Where does the Bible say that it is the Sole Authority?

[Lewis]

No, no again, unread typo, I should have just posted the part that I wanted you to read, and only this part' the other stuff forget it. Here is the only thing I took from that link. Now you know that I know, that God is not through speaking to us. That is crazy, but I took the part that I needed from the link.

(Now what that verse simply says is you can’t add anything to Revelation, right? If you do, it shall be added unto you the plagues. You can’t take away anythingâ€â€if you take away anything, it shall be taken away from you the right to the tree of life, the holy city, and so forth.)

The question is, "Does this refer to just the book of Revelation or the whole Bible?" That’s an important question. Let me answer it this way: let’s say that it refers only to the book of Revelation. That would be the closest possible interpretation, right? This bookâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book.†Let’s say he’s talking about Revelation. Now, listen to me, friends: if you can’t add anything to Revelation, you can’t add anything to the Bible either, right? Because it’s the end! I don’t know why people get so confused about that. They say, “Does this just mean you can’t add to Revelation?†Yes, it just means that, but if you can’t add to Revelation, you can’t add because that’s the end of the Bible! It seems fairly clear to me.[/color]

 

[unred typo]

quote by Lewis W on Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:47 am
No, no again, unread typo, I should have just posted the part that I wanted you to read, and only this part' the other stuff forget it. Here is the only thing I took from that link. Now you know that I know, that God is not through speaking to us. That is crazy, but I took the part that I needed from the link.

OK, Lewis, there is hope for you yet. :wink:

quote by Lewis W :
(Now what that verse simply says is you can’t add anything to Revelation, right? If you do, it shall be added unto you the plagues. You can’t take away anythingâ€â€if you take away anything, it shall be taken away from you the right to the tree of life, the holy city, and so forth.)

You rock, Lewis! Go with that. You’re on a roll!

quote by Lewis W :

The question is, "Does this refer to just the book of Revelation or the whole Bible?" That’s an important question. Let me answer it this way: let’s say that it refers only to the book of Revelation. That would be the closest possible interpretation, right? This bookâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book.†Let’s say he’s talking about Revelation. Now, listen to me, friends: if you can’t add anything to Revelation, you can’t add anything to the Bible either, right? Because it’s the end! I don’t know why people get so confused about that. They say, “Does this just mean you can’t add to Revelation?†Yes, it just means that, but if you can’t add to Revelation, you can’t add because that’s the end of the Bible! It seems fairly clear to me.

Ghack. :crazyeyes: You hit a speed bump. Wipe out. Instant re:play… Watch this:

You start out beautifully: (perfect form) “Now, listen to me, friends: if you can’t add anything to Revelation,â€Â… hold it…stop right there! See this leap from here to: “you can’t add anything to the Bible either, right?†? Go back to the ‘if’. That’s where your toe caught on your tongue, Lewis. This is where you prepare to flip the verse around and *gasp* add to the words of the prophesy of this book of Revelation. You can’t expand the curse from Revelation and extend it to cover an entire collection of scripture that itself has already been truncated, btw. That is exactly what John did NOT want to happen. He didn’t want anyone adding to or subtracting from his revelation and making his prophesy a tool to prove something unrelated to what he was telling us.

 

[Lewis]

Ok now, the Bible is the Word of God, right ? Now the Holy Ghost wrote the Bible through man right ? So since the Holy Ghost is God, you cannot take away or add to His Words, right ? And that goes for the book of Revelations and the rest of the Bible. Maybe I should not have used those paragraphs, but this is what I was trying to say. But I was on a roll for a minute, typo :D :-D

 

[tim-from-pa]

OK--- I'll put my two cents in on this. Only the bible is the Word of God (and the Word is God incarnate). It is the sole authority. However, I read other books that mentions them such as Jashar, Jubilees, Enoch, the apocrypha, etc, etc. I think they confirm what the bible says.

I also believe God's Revelation is in the stars and in stone. So how do I reconcile these so-called contradictions? I believe these other sources are valid because they are mentioned in the bible.

As the three stooges would quip (to Curly), OK.... I'll explain this so that even you can understand this.

I'm in the boy scouts. I am told the manual is the word of the scouts. We abide by the manual, but do not deviate from it---- it is the sole authority. With me so far? Now, in that manual it has a civic duty project that requires the scout to go to the local courthouse and find out some information about his city or township.

Is that information in the scout manual? No, of course not because it asked to go to the courthouse because the scout believes in its authoritative word.

Likewise, we can have extrabiblical sources that shed light on the bible, or certain instances according to it. To deny that is as foolish as telling that boyscout that his data from the courthouse is not valid because "it's not in his manual" and thus not authoritative.

As long as information derived does not deviate from or otherwise nullify the teachings of the bible, then it is OK. But the official Word (like the scout manual) is all one needs, but it obviously requires us to do or think something outside of its contents at times.

 

[Lewis]

Tim I am glad that you jumped in. And there are no contradictions in the Bible' because the Bible always answers itself, or clears up itself, somewhere in the book. The only errors are translation errors.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Tim I am glad that you jumped in. And there are no contradictions in the Bible' because the Bible always answers itself, or clears up itself, somewhere in the book. The only errors are translation errors.

