Sola Scriptura?

[glfredrick]

I cannot answer the poll, for it is full of loaded options. The choices are akin to asking someone the question, "Does your wife like it when you beat her?" In other words, the fallacy, "begging the question."

You do not offer the option, "Other works magnify and add to the study of God's Word, but are neither inspired nor on the same level as the revealed Word." That would be my preferred choice.

 

[glfredrick]

That is only true in infinitely dimensional isomorphic vector space theory.

Unless we invoke path integral formulation into the equation... Then pi may indeed be square and cornbread round. :laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

Preacher for truth;
You have expressed a belief in Calvinism yet none of Calvinism lines up with scripture. I can only presume you learned all this stuff from a teacher or some book because your sure haven’t learned it from scripture.

Can you show where scripture clearly states the Natural man cannot respond to the gospel nor will he ever with out first being saved?

Can you show biblical proof of before faith regeneration from scripture? I’m not talking about some dance around answer?

Can you prove The atonement is only for a pre-elect group from before the foundation of the world with out them being in Christ to begin with?

Why is it Calvinist claim unconditional election yet only a few, (according to them), are elect? If it’s really unconditional then why isn’t everyone saved?

Why would perseverance of the saints be called such, when Salvation is a permanent arrangement? Who’s doing the perseverance? Since for all intents and purposes perseverance is work?.

All this Calvinist get from books or there pastors or teachers because none of it is in scripture.
Oh I’ve seen all the scriptures used to support these false beliefs and not one of them clearly define any of them. No Calvinist teacher has ever proved it nor will they ever because it is not truth.
God dependence is your only hope of ever understanding the scriptures. I’m not asking that you believe me but, you really should believe God alone and that’s what sola scriptura means.
MB

This OP is concerning what?

Your topic is a straw man, signify that you're losing.

:wavey:

Yep, I have expressed a belief in it. You're right there. Then your fingers get ahead of facts on the rest of your accusations. I never laid ANY claim to all you accuse of about Calvinism and my beliefs. Yet this is the norm for you.

Many on here would testify my limited and balanced acceptance of some points of Calvinism. I'm not thematic on it. Go take a gander at "What's at Stake?" and see in the OP just how strong my beliefs in Calvinism are.

Anyhow, this OP has to do with whether or not we believe in using other methods and extrabiblical works to understand the Scriptures. Something you are against, and which can be cleary seen on the thread this OP came from.

It's unfortunate that you resort to fairy tails and outright mistruths as a comeback. Anyone can take a look at this OP and see where you made up nonsense based on my statement: "Certainly salvation is easy to understand as a babe. But it becomes more complex as we grow. We have more questions. Thus the many volumes of theological works". From this you derived that I use mens works as to grow in grace....as inerrant, and further drivel and lies coming from you in response.

I mean, this is really sad that a believer resorts to lying.

Pull out your Scriptures and read in Exodus 20, the 9th commandment, about bearing false witness. If you can't comprehend the 9th commandment, grab a commentary to help you. This is exactly what you have done, you bear false witness against me. That you can't admit it tells me more about the person you truly are.

Then, after you humbly admit that you have misrepresented me on here, twice, go take a look at my post "What's at Stake?" and figure it out concerning my stance on Calvinism. My reason for being here is to learn and fellowship. Yours has been to slander, accuse, make false statements and accusations completely unfounded.

I'm here to learn. Not accuse. Nor allow someone who lies, as you do, to deter me from it.

:wavey:

 

[preacher4truth]

I cannot answer the poll, for it is full of loaded options. The choices are akin to asking someone the question, "Does your wife like it when you beat her?" In other words, the fallacy, "begging the question."

You do not offer the option, "Other works magnify and add to the study of God's Word, but are neither inspired nor on the same level as the revealed Word." That would be my preferred choice.

Why does there need to be a disclaimer that other works don't do the above things? This poll was generated due to the facts on the original poll, wherein I was accused of being wrong for not using the Word of God only for study, and that using the words of man is wrong.

Although I enjoyed your illustration above, it falls short of describing what this poll is about or akin to. Instead it just shows your lack of understanding on a rather simplistic thread, or that you're on perhaps another agenda.

I'll bet on the latter.

 

[glfredrick]

Why does there need to be a disclaimer that other works don't do the above things? This poll was generated due to the facts on the original poll, wherein I was accused of being wrong for not using teh wWord of God only for study, and that using the words of man is wrong.

Because I (we) hold only Scripture to be the revealed Word of God. All other work is good, decent, and informative -- very helpful, indispensable, perhaps -- for the study, but not God's Specific Revelation.

 

[preacher4truth]

Because I (we) hold only Scripture to be the revealed Word of God. All other work is good, decent, and informative -- very helpful, indispensable, perhaps -- for the study, but not God's Specific Revelation.

Revelation doesn't always mean special, general, or natural.

I use it in its general, secular sense.

 

[quantumfaith]

Unless we invoke path integral formulation into the equation... Then pi may indeed be square and cornbread round. :laugh:

Smiling.....:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

Because I (we) hold only Scripture to be the revealed Word of God. All other work is good, decent, and informative -- very helpful, indispensable, perhaps -- for the study, but not God's Specific Revelation.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[glfredrick]

Revelation doesn't always mean special, general, or natural.

I use it in its general, secular sense.

There are types of revelation, equally valid, as all come from God, but differentiation between the types is important. Only one is "specific" in detail and type, "inspired" by God, and "inerrant".

The other revelations, general, etc., are all VERY valuable, but have a higher degree of interpretation involved in understanding what we see (if we can indeed interpret those accurately).

Plato, for instance, did a remarkable job -- perhaps the best of any natural man, using the general revelation observed from living on this planet -- to give us a picture of "god" and "god's actions" and philosophy. But, he missed the boat on several critical issues because he did not have specific details, prophecies, etc., that have given us the direct mind of God.

Can we use Plato's insights into the world around us? Absolutely. Do they trump Scripture? Not a chance. Same with human logic, reason, observation, etc. All very valuable, but not in the same league with Scripture.

 

[preacher4truth]

There are types of revelation, equally valid, as all come from God, but differentiation between the types is important. Only one is "specific" in detail and type, "inspired" by God, and "inerrant".

The other revelations, general, etc., are all VERY valuable, but have a higher degree of interpretation involved in understanding what we see (if we can indeed interpret those accurately).

Plato, for instance, did a remarkable job -- perhaps the best of any natural man, using the general revelation observed from living on this planet -- to give us a picture of "god" and "god's actions" and philosophy. But, he missed the boat on several critical issues because he did not have specific details, prophecies, etc., that have given us the direct mind of God.

Can we use Plato's insights into the world around us? Absolutely. Do they trump Scripture? Not a chance. Same with human logic, reason, observation, etc. All very valuable, but not in the same league with Scripture.

My only point in the thread is that other works are good for study helps, but are not Scripture, and other men help assist our learning the Scriptures. For that to be twisted into what it was (as seen in the OP) is utter foolishness and inflammatory nonsense. I agree with all you said above. Perhaps my choices in the poll aren't clear, but the length of each question is limited to so many characters, and makes it somewhat difficult to express them fully.

 

[glfredrick]

My only point in the thread is that other works are good for study helps, but are not Scripture, and other men help assist our learning the Scriptures. For that to be twisted into what it was (as seen in the OP) is utter foolishness and inflammatory nonsense. I agree with all you said above. Perhaps my choices in the poll aren't clear, but the length of each question is limited to so many characters, and makes it somewhat difficult to express them fully.

Yup... Point made. We're on the same page. :thumbs:

 

[Amy.G]

Originally Posted by quantumfaith
That is only true in infinitely dimensional isomorphic vector space theory.

Unless we invoke path integral formulation into the equation... Then pi may indeed be square and cornbread round.

TOOOOO funny!!!!! :laugh::laugh:

 

[David Lamb]

I haven't voted, because there is not a choice that states my view in a way that is not open to misinterpretation. (I'm not blaming preacher4truth for this - I realise the difficulties of composing a poll).

I don't think it's wrong to use things like concordances, bible dictionaries, commentaries, but (as others have said) it would be wrong to do so if we were to elevate such extra-biblical works, and consider them in any way as inspired or inerrant.

 

[preacher4truth]

I haven't voted, because there is not a choice that states my view in a way that is not open to misinterpretation. (I'm not blaming preacher4truth for this - I realise the difficulties of composing a poll).

I don't think it's wrong to use things like concordances, bible dictionaries, commentaries, but (as others have said) it would be wrong to do so if we were to elevate such extra-biblical works, and consider them in any way as inspired or inerrant.

My apologies for the difficulties understanding the poll questions. Here they are, further expressed:


It is an error and/or heretical to use anything other than God's Word. Using other works to help understand and interpret Scripture is plain wrong.

Thus, the next choice:

I use only God's Word alone. Using other sources to help understand the Bible is wrong.

I use God's Word and other resources. When studying Scripture, I use other resources to assist me in interpretation.

Using other works means you accept these as inerrant Simply using these means you see them on the same level as Scripture, as inspired, theos pnuestos.

It can actually be dangerous to only use His Word on ones own. I have personally witnessed persons who refuse to seek other resources dangerously interpret passages way out of context and application. So, can this be dangerous? Yes or no?

People fall into error with the "Scripture only" mentality. Self-explanatory. Can this happen or is it impossible?

I am closer to God using only His Word. Since I only ever have used the Bible to understand the Bible, I am holier that thou.

I have found greater revelation of truth using others works. In other words, by studying Biblical culture, theology, commentaries &c, I have been able to have more enligthening Bible studies. Revelation here does not mean a divine revelation from God.

