Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mrs. Don-o; nonsporting; Cicero; Azeem; ohioman; PieterCasparzen; Tonytitan; I still care; ...
You wanted my view so here it is. You claim weakness in Sola Scriptura by pointing to differences in interpretation. I would guess it’s an attempt to somehow link all those who rely on Sola Scriptura with the gay agenda.

The one thing that those who claim Sola Scriptura have available to them is the original languages to better attempt to understand the meaning and intent of the words of the writers of scripture and Christ Himself while He was on earth. It is after all the words of the Apostles and Jesus which are most important in understanding.

On the other hand those who do not rely on Sola Scriptura also have one thing in common. That is the claim to “extra Biblical” revelation. The Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims all claim additional information and “revelation” from God. Who is to vouch for those “revelations”? Jesus words? Did Jesus announce Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven? Did Jesus announce the addition of veneration of a black rock? Did Jesus claim that men would become gods like the Mormons and Catholics do?

As for me and my house, we will rely on the original words of Jesus and those He chose to write the record He wished to be left for us. Not some words of a supposed “prophet” or “magesterium” who proclaim knowledge beyond what Jesus and the Apostles by God’s inspiration saw fit to leave as a full and complete account and proclaimed it to be enough to be “prefect, thoroughly furnished”.

"ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS: That the man of GOd may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

There may be differences in interpretation of scripture but to add to that the words of fallible men is pure folly and a sure road to distruction.

71 posted on 10/23/2011 10:39:49 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: CynicalBear; Blind Eye Jones
"I would guess it’s an attempt to somehow link all those who rely on Sola Scriptura with the gay agenda."

Dear Cynical Bear, that is not my intent. I'm on your side,and on the side of the traditional, historic understanding of Scripture. It's obvious that most people who have adhered to "Sola Scriptura" over the last 5 centuries are also AGAINST the Gay Agenda. Anyone can see that.

My point is that "Sola Scriptura" alone doesn't refute the Gay Agenda in a disposative way as long as "Gay Christian" theologians can bring forth their own "Scripture scholarship" which sets aside the traditional, historic understnading of the Church, as explained in Post # 65, and at truly boggling length at the many "Gay Christian" websites (Link).

You can tell them, "Your 'gay interpretations' are not what the Church has traditionally thought to be the meaning of Scripture".

And they will say, "So what? We don't care what you traditionally thought. We think the Church was in error for all those centuries. WE are the ones who are going by Sola Scriptura."

Here's what I want to know. At that point, what do YOU say?

75 posted on 10/23/2011 11:06:14 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." - 1 Tim 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: CynicalBear; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...

There’s a misunderstanding, deliberate or not, about what sola scriptura is.

Scripture is the final and ultimate authority. God’s word is settled in heaven and not the least stroke of the pen shall pass away from it. It is what it is, the inspired, Spirit breathed word of God.

If Scripture needs interpretation, then something like the CCC needs interpretation. The CCC is not exempt from needing interpretation any more than Scripture is and is just as prone to misinterpretation as Scripture is.

Just as there is no way that anyone can prevent someone from deliberately misinterpreting Scripture if they so choose, just as there is no way of preventing anyone from deliberately misinterpreting the CCC if they so choose.

So the contention that because Scripture can be misinterpreted therefore the concept of individual interpretation is rendered invalid is an invalid argument itself. EVERYTHING that humans produce is subject to errors in or deliberate misinterpretation. It is not the fault or responsibility of the author, nor does it discredit the work. It only discredits the person doing the misinterpretation.

Scripture is true, inerrant, infallible, God breathed. You line up with it or you’re wrong.


77 posted on 10/23/2011 11:17:00 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: CynicalBear
Who is to vouch for those “revelations”?

CB... a most excellent question... I love this aspect of Scripture.

I will leave citations of verses as an exercise for the curious...

We know that Old and New Testaments explicitly reference each other's content. Prophetic verses in the Old Testament clearly make references to future events where New Testament events fit. The New Testament refers to the Old all over the place - and it says that it does, it does not imply a reference, it says it's going to make a reference then it does.

The Bible makes it clear that it is complete, that it contains all of Scripture, that we should not add on anything or take anything away. If there were any new prophecy which was to happen at some time following the close of the New Testament canon, according to any reasonable hermeneutics or theology, one would be able to discern it being pointed to by the New Testament.

However the New Testament does not reference any other new book.

Arguments that the Bible references anything else are absurd if you review them.
97 posted on 10/23/2011 1:09:45 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson