Featured Sola scriptura

No Creed should be treated on par with the Bibe, let alone taken to trump the Bible, but the Creeds should be respected as the judgment of early church authorities.

 

I believe ALL the intel we have today about God is from the Bible, and nothing else. And I believe the Bible is a mostly-literal book. What symbolism, figurative speech, and allegory it has is explained in other Scriptures within it, by hindsight, and by an overview of the Gospel.

History and archaeology bear out the literality of the Bible, including such events as the stopping of the sun & moon in the sky for Joshua, and the temporary reversal of the course of the sun in the sky for Hezekiah.

(There's a Pawnee Indian legend about a hare setting a snare to trap the sun as he rose, but the sun saw the snare and retreated for a while. The hare grew tired of waiting, and left, while the sun slowly came back, and, seeing the hare gone, resumed his normal course. Sunrise in Pawnee territory corresponds with midday in Jerusalem.)

Archaeology confirms the existence of ancient cities mentioned in Scripture. For example, not long ago, archaeologists, using an ancient Egyptian merchant's map, found the remains of Gomorrah, which indeed had been burnt so that some of the stone had melted.

Believing and preaching the Bible as LITERAL prevents many people from falling for quasi/pseudo-Christian cults which are formed by charlatans inventing new meanings for some Scriptures. IMO, these cults are more-dangerous than non-Christian ones such as Bhuddism, as their proselytes believe they're already saved & it's VERY hard to convince their members they're in a false religion.

So, yes, I'm quite Sola Scriptura!

 

Not taking most of the Bible literally is related to liberalism more than cults. Most cults believe they take the Bible very literally. In fact, cults often use a literal reading of scripture to "prove" that mainstream churches have wrong doctrine. For example, the Bible says Jesus will descend with the voice of an archangel, therefore the bible literally identifies Jesus as an angel, some cults say.

The chief cause of cults is bad mainstream doctrine that leads some church leaders to make false predictions about out times. Consider how many cults are started by people who predicted the imminent return of Jesus.

 

I agree. Most cults are better than the faithlessness and hostility of Liberalism.

 

And again, where does religious liberalism come from? Not believing the Bible LITERALLY, and adding new meanings to some Scriptures while ignoring others.

 

Liberalism is not believing the Bible. This can be overt, such as the Jesus Seminar claiming Jesus didn't do most of the things the Bible says he did. But, it can also be hidden, such as sometimes when people claim something isn't literal as a cover for rejecting it. But, not everything in the Bible is literal, such as the vision in Revelation.

 

What symbolism there is in Scripture always represents something literal, and is either explained by other Scriptures, or is made clear by hindsight and an overview of the entire Bible.

History and archaeology have verified most events described in Scripture, and has not disproven a single one. Two examples are:

1.) The finding of the remains of Gomorrah by following an ancient Egyptian merchant's map found in his tomb. This merchant was so important he was buried in the Valley of the Kings. When Gomorrah was found, the stone foundations of some buildings were found to have been burned with sulfur and some had been partially melted.

2.) The temporary reversal of the sun in its course for Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20:11. In Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds In Collision, he gives the sources of the legends of this event from all over the world, including the Greek legend of Phaeton, and the Pawnee Indians' legend about the sun's retreating to avoid a trap. Such an event as the sun's appearing to be going backwards would hardly have been ignored by history, and it WASN'T.

And we see a full explanation of the vision of the beast and the harlot in Rev. 17 in the latter part of that chapter. No, Biblical symbolism shouldn't be a mystery to any true Christian.

 

Would say that the doctrine of soal-scriptura does not mean that ALL that we haveand can use is the Bible, but that while we can use things such as confessions/Creeds/Theologies of men, and other wriiten materials, that NONE of them are on par with scripture, as it is the Bible alone to be seen as being final authority in all doctrines and practices@

 

I believe the creeds & confessions were ultimately derived from Scripture.

 

One cannot discern when the Scripture is speaking metaphorically or figuratively unless they first attempt to interpret scripture literally. It is only when every word is first taken at its common ordinary literal meaning, thus when the common sense makes sense seek no other sense unless the immediate context or other axiomatic truths demand otherwise, can figurative or metaphorical intent be recognized.

 

If a phrase uses a word that appears nonsensical if taken literally, it's probably figurative speech. See any common English figure of speech for an example. But, beware of people who take sensible phrases and insist they're figures of speech in order to distort scripture to fit some doctrine. See anyone trying to fit scripture to a false doctrine.

 

I agree with you on thisn'n, Smyth. If we could change words/phrases in Scripture to mean what WE wanted, the TRUTH of Scripture would soon become muddled & lost.

Most pseudo/quasi-Christian cults, sects, & false doctrines are founded from that very practice. Some glaring examples are 7th day adventist, the false branches of pentecostalism, which includes most of today's "megachurches", Herbie Armstrong's "worldwide Church of God", "Name it-claim it", regenerational baptism, the KJVO myth, and preterism myth.