Sola Scriptura began in 70AD?

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

As I said before, yes, of course it's the people! People interpreting differently which is acceptable according to the Sola Scriptura method. A book cannot interpret itself, people do, which is why the book cannot be the sole authority.

Ok, it's the people, good! Unfortunately, SS is NOT the cause of different interpretations. Apples & oranges. The Bible is the one book that can interpret itself, and it often does. Many passages are not very clear until one reads deeper into the Scriptures. The Gospels and Revelation are good examples of how Scripture interprets Scripture.

An example: Jesus said: "Call no man father..." If I interpret it one way and you another, one of us is wrong. How do we settle the tie? Look for other Scriptures for clarification, not an outside source.

Originally Posted by Radiant1

According to the Sola Scriptura method you can interpret one way and I can interpret another way, and we both can point a finger at each other saying the other is wrong. This is the basis of Protestantism. This is why Protestantism is in confusion. God is not the author of confusion. Ergo, Sola Scriptura is not of God and you can also therefore surmise that Protestantism isn't either.

That's absurd. (And I won't call it logic at all). While we can both interpret the Bible differently, in most cases one of us would be wrong. People today choose a flawed "belief system" because they haven't received the correct messages from Scripture.

Originally Posted by Radiant1

You're already admitting it's failure or the very least it's lack when you say "it only works when".

Hardly! Again, you're not getting the point. The Holy Spirit doesn't give you one meaning of Scripture and me another (except in very rare cases and you can be assured they're not contradictory). The problem is: one listens correctly and the entire biblical context fits together and another listens but allows external sources to interfere with the voice of the Holy Spirit and thus gets the wrong message.

[cheezgrits]

Let me see if my dumb self has this straight....

Basically, the Bible can't interpret itself because the Bible you folks are reading today has been edited, translated, interpreted and changed over the years.

If it were me, I'd like to read it myself (which I have and am again. Love the Old Testament..."burn these animals, this is an aroma pleasing to the Lord...yuck..) but when I had questions, I'd like to have authority and smarter folks give me insight on it...

Glad the Native spirituality doesn't require a Bible...we just have the stories and tales and we know they've been changed through the ages...

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by ItalianScallion

Ok, it's the people, good! Unfortunately, SS is NOT the cause of different interpretations. Apples & oranges. The Bible is the one book that can interpret itself, and it often does. Many passages are not very clear until one reads deeper into the Scriptures. The Gospels and Revelation are good examples of how Scripture interprets Scripture.

An example: Jesus said: "Call no man father..." If I interpret it one way and you another, one of us is wrong. How do we settle the tie? Look for other Scriptures for clarification, not an outside source.

Yes, by the Sola Scriptura model we look for other scripture for clarification, and interpret that as we will. You and I still interpret "Call no man father" differently. So, what's your point again? Here's mine. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.

Originally Posted by ItalianScallion

That's absurd. (And I won't call it logic at all). While we can both interpret the Bible differently, in most cases one of us would be wrong. People today choose a flawed "belief system" because they haven't received the correct messages from Scripture.

You're right, one of us has to be wrong, and there are flawed belief systems because SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.

Originally Posted by ItalianScallion

Hardly! Again, you're not getting the point. The Holy Spirit doesn't give you one meaning of Scripture and me another (except in very rare cases and you can be assured they're not contradictory). The problem is: one listens correctly and the entire biblical context fits together and another listens but allows external sources to interfere with the voice of the Holy Spirit and thus gets the wrong message.

So which one is using external sources, the one who doesn't agree with your interpretation, right? I'm getting dizzy from your circles, stop being foolish. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.




I guess you didn't want to tackle conclusions 2, 3, and 4. I'm disappointed.

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

Originally Posted by cheezgrits

Let me see if my dumb self has this straight....
Basically, the Bible can't interpret itself because the Bible you folks are reading today has been edited, translated, interpreted and changed over the years...

