Why Scripture Alone?

Wrong. "Again"

 

If we are to understand what Protestants think, we will have to first know why they believe what they believe.

I don't know what religion you are from, but I think Jesus is the only way of salvation and I believe in Jesus and his word.

Now, since you have started alot of threads about Protestants, I would like to know what you think will get you into heaven? Being a good person? Religion? Belonging to the church? Being baptized? Just wondering because I'm not orthodox... I'm a Christian.

 

I fear we may have the makings of one of these. . .

 

Because it's easier to digest without any condiments.

 

I fear you're correct...

 

Because it's easier to digest without any condiments.</font>[/QUOTE]It's a pipe dream...

As soon as you get Two or Three gathered in His name you start sharing and that starts the process of documenting your local beliefs...

From then on, whether you like it or not, the interpretation of scripture will be based on those preconcieved definitions...

So, while we "say" we believe in Scripture Only, it is in a very real sense not humanly possible to do so...

Of course that's just my observation.

Mike Sr.

 

You're right: if they are honest, everyone really practises Scripture+tradition (small or large 'T') and so perhaps the real question is "which T/tradition is the right one?"

 

I agree that the sinful nature naturally leans to the "traditions-of-man" over the Bible alone!

That is true of all of us. But that is like saying that all mankind experiences "some kind of impure thoughts" -

Should we then say "How then can we include impure thoughts into our doctrines so that they encourage and support it"?

Why not let errors be left as errors? "Sola scriptura" is the Bible model for God's People as we see in Acts 17:11. The sinful nature has us all doing it "some other way" in our flesh.

So since we all tend to listen to our own leaders - we have NO LACK of listening to tradition in this mix. No lack at all!

And nobody is inclined to go to OTHER churches to listen to false doctrine and false tradition INSTEAD of the ones they feel are right.

That TOO is a given!

So I guess my question for Matt is -- what are you proposing?

Going back to the days of the reformation and Martin Luther - are the Catholics of his day "inclined" to turn away from their own magesterium and say "Luther is wrong but lets do whatever he says without looking at the Bible"??

I don't see that method of "Selecting the right tradition" as working in Luther's day - or at any other time in history.

 

If one leaves 'errors as errors', where does that leave us epistemologically? What, then, of Truth?

 

Best of all!

Leave errors in their own category and let truth stand out by contrast.

Let the sinful habbit of listening to men instead of God - remain "error". Let the instruction of Mark 7 - stand, since it so clearly condemns that error EVEN in the ONE true church started by God at Sinai!

 

But that posits no methodology of distinguishing between truth and error.

 

Spiritual people who are willing to 2 Chroncles 7:14 can and will be led into all truth...

Spiritual people who are Berean in attitude and who practice 2 Timothy 2:15 will be led into all truth...

Accountability in a group where each individual member ascribes to the above is generally 'safe'.

At least until hidden motives crop up...

Studying the historical background of the times in question...

Learning the languages involved from both secular and religious sources is also of use...

Comparing trusted sources to what you sense is correct and resolving conflicts to the best of your ability in the Spirit...

And if, and as long as, the churches Traditions follow the above course of action then we can add the traditions gone before us into our deliberations...

Those are my raw and rough thoughts.

Mike Sr.

 

Admittedly, tradition does play a role, but there is a pronounced difference between taking tradition as equal in authority to scripture and merely using tradition as a guide.

 

And yet one group of sincere people who follow the above can come to the conclusion that Jesus only died for some people whilst another sincere group following your advice can come up with the diea that He died for all, which produces two very different 'versions' of God...

[Reply to Mike]

 

Matt,

Probably two different views of the same crime scene...

And, there could have been some personal bias in there, too.

If I latch on too strongly to 'Absolute Predestination' then there are things that I simply will refuse to recieve from the Holy Spirit...

If I latch on too strongly to 'Free Will' then there is another set of truths I must 'avoid' to make 'Free Will' reign...

If I latch on too strongly to Grace then when discipline comes from the Lord I have to find ways of interpreting that to meet my expectations...

You get the idea, though?

If I am really seeking God's Answer then I strongly believe that I will get it...

But, I have to be willing to admit I've been wrong...

That's part of the 2 Chronicles 7:15... Until we humble ourselves... He won't heal...

And, admitting having been wrong about a preached 'truth' is _not_ a trait that comes easily to men.

I admit that all it takes is one self-possessed person to muck up the works...

Or, create a new denom...

SMM

(Seeing that there is some confusion between me Mike Sr and Mike D28guy)

 

Sorry, but I don't buy the 'two different views' thing; we are talking two mutually contradictory epistemologies here - one says God desires to save everybody, the other that He only loves some people; you can't play mix'n'match with the two.

 

Then I guess we can't go to church together.

Matt, I don't have answers to this dilema...

In fact I admitted what I wrote was 'raw'...

I do, though, think that in some cases our own emotions kick in before we can resolve semantical differences...

SMM

 

The confusion comes when we try to unify the dichotomy of theology. One is from God's perspective and the other from man's view. How God does things, and how man perceives God does things.

The efficacy of the cross is not diminished in that theologically, the blood is sufficient to save all, but is efficacious for the elect.

From man's perspective, the gospel is for all, but instead of some. Our only concern is that we obey the word and preach to all. God's job is to call those whom He will.

A good professor told me when I was a young student in ministry, "Jim, whatever you do or become in ministry, be available..." I never forgot that. Mine is not to reason why, but simply to do.

I also think people deceive themselves when they say scripture alone, when in fact we all draw upon other resources to better understand just what those very scriptures are saying.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I agree with your entire post Bro. Jim.