Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Under sola scriptura more and more division has occurred up until today. If only Humbert had gone home when he discovered that Pope Leo IX had died, making his orders invalid, the idea of sola scriptura may never have existed.
I don't see any progress in uniting with the Anglicans. I do see progress in uniting with the OO. Chalcedon is closer to becoming a non issue. Already there are EO churches communing OO believers. This is an amazing development considering how closely we guard the chalice.
So in essence what you are saying is it’s okay to go outside of God’s word for your doctrine. Like others, you blame God’s word for divisions in Christianity.
The phrase Sola Scriptura is not found in God’’s word, but He has made it perfectly clear that we are not to add or take away from His word. (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19)
The cause of division lies with people, not the Scriptures. They are so caught up in following their leaders, and hanging tightly to prior beliefs, they refuse to see the truth when it’s staring them right in the face.
The writer here is speaking specifically about adding more prophecies or deleting prophecies from the book of Revelations . There was no accepted canon of Scripture at the time of the writing of Revelations about 90 AD. He refers only to his own writings .
The principle is still there. One should not presume to speak for God.
Quote:
This provides a perfect example of how sola scripture caused so many problems . Interpreting a passage completely differently than what the writer intended.
Only if one doesn't actually adhere to Scripture alone. It's when we begin to import our own ideas into it that we have issues.
So in essence what you are saying is it’s okay to go outside of God’s word for your doctrine. Like others, you blame God’s word for divisions in Christianity.
The phrase Sola Scriptura is not found in God’’s word, but He has made it perfectly clear that we are not to add or take away from His word. (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19)
The cause of division lies with people, not the Scriptures. They are so caught up in following their leaders, and hanging tightly to prior beliefs, they refuse to see the truth when it’s staring them right in the face.
Sola scriptural was an invention of Luther. You can pick and choose scripture all day and all night but nothing you've cited proves sola scriptura to be truth.
Deuteronomy 4.2 refers to not adding or subtracting from Mosaic law.
Proverbs is made up of writings of many people. Proverbs 30 was written by Agur son of Jakeh therefore Proverbs 30.6 revers to chapter 30 of the book of Proverbs.
Revelation was written before the NT was compiled and almost didn't make it into the Bible. Chaper 20.18,19 refers only to the book of Revelation.
Sola scriptura originated outside of the bible yet it tells you all you need is the bible. That's cognitive dissonance.
Sola scriptural was an invention of Luther. Hevis an author of division. You can pick and choose scripture all day and all night but nothing you've cited proves sola scriptura to be truth.
Deuteronomy 4.2 refers to not adding or subtracting from Mosaic law.
Proverbs is made up of writings of many people. Proverbs 30 was written by Agur son of Jakeh therefore Proverbs 30.6 revers to chapter 30 of the book of Proverbs.
Revelation was written before the NT was compiled and almost didn't make it into the Bible.
Sola scriptura originated outside of the bible yet it tells you all you need is the bible. That's cognitive dissonance.
I'll say it again. The bigger issue is people coming up with private revelation that directly contradicts it.
You want to say Jesus been speaking to you? Ok. Does it contradict the Bible? If so, it wasn't Jesus. God does not contradict himself.
After I left the Southern Baptists after decades there I attended and studied in an Eastern Orthodox Church . You don’t walk the aisle one Sunday and join the EO. You read specific books, you meet with the priest and maybe some other teachers , and you spend 6 months learning all you can about them to make sure you understand and will fit in. I ultimately didn’t, but I enjoyed my time there . But I learned quite a bit . The way the early Christians learned about the faith was the Divine Liturgy. It is the essence of the Christian faith written into a song/chant that is led by the priest . It’s how the early Christians got by .
As an aside, Protestants like to talk about being people of the Book. I heard more Scripture read in the EO services though. Every service has 3 decently long Scripture readings, one OT, one NT that was non Gospel, and then one Gospel reading . For the Gospel reading the priest would walk to the center of all the people , with people turning to face him as he walked by so they never had their back turned to the Book of the Gospels , and then he read the Gospel portion standing in the midst of all the people turned to face him.
I saw much more reverence for and knowledge of the Bible in the EO church than I did in the Southern Baptists church .
That has been my experience as well in the Roman Catholic Church. Even the responses from the people are nearly all, maybe all, directly from scripture.