Definitely not my view point...

Originally Posted by Radiant1

Yes, by the Sola Scriptura model we look for other scripture for clarification, and interpret that as we will. You and I still interpret "Call no man father" differently. So, what's your point again? Here's mine. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.
You're right, one of us has to be wrong, and there are flawed belief systems because SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.
So which one is using external sources, the one who doesn't agree with your interpretation, right? I'm getting dizzy from your circles, stop being foolish. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.
I guess you didn't want to tackle conclusions 2, 3, and 4. I'm disappointed.

Actually we should stop now. You're acting like a liberal: You have nothing to say so you say the same thing over & over.

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by ItalianScallion

Actually we should stop now. You're acting like a liberal: You have nothing to say so you say the same thing over & over.

I only repeat myself because you're acting dense and it bears repeating. I love you and it's my God-given duty to ensure you stop following a false doctrine because your salvation very well may be at stake.

Believe me you, I have plenty more to say. After all these years I have yet to truly let loose on Protestantism like I could, but I'm sure you don't want to hear it.

Oh, and one last time just for you, IS -- SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by cheezgrits

Basically, the Bible can't interpret itself because the Bible you folks are reading today has been edited, translated, interpreted and changed over the years.

No, the bible can't interpret itself because it's a book, and a book can only be filtered by the person reading it. If you're reading the bible you are most certainly interpreting it, but how do you know you are interpreting it correctly as intended by it's Author? That's really the crux of the Protestant problem.

[Zguy28]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

No, the bible can't interpret itself because it's a book, and a book can only be filtered by the person reading it. If you're reading the bible you are most certainly interpreting it, but how do you know you are interpreting it correctly as intended by it's Author? That's really the crux of the Protestant problem.

It's the Catholic problem too.

Ad the bible is more than a book, it's the very word of God! It stands on its own and does not need interpreting to be the sufficient and unequaled authority.

As Augustine said: This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

[cheezgrits]

But yet, isn't there more books of the Bible that have been "removed" or edited? If it IS to be the final authority with no interpretation, then y'all better start gathering up rams, lambs, pigeons, etc and start burning them on the altar.

Soooo, apparently, it DOES need some interpretation from some authority sources.

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by cheezgrits

But yet, isn't there more books of the Bible that have been "removed" or edited? If it IS to be the final authority with no interpretation, then y'all better start gathering up rams, lambs, pigeons, etc and start burning them on the altar.

Soooo, apparently, it DOES need some interpretation from some authority sources.

The sacrifices you speak of were written for the Jews during the times of Moses and where the High Priest would also make a special annual sacrifice for covering the sins of the people.

However, God made a New Covenant for mankind that came to include non-Jews and that He had prophesied would come to pass. It was through the Crucifixion of Jesus that the Blood Atonement was satisified once and for all and freely offered for the Forgiveness of sins to all who would receive Christ as Lord, Redeemer and acknowledge that He is The Son of the Living God.

Thus, no more need for blood and burnt sacrifices. Jesus paid the price and it is through His Atoning Blood that your sins and mine are forgiven and whereby we are no longer of the world but become Children of God, renewed in Spirit by faith in Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah.

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by Zguy28

It's the Catholic problem too.

Ad the bible is more than a book, it's the very word of God! It stands on its own and does not need interpreting to be the sufficient and unequaled authority.

As Augustine said: This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

Have you even read this thread? Am I going to have to repeat myself for you too?

It's not a Catholic problem becaues we don't rely on the bible alone. And yes, the bible does require interpreting there's no way around it. It's reality. If you truly believe what you wrote then explain the over 20,000 sects of bible-only Christians. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.

And what Augustine says holds true. Scripture is paramount, but so is that other thing that Jesus left us with. As I'm sure you know, Augustine was not a bible-only Christian becuase he knew that SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK. Take a second look at what Augustine is saying, and the order in which he says it.