Thanks. Well, I have a tendency to jump in the most unexpected places and sometimes its in hot water at that! I get the feeling you understood what I stated very well. The idea that the bible is the sole authority and yet gives other things authority as well is a paradox that some people cannot digest.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Lewis W on Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:24 pm:

Ok now, the Bible is the Word of God, right ? Now the Holy Ghost wrote the Bible through man right ? So since the Holy Ghost is God, you cannot take away or add to His Words, right ? And that goes for the book of Revelations and the rest of the Bible. Maybe I should not have used those paragraphs, but this is what I was trying to say. But I was on a roll for a minute, typo.

No, Jesus is the Word of God. The words of Jesus and the prophets are the words of God. No where does it say that God authorized a book to be written that would be used the way the Bible is being used today. God sent the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, to love and good works and to convict us of sin. The Bible is a good book and we can learn from it but it is not infallible. The Bible does not claim for itself infallibility. Only God and God’s words are infallible.

Everything man touches is subject to error. If you give infallibility to the Bible, you are putting it on a par with God, which should never be. As much as I love the Bible, I know it is not infallible. I believe it is more accurate than the morning paper but only God has the complete truth. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life…. Not King James.

Think about this. If John were not concerned about people changing his words of the prophesy, would he have pronounced such an evil curse like that? Obviously, it was a problem that he wanted to address. When Jesus preached, he corrected many of the sayings that had crept into the law via the Sanhedrin. I guess when they wrote “and the Lord said thus and so,†it wasn’t necessarily so.

When you go to the doctor, do you trust his word as if it came from God? Hopefully not. You listen to his advice and then you listen to God who will guide you as to what you should do. The same is true of the Bible. It is a guide, a very good and practical guide but you must read it with the supervision of the Holy Spirit.

You may not be on a roll but you still rock, Lewis. :wink:

 

[mondar]

The protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is often misrepresented and abused. The doctrine teaches that the bible is the only infallible source of doctrine and practice.

First, the doctrine of sola scriptura does not claim that it is only source of authority. My Thayers Lexicon might not be an infallible source of authority, but this does not mean it is not a source of authority. So there is more then one authority, but only one infallible source of authority.

Neither does sola scripture claim that the bible contains all the words and deeds of Jesus and the apostles. Again, what it claims is that the scriptures contain the only infallible source of authority for faith, doctrine, and teaching good works.

Neither does the teaching of sola scriptura say that the HS in unneccessary for illumination. Sola Scriptura teaches, in fact, that it is the scriptures that are used by the Holy Spirit to bring about sanctification.

The best (but not the only) passage to teach sola scriptura in the bible is 2 Tim 3:5-17. This passage has been mentioned before, but no positive exegesis of the passage was done. Lets look at the claims of these verses.
2Ti 3:15 And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

I bolded verse 17 because it teaches that the bible is completely sufficient to make the "man of God" ... "complete." It is the power of the scriptures to bring the "man of God" to a complete range of virtues for daily living. When verse 17 says that the "man of God" is complete, it means that there is nothing more needed. What else is needed for something that is already complete. If the scriptures has the power to make something complete in doctrine, and virtue, and I add something else, how can it make the man of God more complete? It cannot! The bible alone is sufficient. 2 Tim 3:17 is teaching that nothing else (other then the HS to illumine the word of God) is needed to make the man of God complete.

In verse 17 there is a 2nd phrase added for reinforcement. The "man of God" is also "furnished completely unto every good work." Again, to achieve any good work nothing more is needed other then the word of God (the bible).

The word of God is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path, I will hide its words in my heart that I might not sin against God. The scriptures are a powerful two edged sword, able to pierce the spirit and soul asunder.

Now I admit that this is not the only evidence for sola scriptura in the bible. Others can feel free to add other verses which imply sola scriptura. My point is that the bible alone is the word of God for our day today. This does not include times of inscrupturation. This is not to deny that Jesus spoke the word of God when he was on earth, or the the apostles and prophets spoke the word of God. None of these witnesses to Gods revelation are on earth today. We are left with the written word (bible) alone, but it is a sufficient infallible authority for faith and practice today.

As far as those who challenge the authority of the scriptures, they must deal with 2Tim 3:16. The bible is also "God breathed." The quality of being God breathed or inspired applies to the written word alone.

Last, let me mention that there is a good little book for those who never studied this doctrine by James White called "Scripture alone." It is not an advanced, indepth study, but is very easy reading. Whites blog is aomin.org

Enough for now, I have to go to work.

Mondar

 

[francisdesales]

The protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is often misrepresented and abused. The doctrine teaches that the bible is the only infallible source of doctrine and practice.

Where is the verse that the Bible makes this claim for itself? The most abused verses of the bible are no doubt 2 Tim 3:15-17, because those who believe in Sola Scriptura stretch these verses to mean something they do not say. NOWHERE does it say that the Bible is the sole source of infallible authority in those verses or any other...

Clearly, the bible is USEFUL - but is NOT the sole source of authority, because ELSEWHERE, the Bible says the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth. In Ephesians 4, the Bible ALSO says the following:

he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Eph 4:11-13.

