L
Lil_Cat
Guest
I brought this up on another thread and was ignored, so maybe someone here can help me out. How are “Protestants” sola scriptura if they believe in the Trinity?
- Status
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Because Scripture teaches the Trinity.
R
Reformed
Guest
1 Corinthians 10:31
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
I think the ultimate battle between Sola Scriptura and the Roman Catholic Magestrium is for final authority. How does God reveal Himself and His will to us? I think it would be interesting to do a reverse order of the solas, just like TriuneUnity suggested. At least we can agree that we were saved to the praise of His glorious grace (Ephesians 1-2). We were reconciled to God to glorify Him alone. No Christian wants to boast in the flesh or try to rob God of His glory due to Him alone. So, why do you think God is worth all of our affection, praise, and worship? Why should all the glory go to God alone for saving wretched sinners like me and you?
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
I think the ultimate battle between Sola Scriptura and the Roman Catholic Magestrium is for final authority. How does God reveal Himself and His will to us? I think it would be interesting to do a reverse order of the solas, just like TriuneUnity suggested. At least we can agree that we were saved to the praise of His glorious grace (Ephesians 1-2). We were reconciled to God to glorify Him alone. No Christian wants to boast in the flesh or try to rob God of His glory due to Him alone. So, why do you think God is worth all of our affection, praise, and worship? Why should all the glory go to God alone for saving wretched sinners like me and you?
L
Lil_Cat
Guest
I know that, on an individual level.
Scripture alludes to the Trinity, but doesn’t use the term. So, by most Catholics logic here, how are we sola scriptura? If we took the Bible literally, then we wouldn’t believe in the Trinity.
Isn’t that what the debate is? That we only believe Scipture and nothing else?
Scripture alludes to the Trinity, but doesn’t use the term. So, by most Catholics logic here, how are we sola scriptura? If we took the Bible literally, then we wouldn’t believe in the Trinity.
Isn’t that what the debate is? That we only believe Scipture and nothing else?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Why reverse the order you posted them in? Just show us the scriptural support for sola scriptura and let’s move on.
Seems like a big list of questions to avoid one question.
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
C
clock
Guest
Reading through the thread I started to get deja vu, I was thinking ‘I swear this happened a couple a months ago on a diff forum’
Thankfully I’m not loosing my marbles yet
Thankfully I’m not loosing my marbles yet
R
Reformed
Guest
Please explain your understanding on sola scriptura? Protestants read Christian books in addition to Scripture all the time. Do you believe the Bible to be God-breathed and authorative revelation from God? Do you believe God gave us the Bible or did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? Who do you thank at night for the Holy Bible?Why reverse the order you posted them in? Just show us the scriptural support for sola scriptura and let’s move on.
Seems like a big list of questions to avoid one question.
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I’ve posted the definition of sola scriptura above. Still answering questions with questions?
Seems Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, Bible alone, which is one’s ability to privately interpret scriptures.
The problem seems to be that, for some reason, Protestants see no problem with differing private interpretations. Those differing interpretations have split Christianity into thousands of denominations, all with slightly to a lot of doctrinal differences. This goes against scriptures which specifically teaches one Church, or one fold one shepard.
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
R
Reformed
Guest
Private interpertation is a sin. Please try to answer my questions above.I’ve posted the definition of sola scriptura above. Still answering questions with questions?
Seems Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, Bible alone, which is one’s ability to privately interpret scriptures.
The problem seems to be that, for some reason, Protestants see no problem with differing private interpretations. Those differing interpretations have split Christianity into thousands of denominations, all with slightly to a lot of doctrinal differences. This goes against scriptures which specifically teaches one Church, or one fold one shepard.
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Wow, you’ve changed your stance then.
By which authority do you get your interpretation of scriptures?
God Bless,
Prodigal Son1
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
you are more than welcome to prove your claims. i mean you must prove it to us. go ahead.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
We’ve played this little game once.
Scriptures are God breathed or inspired. It was through the Holy Spirit protected Church that scriptures were written. It was through the Holy Spirit protected Catholic Church that scriptures were canonized around the 4th century. It was Holy Spirit guided men of the Holy Spirit protected Church that the canonization took place. That’s how we all have the Bible today, except for the King James Version which Luther took great liberties with.
