No I dont. The Bible is Sacred Scripture and it is part of creation. The Word of God is the second Person of the Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is not part of creation. The Bible came to be through Christ, whereas Christ is eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God…one in being with the Father. The Bible is none of those things.
You subscribe to the “dictation” theory of biblical inspiration, in which God is the complete and only author of Scripture and Moses, the prophets, the Evangelists and the Apostles basically contributed only the use of their hands.
Authority is something only a person can possess. Inanimate objects cannot exercise authority. It requires understanding, wisdom and the power to act. Scripture simply cannot do these things. A person, or persons must do them. What you mean to say is that whoever has the authority to act must use Scripture alone as the basis for acting in their authoritative capacity.
Interpretations conflict, not words.
I thought you were an ex-Catholic? Of course we believe that.
Sola Scripture is an invention that appeared 1500 years after the last Scripture was penned, so it cannot appear in Scripture. Still, the concept of it can be seen to be rejected in verses like these…
as a former Protestant I believed that the canon comprises apostolic tradition that is unique and normative in relation to later ecclesiastical tradition because the apostolic office is not capable of succession and because I believed that the Church by forming the canon purposefully submitted itself to the witness of the apostles. I also accepted the NT books because i believed that they included the original, earliest tradition of Christianity and that its close spatiotemporal relation to the events of Christianity puts it in a very unique position. I was not willing to concede that tradition provided a source of authoritative teaching independent of scripture but did acknowledge the the role the church played in subsequent interpretation of scripture, i just did not recognize the historical importance of tradition in contributing to the formation and substance of the canon as supporting the Catholic position on tradition.If you are Protestant, why do you accept the 27 books of the New Testament as being canonical?
Specifically, how did you personally conclude that each of the NT books contained in your Bible are the inspired Word of God and that there are no others that should be included?
Thanks.
I believe that Muslims believe that this is the method in which the Koran was written. Allah dictated the words directly to Mohammed, who simply wrote them down.
Actually, I do not subscribe to Dictation. Wayne Grudem sums up pretty well what I believe in his book on Systematic Theology…
If all scripture is God breathed (2 Tim 3:16), wouldn’t that make God the authority?
So God chose the words, and God is not a liar, so God doesn’t know who Paul baptized, so God is not omniscient and therefore is not God? That’s impossible. Take your “systematic theology” book back for a refund.
I’m not really sure what these verses prove? People can still learn from other people (rabbi, pastor, brother, etc). It’s when that rabbi, pastor, brother, etc goes against scripture that you should stand firm.
God would need to have some way to speak with you directly (uhm, like maybe through the Mass and the Sacraments?) to explain to you what He meant in His word the Bible.
Yes, but with “sola Scriptura” all you’ve got is the book - you have no direct access to the Author of the book, to ask Him what it means, when you come to the tricky parts.
Right - but God isn’t writing e-mail here - we can’t write back in response to the Bible, and have Him write back, "No, no - that’s not what I meant. Here, let me show you … "
If you don’t think the words in the Bible are God’s words, maybe I should let you borrow my book instead of returning it.
Prior to the advent of Sola Scriptura in the early 1500s AD, there were a total of fifteen heresies, over a period of 1500 years.Absolutely. I understand and can appreciate that perspective completely. However, reality is a delicate balancing act no matter which side of the fence you’re on because the opposite statement could easily be made: If it isn’t in the Bible, declaring it as part of the Truth opens the door to all kinds of heresy.
I thought Mohammed was illiterate
Certainly there are other ways to speak to/with God. If not, how did people speak to/with God before the Mass and Sacraments existed?
Consider what the punishment for heresy (perceived or actual) was during those 1500 years and that is your answer.
They didn’t - God communicated with Israel through the Prophets, and with the Gentiles by means of their mythology and philosophy.
Wow. Do you pray? If so, then why bother?
That isn’t what suddenly changed in the early 1500s.
Of course I pray. Prayer is made possible by Christ on the Cross, which gives the graces of the Sacraments, which provides the “telephone line” by which we can pray.