Another Proof against Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2ndGen said:
If the Scriptures Alone were all they needed,
then The Apostles wouldn’t have to “explain” to them what the Scriptures mean.
Click to expand...
We don’t need the book we called the Bible.

We need Christ Jesus. If you steal all my Bibles, I have lost nothing. I still have God.

Joseph didn’t have the Torah when he was in prison, but he still had all he needed, because God was still with him. Joseph didn’t have other believing Hebrew prophets to tell him ORALLY what was written in the Torah, but he still had all he needed because God was with him.

The Bible is a tool God uses to speak to us. It is one of many. If I didn’t have a Bible, God would continue to speak to me.

But we are warned not to think above that which is written. So the Bible is very useful in helping to discern truth from fiction.

Just as is our conscience. But like ignoring our conscience to ease the guilt in doing what we please, we can also interpret Scriptures to our own liking.
 
Ginger2 said:
We don’t need the book we called the Bible.

We need Christ Jesus. If you steal all my Bibles, I have lost nothing. I still have God.

Joseph didn’t have the Torah when he was in prison, but he still had all he needed, because God was still with him. Joseph didn’t have other believing Hebrew prophets to tell him ORALLY what was written in the Torah, but he still had all he needed because God was with him.

The Bible is a tool God uses to speak to us. It is one of many. If I didn’t have a Bible, God would continue to speak to me.

But we are warned not to think above that which is written. So the Bible is very useful in helping to discern truth from fiction.

Just as is our conscience. But like ignoring our conscience to ease the guilt in doing what we please, we can also interpret Scriptures to our own liking.
Click to expand...
If all of your bibles had been taken away then how would you know about God?

Through oral tradition.

Let us never forget, The Church came before The Bible.
 
The Bible is a tool God uses to speak to us. It is one of many. If I didn’t have a Bible, God would continue to speak to me.
Click to expand...
So then if we have God speaking to us anyway, Scripture is not only insufficient, but unneeded.

Why does God need a “tool” to communicate to us?

His Word is already written on our hearts.

Why the need for an object?

And if it’s ok to use an inanmate object, what else is ok to use in worship to God? The Altar? Holy Water? Annointing Oil? The Holy Eucharist?
But we are warned not to think above that which is written. So the Bible is very useful in helping to discern truth from fiction.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that teaching you just stated comes from a book you consider “apochryphal”:

Sirach.
 
So, now that you seem to be belittling the value of The Bible and emphasizing a personal relationship with God (which I actually agree with), what’s your opinion on Martin Luther edtiting The Holy Bible to create the protestant bible?
 
Ginger2
James,
You are the one who doesn’t get it.
You can hide all the bibles in the world and burn down all the churches…;
I will have lost nothing, because I will still have God.
nothing can separate me from God.
Click to expand...
Amen to that. God needs only an accepting heart to enlighten. Nor do we “need” anything else to know and please God.

(P.S. I hope I dod not offend with my previous post. I get out of line occasionally. My apologies)
Ginger2
Jesus obviously had great power (afterall, being God it is expected) and used it often to heal people, feed people and raise them from the dead, etc.
But he showed us something remarkable in the verses I cited.
Satan was defeated by merely quoting Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Satan can never be defeated by quoting scripture, but only by believing in and trusting God, our Father.
Ginger2
All truth and knowledge is NOT contained within the Bible.
But I am not bound under pain of death to believe anything that cannot be proven in Scriptures.
Click to expand...
So you are bound under pain of death if you accept a truth or knowledge that is not “proven” in the Bible? This is a poor argument as it places a limitation on God’s ability to reveal Himself to you.
Ginger2
We don’t need the book we called the Bible.
We need Christ Jesus. If you steal all my Bibles, I have lost nothing. I still have God.
Click to expand...
Agreed, But how did your conception of God come to you. By reading? By Oral tradition? By the teaching of our parents?
Joseph didn’t have the Torah when he was in prison, but he still had all he needed, because God was still with him. Joseph didn’t have other believing Hebrew prophets to tell him ORALLY what was written in the Torah, but he still had all he needed because God was with him.
The Bible is a tool God uses to speak to us. It is one of many. **If I didn’t have a Bible, God would continue to speak to me. **
Click to expand...
But if you “not bound under pain of death to believe anything that cannot be proven in Scriptures” what happens when you have no Scriptures?
But we are warned not to think above that which is written. So the Bible is very useful in helping to discern truth from fiction.
Click to expand...
Once again, you argue above that you don’t “need” the Bible but then make a statement requiring Scripture.

Ginger2
I appreciate your arguments but I think that there are a number of holes and cases of circular logic. I don’t find this to be bad necessarily, but it does point up the need to be able to see beyond the trees and find the forest.
God is Great and wants us all to be Holy. But we always seem to want to set up limits. Of couse some of this is good as it prevents error and sin. But some will result in stifling our understanding of God’s will in our lives.
After reading and re-reading some of your posts I believe that you are not one of these. Just don’t let your love of scripture become an obsession to the point of missing God in your heart.

Peace

James
 
JRKH said:
Amen to that. God needs only an accepting heart to enlighten. Nor do we “need” anything else to know and please God.

(P.S. I hope I dod not offend with my previous post. I get out of line occasionally. My apologies)

Satan can never be defeated by quoting scripture, but only by believing in and trusting God, our Father.

So you are bound under pain of death if you accept a truth or knowledge that is not “proven” in the Bible? This is a poor argument as it places a limitation on God’s ability to reveal Himself to you.

Agreed, But how did your conception of God come to you. By reading? By Oral tradition? By the teaching of our parents?

But if you “not bound under pain of death to believe anything that cannot be proven in Scriptures” what happens when you have no Scriptures?

Once again, you argue above that you don’t “need” the Bible but then make a statement requiring Scripture.

Ginger2
I appreciate your arguments but I think that there are a number of holes and cases of circular logic. I don’t find this to be bad necessarily, but it does point up the need to be able to see beyond the trees and find the forest.
God is Great and wants us all to be Holy. But we always seem to want to set up limits. Of couse some of this is good as it prevents error and sin. But some will result in stifling our understanding of God’s will in our lives.
After reading and re-reading some of your posts I believe that you are not one of these. Just don’t let your love of scripture become an obsession to the point of missing God in your heart.

Peace

James
Click to expand...
I agree with all her “God is primary” sentiments,
I just don’t agree with her Scripture Alone/Bible “not” needed beliefs.

I think you did a much better job of charitably responding to her (him?) than I could have. You’re a better Christian than I am.:o

I love the love that she has for God.
But dislike the dislike she has for His servants.

The exchange went from Bible Only to Bible Not Essential.

God comes first…before Scripture, before The Church, before anything.
 
2ndGen said:
…if it’s ok to use an inanmate object,
Click to expand...
The Jews used Scriptures to teach. So I guess this “tradition” goes way back.
2ndGen said:
what else is ok to use in worship to God? The Altar? Holy Water? Annointing Oil? The Holy Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I believe I said a way to speak to us.

Let’s see if I can reason from Scriptures…

God spoke to Moses in a burning bush, called out to him out of a mountain,

God spoke to Abraham in the form of three men

God spoke to Samuel in a voice that woke him from his sleep

God appeared to Solomon in a dream by night:

God spoke to Israel in visions of the night

God spoke to Ezekiel in visions

God spoke through Jonah to the Ninevites

God spoke to Mary through an angel

To Saul/Paul in a blinding light

Sometimes the Scriptures simply say the word of the Lord came, without telling us the method used…
 
Ginger2 said:
The Jews used Scriptures to teach. So I guess this “tradition” goes way back.

Hmmm, I believe I said a way to speak to us.

Let’s see if I can reason from Scriptures…

God spoke to Moses in a burning bush, called out to him out of a mountain,

God spoke to Abraham in the form of three men

God spoke to Samuel in a voice that woke him from his sleep

God appeared to Solomon in a dream by night:

God spoke to Israel in visions of the night

God spoke to Ezekiel in visions

God spoke through Jonah to the Ninevites

God spoke to Mary through an angel

To Saul/Paul in a blinding light

Sometimes the Scriptures simply say the word of the Lord came, without telling us the method used…
Click to expand...
The minds are meeting…

👍
 
Ginger2 said:
I have always maintained that Christ Jesus is essential. I don’t go beyond what is written. But I acknowledge that not everything was written down.
👍
Click to expand...
So you don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura Ginger?
If so how do we know Gods truth and will?
 
Chellow said:
So you don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura Ginger?
If so how do we know Gods truth and will?
Click to expand...
Yes, I “subscribe” to the protestant view of Sola Scriptura.

No, I do not “subscribe” to the Catholic view of Sola Scriptura.
 
Chellow said:
But you just said that “not everything was written down”.
Click to expand...
Correct. Sola Scriptura, as I have said a dozen time on various threads in this forum, does not mean all knowledge is contained in the Bible.

That is the Catholic misinterpretation of Sola Scriptura.
 
Ginger2 said:
Correct. Sola Scriptura, as I have said a dozen time on various threads in this forum, does not mean all knowledge is contained in the Bible.

That is the Catholic misinterpretation of Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
So what is the knowledge that was not contained in the Bible and who has it?
 
Chellow said:
So what is the knowledge that was not contained in the Bible and who has it?
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Surely you are not suggesting the RC is the source of ALL knowledge.

God is the source of everything, including ALL knowledge.
 
Ginger2 said:
:rotfl:

Surely you are not suggesting the RC is the source of ALL knowledge.

God is the source of everything, including ALL knowledge.
Click to expand...
What’s your definition of the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura then?

And how do you feel about Martin Luther adding his own words to The Bible and editing The Word of God?
 
2ndGen said:
What’s your definition of the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura then?
Click to expand...
I have gone thru this so many times, I think I’ll try to say it in a new way…
According to the Scriptures, not all knowledge is contained in the Scriptures. But everything that is essential for human beings to know and believe is found in Scriptures. Anything that is not contained in the Scriptures, I am not bound to believe. Anything that contradicts Scriptures I am bound to reject.
2ndGen said:
And how do you feel about Martin Luther adding his own words to The Bible and editing The Word of God?
Click to expand...
I really don’t give Martin Luther much thought. However, Martin Luther was very pompous in his explanation, which did him no good service. But he explained that in the German language the word alone needed to be added for clarity and didn’t mean “faith only” is required.

Since I am not familiar with the German, I cannot speak as to whether he was telling the truth or justifying an unfortunate error. I will, however, take him at his word that he was not saying faith is all that one needs.

How do you feel about Jerome adding his own words to the Bible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top