Sola Scripture -V- Traditions
- Thread starter Katy-follower
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This is ironic in that you have inadvertently proved my very point by disagreeing with me.
The point is the Eunich is not able to understand the scripture without it being explained to him, thereby disproving Sola Scriptura.
You interpret this to mean because Phillip explained it to him and because the conversation is recorded, we have no further need of explanation.
I am interpret this to be an example: Unless someone in the know explains to us, we can't know what scriptures really mean.
The very fact that you disagree with my interpretation of this passage necessitates that we have to look for another source to interpret the true meaning. The point here is you can't argue against my interpretation of scripture without demonstrating the falseness of Sola Scriptura.
This is even more ironic than the first in that you are now appealing to the history of the event to interpret the verse and by doing so breaking with Sola Scriptura.
Sounds like you don't have a clear understanding of what Sola scriptura is. Sola Scriptura means scripture alone. It does not mean without scripture. I believe in the Bible and that its the word of God. I just don't believe in private interpretation.
BTW, I take not that you only addressed the bible verses themselves and ignored the logical and historical problems of sola Scriptura
The point is the Eunich is not able to understand the scripture without it being explained to him, thereby disproving Sola Scriptura.
You interpret this to mean because Phillip explained it to him and because the conversation is recorded, we have no further need of explanation.
I am interpret this to be an example: Unless someone in the know explains to us, we can't know what scriptures really mean.
The very fact that you disagree with my interpretation of this passage necessitates that we have to look for another source to interpret the true meaning. The point here is you can't argue against my interpretation of scripture without demonstrating the falseness of Sola Scriptura.
This is even more ironic than the first in that you are now appealing to the history of the event to interpret the verse and by doing so breaking with Sola Scriptura.
Sounds like you don't have a clear understanding of what Sola scriptura is. Sola Scriptura means scripture alone. It does not mean without scripture. I believe in the Bible and that its the word of God. I just don't believe in private interpretation.
BTW, I take not that you only addressed the bible verses themselves and ignored the logical and historical problems of sola Scriptura
E
No we don't. if we assume anything, we can assume the fact if God wanted us to know it. He would have put it in his word. It is the assumption that God wanted us to know it. But for some reason did not put it in his word that actually gives God a bad name. It is an assumption that says God did not finish what he started to do. I know you don't believe this. But I can see it no other way.
E
yet scripture does not leave us this way, It gives us checks and balances.
His reasoning is backwards. We can not agree. so we must look to men to settle our disagreement.
What did Jesus do when they disagreed? He went to scripture. What did Paul do? He went to scripture. This is what we should do. Not go to men.
E
amazing huh?
the great round-a-bout to downgrade the scriptures and have me in a confessional.
maybe we should throw rocks in our hats or look at chicken entrails. what's the difference?
no thanks.
so, if we are sola scriptura, we are saying no one can preach.
mkay.
the great round-a-bout to downgrade the scriptures and have me in a confessional.
maybe we should throw rocks in our hats or look at chicken entrails. what's the difference?
no thanks.
so, if we are sola scriptura, we are saying no one can preach.
mkay.
Here's another way of looking at it then. The written word is not the best method to convey every single idea. As humans are multidimensional and learn in numerous ways, would it not make sense that God would use a multidimensional way to communicate His truths?
But for a moment, forget about what's in the Bible or whether or not its' complete. What if you can't read? What if you are illiterate for one reason or another? Suppose you are blind? What if I tell you "read the bible so you can learn to be save. All the answers are in the Bible." And you counter with "I can't read." And so I answer with "too bad for you. God communicates through his written word. If you can't read, I guess that means that God doesn't want to talk to you."
To the vast majority of all people everywhere, for the first 1500 years of Christianity, it didn't matter in the least if the Bible had all the answers or not because there was no way a person could read. Most people were illiterate and even if they weren't, copies of the Bible were scarce because they had to be hand copied.
What I would like to see is for someone to argue sola scriptura for a world without a printing press.
But for a moment, forget about what's in the Bible or whether or not its' complete. What if you can't read? What if you are illiterate for one reason or another? Suppose you are blind? What if I tell you "read the bible so you can learn to be save. All the answers are in the Bible." And you counter with "I can't read." And so I answer with "too bad for you. God communicates through his written word. If you can't read, I guess that means that God doesn't want to talk to you."
To the vast majority of all people everywhere, for the first 1500 years of Christianity, it didn't matter in the least if the Bible had all the answers or not because there was no way a person could read. Most people were illiterate and even if they weren't, copies of the Bible were scarce because they had to be hand copied.
What I would like to see is for someone to argue sola scriptura for a world without a printing press.
J
"... and he said, let there be Flannelgraph and Projector Screens! And so it was"
Yeah, taken care of.
Audio bible.
Repeat.
Braille is a wonderful language.
Then your being a brat. You can read for them.
Did not the Catholic church teach Catechism at this time?
This isn't an argument against Sola Scriptura. It's just about Economics and technology.
Audio bibles.
Yeah, taken care of.
Audio bible.
Repeat.
Braille is a wonderful language.
Then your being a brat. You can read for them.
Did not the Catholic church teach Catechism at this time?
This isn't an argument against Sola Scriptura. It's just about Economics and technology.
Audio bibles.