I also love how, when the Gospel reading is read, we stand and sing Alleluia! It's always a high point for me.
The Holy Spirit spoke through the Apostles decades before His words were recorded. They in turn preached those words to the various congregations.. Do you really think they sat on those teachings from the Holy Spirit until they could write them down?
Nope, and I never said or implied that.
They also sent out and quoted many, many letters and other writings that didn't "make the cut" of the canon.
The principle is still there. One should not presume to speak for God.
The problem is you create a doctrine that isn't in the Bible and give it authority and legitimacy by taking a verse from one book out of context and applying it to things the verse didnt refer to. This gets to the very heart of this thread. A doctrine has been created from thin air by using a verse out of context to apply it to something that wasn't even established at that time. The Canon of Scripture came about gradually over hundreds of years as the Church decided by common use what was scriptural and what wasn't. The Bible itself never gives you a list of approved Scripture. The Church decided this well after Revelations was written.
Quote:
Only if one doesn't actually adhere to Scripture alone. It's when we begin to import our own ideas into it that we have issues.
And every single one of the 35,000 Protestant denominations will tell you that THEY are the ones who have relied on the Bible alone and not imported their own ideas.
So in essence what you are saying is it’s okay to go outside of God’s word for your doctrine. Like others, you blame God’s word for divisions in Christianity.
The phrase Sola Scriptura is not found in God’’s word, but He has made it perfectly clear that we are not to add or take away from His word. (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19)
The cause of division lies with people, not the Scriptures. They are so caught up in following their leaders, and hanging tightly to prior beliefs, they refuse to see the truth when it’s staring them right in the face.
I'm not sure how you are getting that anyone is blaming the Bible. What is being said is private interpretation of the Bible is what has caused the 35,000 different sects among Protestants, plus a growing number of non denominational mega churches that have no affiliation with any sect.
The RCC and EO view on the Bible is different than the Protestant one. The RCC and the EO see it as PART of Gods revelations to the church, but not all. I once had a discussion with a guy in the EO about a part of the Bible in which Paul says that what he is writing isn't from God, but just his own opinion (not many evangelicals know this, I have found out) , and how that squares with the letter then being regarded as Scripture when Paul says its just his opinion. His answer immediately showed me the difference between the original churches and the Protestants. He said " It is Scripture because we (the Church) say its Scripture. Its not up to Paul, the Church under the guidance of God, decided that".
The RCC , OO, and the EO see the Bible as one part of the puzzle , but not the whole puzzle. Or as one of them put it to me, as one part of the feast, but not the whole feast. The priest of the EO church I attended described Protestantism as a "ham sandwich", while the EO was the entire buffet at Golden Corral . Having been in both, I totally agree.
Sola scriptural was an invention of Luther. Hevis an author of division. You can pick and choose scripture all day and all night but nothing you've cited proves sola scriptura to be truth.
Luther taught falsely about an array of things, but like most false teachers, he taught some truths. He wrote, “ "a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it". ... He also wrote, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so." Luther was spot on in this case.
“Deuteronomy 4.2 refers to not adding or subtracting from Mosaic law.”
Very true. So your conclusion is that because those words were spoken by God to the Israelites, it’s ok to add or take away from God’s word? Do you honestly see permission here?
“Proverbs is made up of writings of many people. Proverbs 30 was written by Agur son of Jakeh therefore Proverbs 30.6 revers to chapter 30 of the book of Proverbs.”
You conclude this in order to support your view that extra Biblical writings are acceptable. What I’d like to see you do is prove thei inspiration of any extra Biblical writings. Show me where they are God breathed!
“Revelation was written before the NT was compiled and almost didn't make it into the Bible.”
When the books were compiled doesn’t change the fact the the author of Revelation was the Holy Spirit.
God has said three times not to add or take away from His word, but you think it’s perfectly acceptable to do so.
“Sola scriptura originated outside of the bible yet it tells you all you need is the bible. That's cognitive dissonance.
Luther may have coined the term Sola Scriptura, but the Holy Spirit has clearly told us that Scripture is all we need. He said it is able to make us complete/perfect!
2 Timothy 3:15-17
“…and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2Peter 1:3
“…as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness,…”
Tell me, my friend. What did God leave out that we should know concerning salvation or how to live a life pleasing to God.
Cognitive dissonance is when someone is unable to admit they are wrong even when they are faced with overwhelming.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