Now, by what authority do you get your interpretation of the scriptures.
God Bless,
Prodigal Son1
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
dont answer his questions make him answer your questions. they always try to diverge our questions. this is their strategy to bring out another subject this way they dont have to prove anything.I’ve posted the definition of sola scriptura above. Still answering questions with questions?
Seems Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, Bible alone, which is one’s ability to privately interpret scriptures.
The problem seems to be that, for some reason, Protestants see no problem with differing private interpretations. Those differing interpretations have split Christianity into thousands of denominations, all with slightly to a lot of doctrinal differences. This goes against scriptures which specifically teaches one Church, or one fold one shepard.
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Luther took liberties with the King James Version or are you saying he wrote the King James Version…?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Thousands of denominations…I think I’m agreeing with another poster who said this thread is deja vuI’ve posted the definition of sola scriptura above. Still answering questions with questions?
Seems Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, Bible alone, which is one’s ability to privately interpret scriptures.
The problem seems to be that, for some reason, Protestants see no problem with differing private interpretations. Those differing interpretations have split Christianity into thousands of denominations, all with slightly to a lot of doctrinal differences. This goes against scriptures which specifically teaches one Church, or one fold one shepard.
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Typically, yes. That is often the accusation. “Bible only.” They do this by divorcing the context of what Scripture alone refers to.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
He certainly added words and he dropped 7 books from the Old Testament. He wanted to remove books from the New Testament but his “backers” threatened to leave him alone as a fanatic if he did. The King James Version just happens to have the included words and the lack of books Luther didn’t like. King James had his translators actually translate the King James Version, which happens to be Reformed’s choice of Bibles. What’s yours?
Now, back on topic. You going to show scriptural support for sola scriptura or not?
God Bless,
Prodigal Son1
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Luther didn’t drop any books. His German translation of the Hebrew Old Testament contains the deuterocanonicals. His translation of the Greek New Testament included the books he disputed and he never intended to not include them. By the way, his “backers” thought he was dead at this point in history. The KJV is a translation of the Latin Vulgate and has nothing to do with Luther’s translation.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Luther chose the Palenstinian canon of the Old Testament because it was in Hebrew, the same language of those who persecuted our Lord. He was stuck with Greek on the New Testament. When he was a Catholic priest, he used the Catholic Bible with ALL books. He added words to the scriptures.
Now you going to continue to dodge the challenge or are you going to show us scriptures supporting sola scriptura?
God Bless,
Prodigal Son1
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Since the OP is Reformed, I will post the Westminster Confession’s definition of Sola Scriptura, along with the Scripture proofs for each statement. It is an accurate representation of the doctrine:
Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and
providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of
God, as to leave men unexcusable;(Rom. 1:19-20, 2:14-15; Psa. 19:1-4): yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation (John 17:3; 1 Cor. 1:21, 2:13-14) Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; (Heb. 1:1-2) and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: (Luke 1:3-4; Rom. 15:4; Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; Isa. 8:20) which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; (2 Tim. 3:15; 2 Pet. 1:19) those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased (John 20:31; 1 Cor. 10:11, 14:37; 1 John 5:13, Heb. 1:1-2, 2:2-4).
Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written,
are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament,
which are these: Of the Old Testament; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Job, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: Of the New Testament; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Pauls Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians 1, Corinthians 2, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians 1, Thessalonians 2, to Timothy 1, to Timothy 2, to Titus, to Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John.
All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and
life (Luke 16:29, 31, 24:27, 44; 2 Tim. 3:15-16; John 5:46-47).
The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine
inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore
are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise
approved, or made use of, than other human writings (Rev. 22:18-19; Rom. 3:2; 2 Pet. 1:21).
The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God (2 Pet. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess. 2:13; Rev. 1:1-2).
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church
to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture (1 Tim. 3:15). And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts (1 Cor. 2:9–10; Heb. 4:12; John 10:35; Isa. 55:11; Ps. 19:7–11; 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 John 2:20, 27)
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for
his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (2 Tim. 3:16–17; Gal. 1:8–9; 2 Thess. 2:2). Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word (John 6:45; 1 Cor. 2:12, 14–15, 4:6; Eph. 1:18): and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed (1 Cor. 11:13–14, 14:26, 40).
- Status