Note, God gave the Church men to perfect the saints for the purpose of unifying the faith and coming to the knowledge of Christ "unto a perfect man". This, coupled with the fact that Jesus left a community, not a book, it becomes clear that the Bible was NEVER intended to be the "sole source of infallible authority". The Church interprets the Bible, thus, we have another source of infallible authority.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Note, God gave the Church men to perfect the saints for the purpose of unifying the faith and coming to the knowledge of Christ "unto a perfect man". This, coupled with the fact that Jesus left a community, not a book, it becomes clear that the Bible was NEVER intended to be the "sole source of infallible authority". The Church interprets the Bible, thus, we have another source of infallible authority.

This is quite astonishing to me that francisdesales would violate the very first principle of sola scriptura. I purposely defined sola scrptura so that people like francisdesales could not misrepresent the doctrine. Let me quote again from my first post. I said...

The protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is often misrepresented and abused. The doctrine teaches that the bible is the only infallible source of doctrine and practice.

First, the doctrine of sola scriptura does not claim that it is only source of authority. My Thayers Lexicon might not be an infallible source of authority, but this does not mean it is not a source of authority. So there is more then one authority, but only one infallible source of authority.

I bolded and underlined one particular statement so that francisdesales might be able to read it.

After francisdesales denies sola scriptura on this false basis, he goes on to affirm another teaching comonly taught by followers of Rome. He is suggesting that there is another authority over scripture, the teaching magisterium of the Church. This is a far cry from what Eph 4:11-12 is teaching. Ephesians 4:11-13 is not teaching that there is an infallible teaching magesterium, but that there are gifted men given to the Church to assist in the saints edification or sanctification. No where does Ephesians assert the infallibility of these men. On the other hand, this is exactly what 1 Tim 3:16-17 does for the scripture. It makes the direct claim that the scripture is God breathed, or inspired, or theopneustos (greek).

In my previous post I wrote that there are other authorities. I spoke of Thayer as an authority in greek. While Thayer is an authority, I denied that he is an inspired authority. Thayer is an authority, but he is not innerant. The same would apply to the teaching ministry of men in the Church. Certainly they are authorities that can assist in sanctification. The pastor of your church is an authority, but he is not inerrant. "Other authorities" is not the question of sola scriptura. The question of sola scriptura is are they they infallible and inspired (theopneustos) authorities. The answer to that question is found in the text of scripture. Read 2 Tim 3:16 for yourself and notice in your translation that the concept of inspired or God breathed is found in 2 Tim 3:16 at the beginning of the verse. Is this concept found with the teaching authorites in the Church in Eph 4:11-12? Certainly not! Of course this does not mean that teachers and evangelists and others are not for our edification. I am always amazed at how Rome can read that there are other authorities and then assume that their own ministerium is infallible based upon the fact that teachers can edify. Rome is by no means infallible. Show me any passage in the scriptures that says otherwise!

Do not be deceived by the teachings of Rome. Francisdesales writes....

Note, God gave the Church men to perfect the saints for the purpose of unifying the faith and coming to the knowledge of Christ "unto a perfect man". This, coupled with the fact that Jesus left a community, not a book, it becomes clear that the Bible was NEVER intended to be the "sole source of infallible authority". The Church interprets the Bible, thus, we have another source of infallible authority.

Notice how francisdesales ends his statement. The Bible ends up being under the authority of the Church. He is not actually claiming that Rome is "another authority," but he is claiming Rome is an authority over the scriptures. James White calls this doctrine "sola ecclesia." It is a good word for the teachings of Rome in this matter. The idea of sola ecclesia is that the ministerium of the Church alone has the right to interpret the word of God. Such a thought would be a massive leap from the simple statements of Ephesians 4:11-12. That text of scripture is not teaching sola ecclesia. Nowhere does Ephesians 4:11-12 say that only these men can safely interpret the scriptures. It merely states that their gifts are for the purpose of our edification and sanctification. Again, where is the word "theopneustos" in Ephesians 4:11-12?

The claims of Rome are mamouth, they are huge. Surely such massive claims would be backed by massive evidence! No, it is not! It is based upon subtle misrepresentation. It goes from acceptance of the bible as one kind of authority, to claiming that the Church is the sole authority to interpret all the dogma, doctrine, and morals of the scripture. It leaves the real authority as fallible men, not the infallible word of God.

Mondar

 

[francisdesales]

This is quite astonishing to me that francisdesales would violate the very first principle of sola scriptura. I purposely defined sola scrptura so that people like francisdesales could not misrepresent the doctrine.

I know what your first post said. However, sola scriptura in Latin means something different than what you try to lead us to believe - this is born out by the typical defense of the concept by refering to 2 Tim 3. Really, where does Paul write that the Bible is the sole source of infallible doctrine? He writes that the Apostles are the source of infallible doctrine. For example, see Galatians 1:8-9

After francisdesales denies sola scriptura on this false basis, he goes on to affirm another teaching comonly taught by followers of Rome. He is suggesting that there is another authority over scripture, the teaching magisterium of the Church.

First, just because YOU define sola scriptura that way doesn't make it so... And secondly, perhaps you should read what I wrote. NOWHERE did I say that "there is another authority OVER Scriptures". I said that there is NOT one infallible source of our beliefs. The Bible or Christian tradition has not affirmed that the Bible is the sole source of infallible beliefs. That is the invention of sola scriptura. Sadly for your case, it is not ever mentioned in the bible...

