Posted on 05/27/2017 9:15:17 AM PDT by ealgeone
Question: "What is the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture? What does it mean that the Bible is sufficient?"
Answer: The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. To say the Scriptures are sufficient means that the Bible is all we need to equip us for a life of faith and service. It provides a clear demonstration of God’s intention to restore the broken relationship between Himself and humanity through His Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior through the gift of faith. No other writings are necessary for this good news to be understood, nor are any other writings required to equip us for a life of faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at gotquestions.org ...
You'll use every dodge in the book, but you will NOT support your accusation with anything but petulance and carping.
I bow; humbly; to your expertise.
Why not?
After reading the stuff that you provide in this thread by way of evidence; and discovering that it is overwhelmed by the boasting, bragging and sheer audacity that is presented to the world to view; my thinker is on the blink.
Birds of a feather; and all that.
Yours does NOT remind me of a publican.
“I’m going to insist that the Scriptures are not meant to be a mathematical “proof-text system” like Euclidean geometry, so we shouldn’t treat them that way. It would then make sense to say, okay, what are they for, then?”
And here is the sensible answer:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
That’s it! That is what the scriptures are for! Why everyone gets choked up about them is beyond me! Verse 17 provides the desired result....”That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works”.”
End of story, end of the debate as far as I am concerned.
I get the strange feeling that I must defend these charges.
Let's see...
1. Rome collects a bunch of writings (that it did NOT write), tossing out stuff that did NOT meet IT's standards.
2. