon, the texts that tell us all we need to know about salvation (soteriology), who God is, what it means to be a Christian, and more. 

To quote Christ our Lord, tradition can be an enemy of Scripture, i.e. the commands of God, “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditionsAnd he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” (Mark 7:8-13).

Edited by Fidei Defensor
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

15 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) 

When the apostle quoted this, he was not talking about the protestant canon. He was talking about what Yeshua and the apostles read. Namely, Hebrew texts (not the Masoretic rendition) and the LXX which was quoted most often AND the Aramaic Targums.

Origin later used the same verse to support his idea that First Enoch should be canon.

Edited by Justin Adams
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 7/3/2020 at 7:10 AM, Fidei Defensor said:

Protestantism: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone is the authority for theology, doctrine, belief and Christian Life). 

The church’s desire was noble, but the outcome was tragic. The common person may have known what they believed, but they had no idea why. It was sort of drone theology, where everyone had the same confession, but there was no true intellectual conviction about the confession. For most, the commitments to their beliefs became purely emotional, being based on fear and folklore. The common man did not have the right to wrestle with theological issues on their own. There was constant fear of excommunication if rebellion of mind were to occur. Even if one defended their beliefs from Scripture, they had no right to violate the outsourcing paradigm that was in effect. Not only were people not able to defend their faith to others, this type of theological outsourcing made it difficult to defend their faith to themselves. This naturally caused much disillusionment and emotional turmoil. This was the case with Martin Luther, the Augustinian monk, who lived in constant fear of God’s wrath. But Luther did the unthinkable . . . he read the Scriptures for himself. In his reading, he did not seek to confirm the traditions which he was taught (for these had caused him great fear); he sought to understand the Scriptures on their own terms. Thus came the doctrine of sola Scriptura. The Scripture was not there to conform to the traditions, but to create the traditions.

Evangelicals must be on guard of recreating an outsourcing system under the guise of sola Scriptura. Many Protestants since the Reformation have simply created their own catechisms, creeds, and confessions and expect their people to agree with the details contained therein. While there is nothing wrong with having these as a means to communicate dogma, it can and does easily turn into another magisterium (teaching authority), with characteristics not unlike that of the Roman Catholic Church. This will always be the case if people are not intentional about revisiting the doctrine of sola Scriptura. While we should desire our people to respect the beliefs of past generations, understanding that God is a God of history, Evangelicals do not believe that any tradition, creed, or confession is infallible.

https://bible.org/article/danger-sola-scriptura

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  18
  • Topic Count:  165
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  3,997
  • Content Per Day:  1.58
  • Reputation:   2,607
  • Days Won:  15
  • Joined:  04/29/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Justin Adams said:

The church’s desire was noble, but the outcome was tragic. The common person may have known what they believed, but they had no idea why. It was sort of drone theology, where everyone had the same confession, but there was no true intellectual conviction about the confession. For most, the commitments to their beliefs became purely emotional, being based on fear and folklore. The common man did not have the right to wrestle with theological issues on their own. There was constant fear of excommunication if rebellion of mind were to occur. Even if one defended their beliefs from Scripture, they had no right to violate the outsourcing paradigm that was in effect. Not only were people not able to defend their faith to others, this type of theological outsourcing made it difficult to defend their faith to themselves. This naturally caused much disillusionment and emotional turmoil. This was the case with Martin Luther, the Augustinian monk, who lived in constant fear of God’s wrath. But Luther did the unthinkable . . . he read the Scriptures for himself. In his reading, he did not seek to confirm the traditions which he was taught (for these had caused him great fear); he sought to understand the Scriptures on their own terms. Thus came the doctrine of sola Scriptura. The Scripture was not there to conform to the traditions, but to create the traditions.

Evangelicals must be on guard of recreating an outsourcing system under the guise of sola Scriptura. Many Protestants since the Reformation have simply created their own catechisms, creeds, and confessions and expect their people to agree with the details contained therein. While there is nothing wrong with having these as a means to communicate dogma, it can and does easily turn into another magisterium (teaching authority), with characteristics not unlike that of the Roman Catholic Church. This will always be the case if people are not intentional about revisiting the doctrine of sola Scriptura. While we should desire our people to respect the beliefs of past generations, understanding that God is a God of history, Evangelicals do not believe that any tradition, creed, or confession is infallible.

https://bible.org/article/danger-sola-scriptura

You are so right, “The Westminster Confession” and even parts of “Athanasian Creed” have errors not grounded in Scripture. Luther’s “Larger Catechism” has the falsehood that “only a priest can forgive your sins,” when Scripture says we can confess directly to God and be forgiven  (1 John 1:9, 1 John 2:1-2, Hebrews 4:16, Matthew 9:1-8), even David before Christ came in the flesh confessed his sins to God directly, “Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD." (Psalm 32:5). For there is only one mediator between us and God, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the son of man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy  2:5).

Amen to your statement, “The Scripture was not there to conform to the traditions, but to create the traditions.” (Justin Adams). For Christ confronted all non-scriptural traditions, “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!” (Mark 7: 8-9). The apostle Paul called these extrabiblical traditions, “These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.” (Colossians 2:23). You 

We most be wary of catechisms and creeds that contradict Scripture. This is why Scripture must be our catechism and our creeds derive solely from it. 

Edited by Fidei Defensor
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Well Said! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  18
  • Topic Count:  165
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  3,997
  • Content Per Day:  1.58
  • Reputation:   2,607
  • Days Won:  15
  • Joined:  04/29/2017
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

When the apostle quoted this, he was not talking about the protestant canon. He was talking about what Yeshua and the apostles read. Namely, Hebrew texts (not the Masoretic rendition) and the LXX which was quoted most often AND the Aramaic Targums.

Origin later used the same verse to support his idea that First Enoch should be canon.

I believe Paul meant the whole canon of Scripture, 66 Books of Old and New Testaments. For Paul wrote elsewhere, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried,that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,  and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,249
  • Content Per Day:  2.98
  • Reputation:   2,291
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  05/03/2020
  • Status:  Offline

15 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

I believe Paul meant the whole canon of Scripture, 66 Books of Old and New Testaments. For Paul wrote elsewhere, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried,that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,  and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). 

So you mean Paul was being prophetic then? Because his writings are probably the earliest of the NT.

Edited by teddyv
added word
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

22 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

I believe Paul meant the whole canon of Scripture, 66 Books of Old and New Testaments.

Believe what you wish. But you are wrong. Canons took a very long time, so Paul had NO IDEA of the later canons.

For mainstream Pauline Christianity (growing from proto-orthodox Christianity in pre-Nicene times) which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements,[1] for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was set at the Council of Rome (382),[2] the same Council commissioned Jerome to compile and translate those canonical texts into the Latin Vulgate Bible. In the wake of the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent (1546) affirmed the Vulgate as the official Catholic Bible in order to address changes Martin Luther made in his recently completed German translation which was based on the original Greek of the component texts. The canons of the Church of England and English Presbyterians were decided definitively by the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), respectively. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) established additional canons that are widely accepted throughout the Orthodox Church.

The apostle was not talking about the protestant canon. He was talking about what Yeshua and the apostles read. Namely, Hebrew texts (not the Masoretic rendition) and the LXX which was quoted most often AND the Aramaic Targums.

Edited by Justin Adams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...