This is a far cry from what Eph 4:11-12 is teaching. Ephesians 4:11-13 is not teaching that there is an infallible teaching magesterium, but that there are gifted men given to the Church to assist in the saints edification or sanctification.

And 2 Tim 3 teaches the same thing. God has given man inspired Scriptures AND a teaching authority for the purpose of perfecting men and edifying them. Thus, if you interpret 2 Tim 3 to mean that the Bible is an infallible source of doctrine, then you HAVE to interpret Ephesians 4 the same way to maintain consistency.

In my previous post I wrote that there are other authorities. I spoke of Thayer as an authority in greek. While Thayer is an authority, I denied that he is an inspired authority. Thayer is an authority, but he is not innerant.

The Bible doesn't make the claim that it is inerrant, either. That is from Sacred Tradition.

Notice how francisdesales ends his statement. The Bible ends up being under the authority of the Church. He is not actually claiming that Rome is "another authority," but he is claiming Rome is an authority over the scriptures.

Notice how you would rather attack something rather than defend your silly position. I said that the Church utilizes the Bible and interprets it. The Bible doesn't interpret itself - as is plainly seen by thousands of Protestant denominations who all hold onto the "sola scriptura" concept. The Church interprets dogma within the confines of the Bible. In the end, the Church AND the Bible were given by God to men to sanctify and to teach men how to come to Him.

James White calls this doctrine "sola ecclesia." It is a good word for the teachings of Rome in this matter. The idea of sola ecclesia is that the ministerium of the Church alone has the right to interpret the word of God. Such a thought would be a massive leap from the simple statements of Ephesians 4:11-12.

I merely used the Ephesians quote to disprove Sola Scriptura, that there are OTHER sources of our faith, not the Bible alone. I have not addressed "sola ecclesia". I wouldn't use Ephesians 4 to prove "sola ecclesia", that is you making a non-sequitar.

The claims of Rome are mamouth, they are huge. Surely such massive claims would be backed by massive evidence! No, it is not! It is based upon subtle misrepresentation. It goes from acceptance of the bible as one kind of authority, to claiming that the Church is the sole authority to interpret all the dogma, doctrine, and morals of the scripture. It leaves the real authority as fallible men, not the infallible word of God.

You are correct, the claims are huge. And they have plenty of evidence to back it up. We have not addressed those claims, we were discussing the illogical stance of sola scriptura that is disproved by the Bible itself. Yours is just an attempt to change the subject and stretching my last post to go way beyond what I have said.

I merely pointed out that there are OTHER sources of teachings of Christian doctrine given by God. Not the Bible alone. THIS is my point - that Sola Scriptura is disproven by Scriptura.

Regards

 

[mondar]

The first thing to be noted about francisdesales reply is that he does not even bother to address the primary issue. He postulated that his Church is the authoratative interpreter of scriptures, and that the bible alone is not infallible. I mentioned that the term "theopneustos" is found in 2 Tim 3:16 and is never used with reference to the talented men found in Ephesians 4:11-12. Mr. francisdesales has gone silent on that issue rather quickly and now wishes to raise different issues. Please read on and see what new issues Mr. francisdesales has with sola scriptura.

This is quite astonishing to me that francisdesales would violate the very first principle of sola scriptura. I purposely defined sola scrptura so that people like francisdesales could not misrepresent the doctrine.

I know what your first post said. However, sola scriptura in Latin means something different than what you try to lead us to believe - this is born out by the typical defense of the concept by refering to 2 Tim 3. Really, where does Paul write that the Bible is the sole source of infallible doctrine? He writes that the Apostles are the source of infallible doctrine. For example, see Galatians 1:8-9

Get a load of this...lol...Protestants are not allowed to define what we mean by our own doctrinal statements. If Catholics can define what Protestants mean by their own theological terms they can easily set up straw men and knock them down. That is exactly what francisdesales is doing.

Straw man #1---- Paul does not use the term sola scriptura (Scriptures alone) in the bible.
Most theology is not done by the direct statements of the scripture. The bible does not need to do direct statements. Most theology is done by implication. A good example is the doctrine of the trinity. The bible does not use the term "bible alone," and neither does it use the term trinity. Nevertheless, I am a trinitarian. Since the term trinity is not used in the bible would Mr. francisdesales deny the Catholic dogma of the trinity. The term trinity is commonly used in Catholic dogma. The point is that if it is required that the scriptures use the term itself, then the trinity cannot be true. Most theology is done my implication, not explicit statements. So, francisdesales, I will show you the words "bible alone" in scripture when you show me the words trinity.

After francisdesales denies sola scriptura on this false basis, he goes on to affirm another teaching comonly taught by followers of Rome. He is suggesting that there is another authority over scripture, the teaching magisterium of the Church.

First, just because YOU define sola scriptura that way doesn't make it so... And secondly, perhaps you should read what I wrote. NOWHERE did I say that "there is another authority OVER Scriptures". I said that there is NOT one infallible source of our beliefs. The Bible or Christian tradition has not affirmed that the Bible is the sole source of infallible beliefs. That is the invention of sola scriptura. Sadly for your case, it is not ever mentioned in the bible...

