Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators
New_Adventurer wrote:Why is a book necessary for salvation?
What if the person cannot read?
natman wrote:The Apostle Paul admonished the Bareans for testing everything he said against the Scriptures.
"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11
natman wrote:The principle of Sola-Scriptura does not indicate that the Scriptures are the ONLY means to salvation. It merely asserts that everything must be examined in light if Scripture and Scripture alone, rather than any traditions or works of mankind. However, Scripture points to the other "solas", Sola-Gratia (Grace alone), Sola-Fide (Faith alone) in Solus-Christo (in Christ alone) for Soli-Deo-Gloria (for the glory of God alone), all of which can be experienced in the absence of Scripture, through God's natural creation (again, according to Scripture itself).
bn2bnude wrote:natman wrote:The Apostle Paul admonished the Bareans for testing everything he said against the Scriptures.
"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11
I don't think admonished is the word you want..
bn2bnude wrote:natman wrote:The principle of Sola-Scriptura does not indicate that the Scriptures are the ONLY means to salvation. It merely asserts that everything must be examined in light if Scripture and Scripture alone, rather than any traditions or works of mankind. However, Scripture points to the other "solas", Sola-Gratia (Grace alone), Sola-Fide (Faith alone) in Solus-Christo (in Christ alone) for Soli-Deo-Gloria (for the glory of God alone), all of which can be experienced in the absence of Scripture, through God's natural creation (again, according to Scripture itself).
I'd like to challenge this a bit...
Unlike Luther, we tend to use the 3 (or 5) sola's in a vacuum without context. For instance, I don't think "Sola Scriptura" was as much about the Bible and it attributes as it was a commentary on the state of the church at that point in time. For example, from what I've read, the concern Luther had was people honoring traditions that were contrary to Scripture.
I believe the same context discussion could or should be considered when using any of the others.
c.o. wrote:natman wrote:...Sola-Gratia (Grace alone), Sola-Fide (Faith alone) in Solus-Christo (in Christ alone) for Soli-Deo-Gloria (for the glory of God alone), all of which can be experienced in the absence of Scripture, through God's natural creation (again, according to Scripture itself).
Natman, please help me to understand.
If it is true that grace, faith, and Christ alone can be experienced through natural creation, why would God bother revealing Himself through prophets, revealing His righteousness, our incapacity for it and His grace through Torah; revealing Himself in the Word made flesh, revealing atonement, resurrection and eternal life through Jesus' work? Why would Jesus tell us to spread this message to all the world if the gospel is able to be completely experienced through creation?
If only natural creation is capable of revealing all of this to a suitable extent, Scripture and all that was involved in bringing it to us is redundant at best.
natman wrote:bn2bnude wrote:natman wrote:The principle of Sola-Scriptura does not indicate that the Scriptures are the ONLY means to salvation. It merely asserts that everything must be examined in light if Scripture and Scripture alone, rather than any traditions or works of mankind. However, Scripture points to the other "solas", Sola-Gratia (Grace alone), Sola-Fide (Faith alone) in Solus-Christo (in Christ alone) for Soli-Deo-Gloria (for the glory of God alone), all of which can be experienced in the absence of Scripture, through God's natural creation (again, according to Scripture itself).
I'd like to challenge this a bit...
Unlike Luther, we tend to use the 3 (or 5) sola's in a vacuum without context. For instance, I don't think "Sola Scriptura" was as much about the Bible and it attributes as it was a commentary on the state of the church at that point in time. For example, from what I've read, the concern Luther had was people honoring traditions that were contrary to Scripture.
I believe the same context discussion could or should be considered when using any of the others.
??? I think we are saying the same thing or something similar.
I think that Luther was as concerned about church leaders elevating ANY tradition not explicitly defined in Scripture above Scripture itself, the same thing that the Pharisees had done. These were some of the same issues that Paul dealt with in the early church Judaizers who insisted that in order to be a Christian, one had to first become a Jew through physical circumcision.
Ramblinman wrote:I really like the idea of an open source Bible, and I read KJV for my own use, but I probably would NOT preach from it.
It is said to be the "Authorized Version" of the Bible, but authorized by whom?
It was translated by a committee that compromised many times over with a power-hungry king and with a majority on that committee having a Church of England bias. Not good!
Ramblinman wrote:Could a new committee of evangelicals give us a translation for our day?
...
We need an open-source Bible again!
Ramblinman wrote:I really like the idea of an open source Bible, and I read KJV for my own use, but I probably would NOT preach from it.
It is said to be the "Authorized Version" of the Bible, but authorized by whom?
It was translated by a committee that compromised many times over with a power-hungry king and with a majority on that committee having a Church of England bias. Not good!
Could a new committee of evangelicals give us a translation for our day?
I don't think the New King James Bible goes far enough.
Let's go back to the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew source materials armed with the additional manuscripts available to us and with the additional insight into the Koine and Classical Hebrew.
English has changed quite a bit in 406 years.
I realize that translators deserve to be paid for their work, so maybe give royalties to them without prohibiting the free publication of the Bible in that version.
We need an open-source Bible again!
The World English Bible (WEB) is a Public Domain (no copyright) Modern English translation of the Holy Bible. That means that you may freely copy it in any form, including electronic and print formats. The World English Bible is based on the American Standard Version of the Holy Bible first published in 1901, the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensa Old Testament, and the Greek Majority Text New Testament. It is in draft form, and currently being edited for accuracy and readability.
bn2bnude wrote:Have I got the Bible for you...
c.o. wrote:bn2bnude wrote:Have I got the Bible for you...
By any chance do you have a vacuum cleaner, aluminum siding, something that slices and dices, or a used car to sell?
Return to Unanswered questions about Christianity
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest