Canon of Scripture, Sola Scriptura Style

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeFide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Angainor:
I do not think it is not an insignificant fact.
Click to expand...
:confused: I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean. (one too many double negatives) :o

What I was trying to say was: I think it is a significant fact that I can get the Bible in the form that it is today at the corner bookstore.
 
40.png
DeFide:
I get the feeling you are not a Sola Scriptura advocate, if for no other reason because you resorted to tradition, at least in some form, to address the question.
Click to expand...
I’m not the same brand of Sola Scriptura advocate that you would call a Fundamentalist or Evangelical.

I do not believe Scripture is the only source understanding of truth, but Scripture is the only source that can be trusted without the need to test it.
 
40.png
Angainor:
I’m not the same brand of Sola Scriptura advocate that you would call a Fundamentalist or Evangelical.

I do not believe Scripture is the only source understanding of truth, but Scripture is the only source that can be trusted without the need to test it.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you need to test it? What authority told you so? How do you know what “it” [Scripture] is? Whose interpretation don’t you need to test?
 
40.png
DeFide:
Why don’t you need to test it?
Click to expand...
I believe the Chruch preserved the Bible to the point where I can go to the corner bookstore to buy it.
 
40.png
Angainor:
No one’s. I told you* the Bible* is the only thing that doesn’t need testing.
Click to expand...
Since any statement of truth from the Bible cannot be had independent of an interpreter, then in practice, the idea of the Bible alone not needing testing becomes void of meaning.
 
40.png
Angainor:
I believe the Chruch preserved the Bible to the point where I can go to the corner bookstore to buy it.
Click to expand...
Which Church? Just curious.
 
40.png
Angainor:
No one’s. I told you* the Bible* is the only thing that doesn’t need testing.
Click to expand...
then you must believe the four-times Oath given by Christ (Truly, Truly… and Amen Amen) when He proclaims the Real Presence in John 6

or do you “test” the meaning differently???
 
40.png
Angainor:
So you do need to test the Bible?
Click to expand...
the early Christians were advised to test everything that was presented to them.

there was no bible at that time (except for the OT)

They tested it by taking it to the pillar and foundation of the truth… the Church… not the bible.

That advice was never recinded.
 
40.png
Angainor:
So you do need to test the Bible?
Click to expand...
That is a meaningless question by your concept of the terms involved. Statements of truth from the Bible can only be had by means of a person, an interpreter.

As a Catholic, I understand that persons may or may not have correct interpretations, depending on how they fit within the boundaries set by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church established by Christ.
 
40.png
DeFide:
Since any statement of truth from the Bible cannot be had independent of an interpreter, then in practice, the idea of the Bible alone not needing testing becomes void of meaning.
Click to expand...
You mean like this statement of truth?"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

Yea, you’re absolutly right. This has no meaning. Void.

not
 
40.png
Angainor:
You mean like this statement of truth?"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16Yea, you’re absolutly right. This has no meaning. Void.

not
Click to expand...
Does this mean once saved, always saved? Uh-oh, we have a problem (even after this one verse).

For any given verse, there are dozens of Protestant interpretations. Now, multiply that by the entire length of the Bible. They cannot all be correct.
 
40.png
MrS:
They tested it by taking it to the pillar and foundation of the truth… the Church… not the bible.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean they took it to some Catholic officials.

This would mean they weren’t testing at all wouldn’t it? Someone else was testing.
 
40.png
DeFide:
For any given verse, there are dozens of Protestant interpretations. Now, multiply that by the entire length of the Bible. They cannot all be correct.
Click to expand...
No, they can’t all be correct, but that doesn’t mean the verse is void of meaning (as you suggest).
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16
It means something, not nothing.
 
40.png
Angainor:
I assume you mean they took it to some Catholic officials.

This would mean they weren’t testing at all wouldn’t it? Someone else was testing.
Click to expand...
It seems that you have a different interpretation. Let’s take it to the judge:

‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).

The Bible is very clear to me about what to do if we have a disagreement with one another over some issue pertaining to the Faith. And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21! The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top