Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

Not only do they disagree with me, what do they do with the Bible, and what is their attitude toward the Bible? Do they have any degree of reverence at all for the Word of God?

 

Question. How do you disagree with the bible if you're making an observation about it? For instance. My bible is leather bound. Now nothing in scriptures suggest that my bible should be leatherbound therefore my comment on it being leather bound disagrees with the bible?

 

You misunderstand 2 Peter. 1:20-21. Peter is not referring to the readers of scripture but to the writers of scripture. The writers are not expressing their private opinions (v. 20) but are expressing God's opinion (v. 21).

The difference is between exegesis and eisgesis and eisgesis is the failure to recognize the syntactical relationship between words within the confines of context. For example, many interpret 2 Peter. 1:20 by jerking it out of context and applying it to the readers of scripture. However, when it is properly interpreted by context it refers to writers not the readers of scripture. The Holy Spirit is perfectly capable of revealing what He wrote in to any Spirit led believer who allows the scriptures to self-interpret.

 

Is it really? Or are they known by their fruits? If we followed your rationale we should all come to the same conclusions about the reliability of the Scriptures, the validity of miracles and every other obvious rank hersey that such men endorse or teach. A man's conclusions are determined by their foundations. Of course, if you already deny the scriptures as final authority then you are already disposed to defend and follow anyone who wishes to destroy its credibility and that is exactly where your whole philosphical approach to scriptures and tradition will consistently lead.

 

I think you meant to write that "...they use scripture to interpret scripture" and not "... any Spirit led believer who allows the scriptures to self-interpret."

Scripture cannot self-interpret anything.

How about snake handlers doc - they claim to be "spirit led" - does the Holy Spirit reveal the scriptures to them? I mean - after all, by your own definition they should be allowed the ability use scripture to interpret scripture.

WM

 

My foundation is Southern Baptist doc. Yet I come to a totally different set of conclusions than you. Hmmm...

WM

 

Buzzer saying your wrong. I believe in the miracles, I believe in the incarnation, and I believe these men have valuable things to say. Whether they are faithful to the faith is an entirely different thing. But applying scholarship and training to understand the scriptures is not a bad thing and if you discover something you're uncomfortable with then maybe its you.

 

I know this is off topic but I notice there is some discussion in the SBC about a holding place after death which is not heaven. do you know anything about this?

 

None of which answers my question: in what way is your fallible human interpretation of the Bible not a tradition of man?

 

The Southern Baptists have provided a doctrinal statement to express what they believe as a denomination. Your position is not Southern Baptist in regard to what Southern Baptists as a denomination believe. I was a Southern Baptist for years. I attended a Southern Baptist Seminary and I know what Southern Baptists beleive in regard to the authority of the scriptures as a denomination. They do not believe what you teach. Yes, there have been and are heretical persons within the ranks of Southern Baptists since the establishment of Southern Seminary but they are not the expression of the Southern Baptists as a denomination. So, Hmmmmmm.....

 

Paul says "prove all things." John says "try the spirits" in men that are manifested by what they teach (1 Jn. 4:1,6). Isaiah says, "if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them."

Truth will stand up when thus tested. I am not afraid of anyone putting my interpretations to that test and I will put your interpretations to the same tests.

 

Wow - I haven't heard that - but - I can see how that could be. I'll ask my pastor.

WM

 

I didn't say "claim to be" did I? You know very well that Paul says the spiritual man compares spiritual things with spiritual things. Scripture is a product of the Holy Spirit and when a born again Spirit indwelt child of God follows that method under the leadership of the Spirit scriptures interpret the scriptures perfectly, consistently and without contradiction of other scriptures.

 

That takes us no further forward; you have couched it in such terms as to be meaningless. Who says what is or is not 'according to this word', and by what criteria? How are we to 'prove all things'? How are we to 'try the spirits'? Unless you can come up with a coherent mechanism to achieve all of the above, all you are putting forward is ay best a circular argument.

 

...which is why such children of God all agree, isn't it?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not.

 

Example: "I don't believe all scriptures is inspired by God" - that is an observation about the Bible that disagrees with what the Bible explicitly says, "all scripture is given by inspiration."

However, the Bible never says a word about what kind of "cover" it should have does it?

 

The validity of Scripture as sole authority for faith and practice does not depend upon unanimity between those who claim to beleive it. Indeed, the scriptures predict an increasing apostasy among those who claim to be of God (Mt. 13; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thes. 2:9-12; Lk. 18:8; etc.).

 

That is not an observation about the bible. It is a statement of your belief. The observation about the bible would be the text indicates that all scriptures are inspired. However, the text doesn't define what all means.

 

...which means it's useless for all practical purposes as such a sole authority. Thanks for proving my point.

[cp with TS; reply to Walter]

 

First, that is not my criteria that I put forward but that is the criteria Paul, John and Isaiah put forward. The Bereans searched the scriptures to see if even the words of apostles were to be trusted.

Here are the mechanisms:

1. Ability to read or hear the translation of the Bible

2. Ability to follow common sense rules of interpretation

3. Ability to compare scripture with scripture within the framework of common sense rules of interpretation.

4. Willingness to seek and submit to the Holy Spirit to teach you (1 Jn. 2:29).

5. Willingness to acknowledge that the scriptures are totally sufficient for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

These a,b,c's are summed up in Paul's command to "rightly dividing" the scriptures.

The scriptures were written in the common language of the people in order to be understood by the common but saved person. Don't need to be a scholar to understand the a,b,c's of Bible doctrine. Don't need to attend college or seminary to understand the a,b,c's of Bible doctrine. Just need to be committed to the a,b,c mechanisms above.