Scripture necessitates using others works to help us understand Scripture. Some of the sayings in Scriptures require an understanding of the cultural context in order to understand them.

Using others works means you equate them as equal to Scripture. You believe if others seek extra-biblical works to study the Bible, other than the Bible alone, this means that said persons believe those works are inspired like the Bible.

* The poll was written in reaction to one on here who accused me of believing that other works are inspired, that using them means I have placed my faith in other men, that I in fact believe them to be inspired, and other absurd accusations ensued.

 

[glfredrick]

TOOOOO funny!!!!! :laugh::laugh:

Alas, cosmologists and physicists wrestle with those issues every day. They are actual mathematical constructs used to describe the workings of our universe.

Weirdly, we've been taught, based in Euclidean geometry that certain formulas are always true -- that the sum of the angles of a triangle always equal 180 degrees for instance. But in non-Euclidean geometry, a triangle may be less than or more than 180 degrees depending on hyperbolic or elliptic geometry. That means that we can no longer (nor could we ever) actually "prove" anything based on numbers for they are not always as they seem.

We hold number theory to be true based on axioms -- logical propositions that are deemed true because they are self-evident, but are not proven. Thus things are not always as they seem, nor is there any satisfaction derived from numbers, as they only point to an uncertain cosmos.

Of course, we CAN be certain of one thing -- by faith -- that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that He is the only SURE thing (if we dare call God a "thing").

 

[quantumfaith]

Alas, cosmologists and physicists wrestle with those issues every day. They are actual mathematical constructs used to describe the workings of our universe.

Weirdly, we've been taught, based in Euclidean geometry that certain formulas are always true -- that the sum of the angles of a triangle always equal 180 degrees for instance. But in non-Euclidean geometry, a triangle may be less than or more than 180 degrees depending on hyperbolic or elliptic geometry. That means that we can no longer (nor could we ever) actually "prove" anything based on numbers for they are not always as they seem.

We hold number theory to be true based on axioms -- logical propositions that are deemed true because they are self-evident, but are not proven. Thus things are not always as they seem, nor is there any satisfaction derived from numbers, as they only point to an uncertain cosmos.

Of course, we CAN be certain of one thing -- by faith -- that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that He is the only SURE thing (if we dare call God a "thing").

Good post glfredrick.

Mathematics is "man made", although even that is debated by scientific philosophers. When we(science community) have found conditions in which current mathematical models and systems do not "work", we then set about to create new ones to "solve" the problem. Case in point, the advent of quantum physics in the 20th century. As you are most likely aware, it was a "difficult pill to swallow" even by some of the greatest science and math minds, and yet it enjoys almost a century of accurate predictions. Aside from knowledge of God, to me, understanding (attempting to) and modeling God's infinite and awesome creation is as they say "the bomb".

 

[glfredrick]

Good post glfredrick.

Mathematics is "man made", although even that is debated by scientific philosophers. When we(science community) have found conditions in which current mathematical models and systems do not "work", we then set about to create new ones to "solve" the problem. Case in point, the advent of quantum physics in the 20th century. As you are most likely aware, it was a "difficult pill to swallow" even by some of the greatest science and math minds, and yet it enjoys almost a century of accurate predictions. Aside from knowledge of God, to me, understanding (attempting to) and modeling God's infinite and awesome creation is as they say "the bomb".

We're getting far afield from the OP. Perhaps a new thread.

But, have you considered information as the key and source of all things? At the core of everything is nothing more than information. That information is structured by God into what appears to us as solid entities, but from the basis of Science, we rightly understand that what we perceive as "solid" is in fact nothing more than positive and negative charges cleverly arranged to have properties in keeping with the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons (not to mention the building blocks of such).

 

[quantumfaith]

We're getting far afield from the OP. Perhaps a new thread.

But, have you considered information as the key and source of all things? At the core of everything is nothing more than information. That information is structured by God into what appears to us as solid entities, but from the basis of Science, we rightly understand that what we perceive as "solid" is in fact nothing more than positive and negative charges cleverly arranged to have properties in keeping with the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons (not to mention the building blocks of such).

I have only done cursory reading on the "information thingy", as I recall it relates to string theory and super string theory. This is mentioned in a book called "The Hidden Face of God, by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. (One of my favorite science/faith integration writers)

 

[quantumfaith]

Is the following logic deficient?

P: All systematic theologies are created by man
P: All men are fallible
C: All systematic theologies are fallible

 

[glfredrick]

Is the following logic deficient?

P: All systematic theologies are created by man
P: All men are fallible
C: All systematic theologies are fallible

Yup... equivocation and begging the question.

But that doesn't mean that, pragmatically, it doesn't work out that way. I know of no systematics that are infallible. I'd say that the flaw in your logic comes in the first statement and if I were to defeat the proposition that is where I would start. Systematic theology SHOULD be an expression of biblical truth, not something created by man.