Can you quote a protestant source that says I am misrepresenting protestant teaching on the defination of sola scriptura? Most likely not. So then, you change what protestants teach on sola scriptura based upon your ignorance of what we mean by the term, and then you proceed to shoot your defination of sola scriptura down. That is called a straw man, there is nothing else I can say.

Concerning your statements on the Church.... when you say.....

The Church interprets the Bible, thus, we have another source of infallible authority.

When you make the Church (Specificly the so called Church of Rome) the sole and only infallible interpreter of the scripture, you place the Church of Rome above the scripture. The watchtower society does the same thing. Tell me why a Roman Cahtolic even bothers with the scripture when they have the Church that can read the scripture infallibly? More then that, if its not in the bible, Rome just makes something up and says it is infallible tradition. Where is the bodily asumption of Mary, or the virgin birth of Mary in the bible?

We need a poll, should Rome just simply give up bothering with the bible?
Yes---
No----

This is a far cry from what Eph 4:11-12 is teaching. Ephesians 4:11-13 is not teaching that there is an infallible teaching magesterium, but that there are gifted men given to the Church to assist in the saints edification or sanctification.

And 2 Tim 3 teaches the same thing. God has given man inspired Scriptures AND a teaching authority for the purpose of perfecting men and edifying them. Thus, if you interpret 2 Tim 3 to mean that the Bible is an infallible source of doctrine, then you HAVE to interpret Ephesians 4 the same way to maintain consistency.

The word theopneustos occurs in Ephesians 4:11-12 where? It is totally consistent of me to point out that the word theopneustos does not occur in Eph 4:11-12. The sciptures are inspired in 2 Tim 3:16, but there is no claim that the men of Eph 4 are either inspired or infallible. If the concept of infallible men were in Eph 4, I am sure you would be demonstrating from the text in Ephesians 4 that the word actually occurs. These men edify, but they do not edify infallibly. Please demonstrate your assertions from the sciptures.

In my previous post I wrote that there are other authorities. I spoke of Thayer as an authority in greek. While Thayer is an authority, I denied that he is an inspired authority. Thayer is an authority, but he is not innerant.

The Bible doesn't make the claim that it is inerrant, either. That is from Sacred Tradition.

Bingo, finally we are getting to the bottom of things. Why does Rome make the claims it does? It is all based upon tradition that is simply made up out of thin air. I certainly would agree that the teaching minsterium of the Church is not innerrant or infallible in the scripture, but of course tradition is the basis of its own claims. This is totally circular reasoning. Why is tradition infallible? Because tradition says so.

This is also the real basis of the teaching ministerium. Why is the teaching ministerium infallible? It is not because the scriptures say so, but because tradition says so. It is the tradition of men (see colossians 2).

Notice how francisdesales ends his statement. The Bible ends up being under the authority of the Church. He is not actually claiming that Rome is "another authority," but he is claiming Rome is an authority over the scriptures.

Notice how you would rather attack something rather than defend your silly position. I said that the Church utilizes the Bible and interprets it. The Bible doesn't interpret itself - as is plainly seen by thousands of Protestant denominations who all hold onto the "sola scriptura" concept. The Church interprets dogma within the confines of the Bible. In the end, the Church AND the Bible were given by God to men to sanctify and to teach men how to come to Him.

The rest of Mr francisdesales statements were snipped. They get repetetive and I simply do not have time right now, but would like to make a concluding statement.

Again, the main issue is that the word "inspired" (theopneustos) is used of the scripture in 2 Tim 3:16 and it is not used in the context of Ephesians 4. Mr. francisdesales has not even touched the main issue, he has not explained why the term is present in 2 Tim and absent in Ephesians. The obvious conclusion for any reader is that the bible is inspired and is infallible in matters of the faith.

Mondar

 

[francisdesales]

The first thing to be noted about francisdesales reply is that he does not even bother to address the primary issue.

Whatever. I see you ignore what I write, and then present a red herring - in this case, that the Church is above the Scriptures. The topic that I addressed is sola scriptura and its lack of appearance in Scriptures.

When you are done with your song and dance and appealing to the "audience", show me from Scriptures where the Scriptures say IT is the sole infallible source of Christian doctrine. I presented verses that refute that idea. I also pointed out that 2 Tim 3 does not state ANYWHERE that the Bible is the sole source of Christian doctrine. It is useful for building up the saints, just as the ministers of the Church are, as mentioned in Eph 4. Thus, if you use 2 Tim 3 to prove sola scriptura, you would have to utilize Eph 4 to remain consistent in your exegesis.

I presume your inability to stay on topic has something to do with not being able to defend your point of view, but rather raising the red herring of Church authority over Scriptures. Cue me in when you get back on topic and show me from Scriptures where sola scriptura is found.

The question remains "where does the bible say that it is the sole authority?", despite your desperate attempt to take this off topic and attack something that I never stated.

Regards

 

[mondar]

When you are done with your song and dance and appealing to the "audience", show me from Scriptures where the Scriptures say IT is the sole infallible source of Christian doctrine.

