Sola Scripture—What does it mean?

[Pastor Larry]

My summer vacation has come to an end and I no longer have the time to refute absurd and ridiculous posts.

We can only hope that will prevent you from making them as well. That would have spared us this whole thread.

Options 3 and 4 are ridiculous because of your position, not becuase of the underlying facts. You stoop to ridiculing a position that you cannot answer.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Pastor Larry wrote,

You stoop to ridiculing a position that you cannot answer.

I have answered your position, but you have ridiculed mine! Unless you can post some data to support your position that the doctrine of eternal security was known during the 1500 years period between the close of the New Testament Canon the 16th century, all that you have is empty conjecture that is refuted by the facts, and I shall not respond to any more of your posts in this thread.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:

Originally posted by UZThD:
[qb] To some extent the uniformity of doctrine in the prereformational church can be attributed not to sound exegesis but to submission to ecclesiastical authority.

The key phrase here is "To some extent." And this is, or course, true. However, the ecclesiastical authority of which you write did not even exist until the 5th century,

===

I would say 4th, eg, the Nicene.

 

[Pipedude]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Throughout the history of the Church we find several different views, including the view held by the majority of Baptists today.

Are these real groups who denied baptismal regeneration, or Trail of Blood groups?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I have answered your position, but you have ridiculed mine!

Where did either of these happen? I pointed out that you wrongly defined sola scriptura, and pointed out your incorrect assertions about hermeneutics. I also pointed out the contradictory statements you have made about historical theology. I made a side comment about eternal security, and even asked you a question which you didn't answer. In none of those cases did I ridicule anything. The closest I came was the last post, when I commented about how bailing out without giving any answers seemed indicative of not having any.

Unless you can post some data to support your position that the doctrine of eternal security was known during the 1500 years period between the close of the New Testament Canon the 16th century, all that you have is empty conjecture that is refuted by the facts, and I shall not respond to any more of your posts in this thread.

First, This was not my point in posting, nor was it the title of the thread. I posted on the title of the thread. Second, I have pointed out your faulty methodology of asserting incomplete historical theology for the authority of biblical revelation (something you deny while inadvertently confirming). Third, I have made no conjecture about church history. I am the one who has said we don't know enough to be adamant. You are the one conjecturing that no one ever taught eternal security. You may be right, but you certainly haven't proved it. The most you have done is shown that you have failed to read anyone who taught it priot to that. You have no proven those people don't exist. This response is troubling to you because perhaps because it points out the problems that others have let you get away with. Your type of argumentation would not carry weight in any seminary worth its salt. You have failed to establish even a prima facie case for your position. You have depended on faulty definitions (whether they spring from lack of knowledge or distortion of the truth). You have depended on inadequate argumentative techniques. In short, you haven't made much of a case for your position. If you wish to leave it that way, that is fine with me. But don't blame me for it. All I did was point out some things that you wish I would not have pointed out.

 

[Brother Ian]

There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture. A verse cannot be interpreted one way that is correct for one person and interpreted a different way for someone else and still be the correct interpretation.

One correct interpretation. Many, many applications.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Brother Ian:
There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture. A verse cannot be interpreted one way that is correct for one person and interpreted a different way for someone else and still be the correct interpretation.

One correct interpretation. Many, many applications.

Agreed, and in many cases, that one correct interpretation is not held by any man.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Ian:
There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture. A verse cannot be interpreted one way that is correct for one person and interpreted a different way for someone else and still be the correct interpretation.

One correct interpretation. Many, many applications.

Agreed, and in many cases, that one correct interpretation is not held by any man. </font>[/QUOTE]In which cases? And how do you know in which cases?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Ian:
There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture. A verse cannot be interpreted one way that is correct for one person and interpreted a different way for someone else and still be the correct interpretation.

One correct interpretation. Many, many applications.

Agreed, and in many cases, that one correct interpretation is not held by any man. </font>[/QUOTE]In which cases? And how do you know in which cases? </font>[/QUOTE]If I knew, then my statement would be incorrect.

 

[Andy T.]

And since you don't know, your statement is essentially useless.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
And since you don't know, your statement is essentially useless.

Maybe for those who believe they are the infalliable source of authority for interpreting scripture.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
And since you don't know, your statement is essentially useless.

Maybe for those who believe they are the infalliable source of authority for interpreting scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]That doesn't describe me, but your statement was useless to me. You said, "in many cases..." Why many? Why not some? Why not a few? Why not all? How do you know this?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
You said, "in many cases." Why many? Why not some? Why not a few? Why not all? How do you know this?

Good point in bringing up all which I believe to be a true statement as well.

Have you every heard of the concept of approximate truth?

The philosophical idea being that all our understandings of anything is an approximation of that thing and never fully 100% correct. Some approximations are better than others. For example, Einstein's concept of gravity is a better approximation of the truth of gravity than Netwon's. But in the future, someone will probably come up with a better theory of gravity than Einstein.

The same idea can apply to our interpretations of scripture. Eternal security may be a better approximation of what the bible is saying than conditional security. But someday, we may be able to articulate what the bible says on the topic even better than the way either concept currently expresses it.

I believe a tension between trusting our interpretations of scripture and not trusting our interpretations of scripture is an important part of having faith and humility.

In all things, may we trust in our infallible and inerrant God. And may we never confuse our fallible and errant interpretations of God's inspired, authoritative and trustworthy scripture to mankind as being God.

 

[Andy T.]

I can see your point on things like the Trinity, which are inherently mysterious. But most of God's Revelation to us is not that mysterious.