Sola Scriptura?

I cannot answer the poll, for it is full of loaded options. The choices are akin to asking someone the question, "Does your wife like it when you beat her?" In other words, the fallacy, "begging the question."

You do not offer the option, "Other works magnify and add to the study of God's Word, but are neither inspired nor on the same level as the revealed Word." That would be my preferred choice.

 

Unless we invoke path integral formulation into the equation... Then pi may indeed be square and cornbread round. :laugh:

 

Because I (we) hold only Scripture to be the revealed Word of God. All other work is good, decent, and informative -- very helpful, indispensable, perhaps -- for the study, but not God's Specific Revelation.

 

Smiling.....:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

There are types of revelation, equally valid, as all come from God, but differentiation between the types is important. Only one is "specific" in detail and type, "inspired" by God, and "inerrant".

The other revelations, general, etc., are all VERY valuable, but have a higher degree of interpretation involved in understanding what we see (if we can indeed interpret those accurately).

Plato, for instance, did a remarkable job -- perhaps the best of any natural man, using the general revelation observed from living on this planet -- to give us a picture of "god" and "god's actions" and philosophy. But, he missed the boat on several critical issues because he did not have specific details, prophecies, etc., that have given us the direct mind of God.

Can we use Plato's insights into the world around us? Absolutely. Do they trump Scripture? Not a chance. Same with human logic, reason, observation, etc. All very valuable, but not in the same league with Scripture.

 

Yup... Point made. We're on the same page. :thumbs:

 

TOOOOO funny!!!!! :laugh::laugh:

 

I haven't voted, because there is not a choice that states my view in a way that is not open to misinterpretation. (I'm not blaming preacher4truth for this - I realise the difficulties of composing a poll).

I don't think it's wrong to use things like concordances, bible dictionaries, commentaries, but (as others have said) it would be wrong to do so if we were to elevate such extra-biblical works, and consider them in any way as inspired or inerrant.

 

Alas, cosmologists and physicists wrestle with those issues every day. They are actual mathematical constructs used to describe the workings of our universe.

Weirdly, we've been taught, based in Euclidean geometry that certain formulas are always true -- that the sum of the angles of a triangle always equal 180 degrees for instance. But in non-Euclidean geometry, a triangle may be less than or more than 180 degrees depending on hyperbolic or elliptic geometry. That means that we can no longer (nor could we ever) actually "prove" anything based on numbers for they are not always as they seem.

We hold number theory to be true based on axioms -- logical propositions that are deemed true because they are self-evident, but are not proven. Thus things are not always as they seem, nor is there any satisfaction derived from numbers, as they only point to an uncertain cosmos.

Of course, we CAN be certain of one thing -- by faith -- that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that He is the only SURE thing (if we dare call God a "thing").

 

Good post glfredrick.

Mathematics is "man made", although even that is debated by scientific philosophers. When we(science community) have found conditions in which current mathematical models and systems do not "work", we then set about to create new ones to "solve" the problem. Case in point, the advent of quantum physics in the 20th century. As you are most likely aware, it was a "difficult pill to swallow" even by some of the greatest science and math minds, and yet it enjoys almost a century of accurate predictions. Aside from knowledge of God, to me, understanding (attempting to) and modeling God's infinite and awesome creation is as they say "the bomb".

 

We're getting far afield from the OP. Perhaps a new thread.

But, have you considered information as the key and source of all things? At the core of everything is nothing more than information. That information is structured by God into what appears to us as solid entities, but from the basis of Science, we rightly understand that what we perceive as "solid" is in fact nothing more than positive and negative charges cleverly arranged to have properties in keeping with the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons (not to mention the building blocks of such).

 

I have only done cursory reading on the "information thingy", as I recall it relates to string theory and super string theory. This is mentioned in a book called "The Hidden Face of God, by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. (One of my favorite science/faith integration writers)

 

Is the following logic deficient?

P: All systematic theologies are created by man
P: All men are fallible
C: All systematic theologies are fallible

 

Yup... equivocation and begging the question.

But that doesn't mean that, pragmatically, it doesn't work out that way. I know of no systematics that are infallible. I'd say that the flaw in your logic comes in the first statement and if I were to defeat the proposition that is where I would start. Systematic theology SHOULD be an expression of biblical truth, not something created by man.