Francisdesales, is english your 2nd language? I addressed these things already. Just scroll up and read the comments you failed to address on 2 Tim 3:16 -17 and your mistaken assertion in Eph 4:11-12. Please tell me why the word "θεοÀνεÅÃĀοÂ" is used in 2 Tim 3:16-17 and not in Eph 4:11-12. The word θεοÀνεÅÃĀο is used of the scriptures, but not the ministerium. So we have an inspired bible, and not an inspired ministerium as you claim.

 

[francisdesales]

When you are done with your song and dance and appealing to the "audience", show me from Scriptures where the Scriptures say IT is the sole infallible source of Christian doctrine.

Francisdesales, is english your 2nd language? I addressed these things already. Just scroll up and read the comments you failed to address on 2 Tim 3:16 -17 and your mistaken assertion in Eph 4:11-12. Please tell me why the word "θεοÀνεÅÃĀοÂ" is used in 2 Tim 3:16-17 and not in Eph 4:11-12. The word θεοÀνεÅÃĀο is used of the scriptures, but not the ministerium. So we have an inspired bible, and not an inspired ministerium as you claim.

Is English my second language? I suppose that is your effort to put me down. I see your "faith in action" again.

Now, I again am telling you that the "Bible" being inspired by God is Sacred Tradition.

2 Timothy, at BEST, merely refers to the Old Testament writings, not a book that WE TODAY call the Bible - which hadn't existed when Paul wrote to Timothy. The bible was not yet compiled into the form that it exists today, so 2 Tim certainly cannot refer to the future Christian bible - unless we consider Sacred Tradition.

This discussion on the Scriptures being inspired do NOT make them the sole source of Christian doctrine. Again, I have already given you ANOTHER example of an infallible source - St. Paul, and presumably, the Apostles, by way of the Holy Spirit - as Paul discusses in Galatians 1:8-9. These are the words of a man who thinks he is infallible, and when he writes to Timothy about the Sacred Scriptures, your argument stands or falls on whether Paul speaks infallibly or not. If he does NOT, then what he writes is certainly subject to error as well.

To suggest otherwise is begging the question.

Thus, as Christian writers of the second century clearly state, the Bible does not stand alone as the sole source of infallible Christian doctrine. If you want to say "sole" in that regards, we can ONLY refer to Jesus Christ, not the 27 independently written letters that would later be called the New Testament.

Regards

 

[stovebolts]

I commend you on an excellent post with some good questions that I will try to answer.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to such a post as mine.

I don't see pointing out the alternatives that have arisen as tearing down. That is hardly what it is doing. It is pointing out that there are others who think differently based on study, research, prayer, meditation and commonsense. Not everyone accepts the ancient view such as Adam and Eve as actual characters. That story is now understood as a myth. The proper definition of myth is a story invented to present truth.

Perhaps it’s the way in which one presents those views. As an example, Augustine presents Gen 1 and 2 allegorically while maintaining that we view such texts, where others differ, with tolerance when there is truth to one’s view. Respectfully, I do understand how some can view those texts as a myth, however I have a tendency to view them otherwise.

I have never used the word hogwash that is your word. God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible. Sure the writers were inspired and so was Charles Dickens. Profound truths can be taught and much better through myth, legend, folk tale, poetry etc. It does not all have to be historically accurate. That is a fallacy from the enlightenment. They were wrong.

Let me further clarify the statement that I made where I used the word “Hogwash†. In a previous thread I quoted a portion of scripture and you replied, “None of the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John can be traced back to the historical Jesus…†which I took as your attempt to dismiss the truth presented within the texts I quoted. (1 John 1:9). As far the rest of your position, Charles Dickens has not been included as Canon, though I am sure that he also holds some universal truths within his writings.

Of course Christ rose from the dead. I have repeatedly said that I have had the experiential reality of the risen Lord. I happen to believe it was a spiritual resurrection. The essential us does not need a body to survive certainly not under God.

I see many issues with this view which leads to many omissions from our current cannon of scripture, such as the story of “doubting Thomas†where he places his hand in Jesus’ side or the meal spoken about in Luke 24 or the meal spoken about in John 21, or even these words recorded by Luke in Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

I do think you are correct about the perception of truth. I will come back to this later.

Thank you, though I do not see my perception of truth as the fullness of truth but rather as an entry point into this divine reality.

I am also extremely pleased that you recognize that truths can be found in other non-Christian sacred writings.

I’m a bit confused why you would call the Didache and the 1st writing of Clement to Rome non Christian, unless you were referring to the later counterfeit letters to Rome that Clement did not write, or you confused the disciple Clement of the Apostle John with Clement of Alexandria which holds widely disputed doctrines.

Now we come to the point that deals with truth. Religions have a very strong cultural factor to them. Judaism reflects Jewish culture. Western Christianity is different from eastern Christianity in many ways. Western Christianity reflects the culture of the reformers. The east did not change but it did break apart between the Church of Rome and the Church of the Eastern Orthodox. Here again we face a cultural difference. Hinduism reflects the culture of its location or origin, India.

Christianity has always taken culture into account, that’s not what’s in question and James goes to say in regard to “Religionâ€Â, James 1:26 -27 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

As far as the schism that occurred in 1054, to my limited understanding, it was not a cultural dispute, but rather a religious dispute over such items as the filioque, marriage of the clergy and the authority of the Pope.

God, being just has spoken to all people of the world in a way they could best understand based on their language, culture, history, fund of knowledge, conceptualization abilities, world view etc. So is Hinduism equal to Christianity? It is for the Hindus or the Muslims both of whom are as equally convinced that they are correct as you are so convinced.

To answer your first question, no. Hinduism is not equal to Christianity just as the Chaldeans were not equal to YHWH’s call to Abraham. Now, that does not mean that we are to become ‘stiff necked’ or as ‘righteous’ as some religious sects, but rather we are to be as Israel was intended to be, and that simply put, was to be a light for all nations.

Christianity is the subjective beside the objective. That is certainly the western approach. However others see it as subject beside subject. Our goal as Christians is to become one with God. Thus we look for the Divine within us. We do not accept a dualism but only a unity a One.

I do not fully understand exactly what you are trying to get across since I think mainly in terms of community as a whole, and not as much about simply being “One†with God, since God is tripartite and thus to be in "Oneness", is to be a member of the community. Also, I tend to be a bit more focused on finding the divine within others which tends to be a bit more difficult than spotting flaws in others.

You are mistaken about the scholars and the writings of other ancient people. Clement is being looked at as is the Gospel of Thomas and the writings of Meister Eckhart, Aquinas and all of the other great Christian fathers of the past.

Which Clement? Clement of Rome and if so, which writings, or Clement of Alexandria since Clement of Alexandria seems to be clumped with more of the Gnostic teachings misunderstood as the Gospel of Thomas? For example, the Gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945, If this is the case, how did Meister Eckhart write about this gospel since he was from the 1200’s? Again I will mention Marcion. Just like Abram had two sons, then figuratively, it appears that so did Christianity…

You mention the separation of the sheep from the goats. This is of course from Matt 25. Jesus welcomed into the kingdom those who did it to the least of these his brothers and sisters. The one who fed the hungry got invited in as did the one who cared for the ill. Jesus said since you did it to the least of these you did it to me. If we try to add in a proviso that one has to have said the word Jesus Christ etc. one is adding to the sacred writings what is not there in the original Greek. I know because I can read the Greek. Clearly we are not to add to these writings. In the Great commandment we are told to love our neighbours as ourselves and as Christ loved us. There is no proviso for this sudden magical experience of salvation.

In parallel, Christ said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Fatherâ€Â. I believe that many people do not see the Father, for they truly do not see His Son, though he stands right before them.

We are called to be transformed. This means to turn about. This is done in many faiths and they all are based on this transformation of justice (distributive) and compassion.

I’m not trying to read to much into your exact words simply because I know that I often write without enough thought to my exact words and when I do so, I find myself in a whole lot of trouble. If I have taken your words wrongly, please omit what I am about to say.

Yes, we are to be transformed, but I do not believe that we are called to be transformed, but rather we are called to do good works through faith which results in transformation since only God can transform us through his grace. You see, if we could transform ourselves, we wouldn’t need a Savior as we would be our own Gods, such as some world religions believe. Just like the story of the sheep and goats, there are those who do things on earth for their own gain, yes, even good, noble deeds in the eyes of others, but full of avarice none the less. These types of deeds when the reward is directed back to oneself is unacceptable and does not lead to a healthy transformation, but rather condemnation. In other words, can we really call compassion, which is transitive, compassion when it is not transitive in thought and action? If it is, then is it transitive to the individual or transitive to the entire community?

I realize that I have not finished responding to your response, but I do not have enough time to finish (I don't get on the site daily either) and this is getting quite long so I doubt many will take the time to read it anyway. Feel free to split a sub topic from here and we can contiue this theological discussion as time permits.

 

[Ted]

StoveBolt :D

First of all I don't believe you have misunderstood what I was saying.

You mentioned the truths of the Muslim and the Hindu. These sacred writings present truth as it has been revealed within the culture in which it arose. Nothing more nothing less. God has addressed these people and revealed himself to them in the way they can best understand.

The story of doubting Thomas is not historical. It is metaphorical. An attempt to explain the inexplicable Easter event in a way that could be best understood at the time.

The Bible accounts for only the culture in which it arose. It does not and cannot take into account future cultures or different cultures. It is ancient Hebrew culture pure and simple. It has also been heavily influenced by ancient Greek culture.

Hinduism is not equal to Christianity. It is a different faith that has arisen in a different culture. This says nothing whatsoever about the truth of that faith.

Now we come to the issue of both the Trinity and Jesus comment that "He who has seen me has seen the Father. If we read Deut. 6:4 we see that it says "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God. The Lord alone." God is one there is no other. The Trinity is a metaphor for that which we as humans cannot come to grasp. The best analogy I've heard is to think about water. It can be a solid, liquid, or a gas. Yet it is still water.

Jesus himself was not and is not God. However, he was a totally unique human being. He enjoyed a very unique relationship with God. He will became so aligned with that of God and the Logos that we see manifested in this man the reality and nature of God. In one sense he became God but not the essential God. Thus in seeing him we see the true nature of God who is one. The Trinity is the three ways in which we experience the one God. Beyond that our language and our conceptualization abilities are incapable of grasping that reality.

I actually have no problem with the "Trinitarian" point of view. I accept that point. Do I profess to understand it? Absolutely not. It is metaphorical for the experiences that the ancients had of the mystery of the Divine. This great mystery has been experienced by many down through the centuries including myself. It is the experiential reality of the Divine.

We are all called to transformation. This transformation does not require mentioning the name Jesus as is clearly seen in Matt 25. I would agree that such transformation depends on the grace of God. However, God judges the heart and the motivation not the words we use. If a Muslim does what is right and believes in God that is acceptable to God Acts 10. The right action done for the right reason is in fact God's will.

Christian exclusivism is wrong. It inevitably leads to tyranny, arrogance, self righteousness, imperialism and a host of other evils. "My God is better than your god." It also leads to Jesusolatry and distrust. It is something which is not found within the emerging paradigm of Christianity.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[cyberjosh]

The story of doubting Thomas is not historical. It is metaphorical. An attempt to explain the inexplicable Easter event in a way that could be best understood at the time.

What "Easter event"? I understand the historical reference but how do you mean it? I call it Passover, which was a Jewish holiday.

And can you elaborate on the supposed origin and application of this "metaphor"?

Christian exclusivism is wrong. It inevitably leads to tyranny, arrogance, self righteousness, imperialism and a host of other evils. "My God is better than your god." It also leads to Jesusolatry and distrust.

I would hope Christians would believe in the same God. And Paul said to watch out for those who preach "another Jesus" (presumably & prevalently Gnostics). Or were you refering to a trans-religion, no-boundaries conception of God?

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

The story of doubting Thomas is not historical. It is metaphorical.

Based on a priori "evidence" that Jesus did not rise from the dead. No doubt, the story at the tomb where the disciples did not find the body was also metaphorical? There is absolutely no warrant to make that claim, unless you already believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Thus, you will explain away the evidence.

The Trinity is a metaphor for that which we as humans cannot come to grasp. The best analogy I've heard is to think about water. It can be a solid, liquid, or a gas. Yet it is still water.

The Trinity is something that we cannot grasp. But does that make it a metaphor and not a reality? Again, this sounds like a reductionist line of thought that places man's reason as a god. Anything that is not completely understood by man's reason is dubbed "metaphor". This theology was prevalent in liberal Protestantism of the turn of the 19th century, and still exists, unfortunately. The mystery is gone in such an understanding of religion. Your analogy is quaint, but not correct, because water is ONLY in one state of matter, not all three simultaneously. Yours is a form of modalism that empties the meaning of Trinity.

God is one, but not alone. He is a community of persons, a community of love. We are being called into this community, into God. Making God a metaphor means that man cannot know who God is, even when HE reveals Himself to men. That is relativism and denies that God entered human history to reveal Himself to a people.

Jesus himself was not and is not God.

Then He was a liar, because He claimed to be God, according to the witness of Scriptures. The Jews hearing Him understood His claims, and on several occasions, accused Him of blasphemy. You can't say Jesus was just a great human being - because His outlandish claims would make Him a liar or a lunatic IF wrong.

I actually have no problem with the "Trinitarian" point of view. I accept that point. Do I profess to understand it? Absolutely not. It is metaphorical for the experiences that the ancients had of the mystery of the Divine. This great mystery has been experienced by many down through the centuries including myself. It is the experiential reality of the Divine.

It is easier to say what God is not, then to completely label God using finite terms. We exist in "learned ignornace", as Nicholas of Cusa said. Naturally, our experience of God is not going to be entirely understood, nor are we able to intelligently and logically explain it entirely. That has been the experience of the saints for the last 2000 years.

We are all called to transformation. This transformation does not require mentioning the name Jesus as is clearly seen in Matt 25. I would agree that such transformation depends on the grace of God. However, God judges the heart and the motivation not the words we use. If a Muslim does what is right and believes in God that is acceptable to God Acts 10. The right action done for the right reason is in fact God's will.

As a Catholic, I can understand that point of view. But as we say, it is based on "invincible ignorance". Those who know Jesus and refuse Him are already condemned. But how well does a Muslim "know" Jesus and not some straw-man of Him told by a mulla in Iran?

Christian exclusivism is wrong. It inevitably leads to tyranny, arrogance, self righteousness, imperialism and a host of other evils. "My God is better than your god." It also leads to Jesusolatry and distrust. It is something which is not found within the emerging paradigm of Christianity.

Christian exclusivism IS wrong, when it exists. That is the great thing about the Catholic Church. It is universal and opens its doors to all men. I think if you read some of the Church documents on ecumenicism and other religions, you will find this to be true. Only through Jesus are we saved - but everyone is not going to know Jesus to the degree that Christians do.

Regards

 

[Ted]

francis :D

I have spoken many times of the experiential reality of the risen Lord.

Any human attempt to describe or define the ultimate reality is by its very nature doomed to failure. All we can do is resort to metaphor. Anyone who thinks they can do any better is living in a delusion.

We can only know who God is as revealed in the human Jesus of Nazareth and in his uniqueness. He did in fact live in a very special relationship with God though he himself was not God.

Jesus never claimed to be God.

We do not need to know Jesus by name. He clearly told us that since we did it to these, the down trodden etc. we did it to him. No name there at all. Anyone who adds a name is adding to the scriptures.

The word Catholic means universal but the Roman Catholic Church is not universal as an institution. It is far from it.

Shalom
Ted :D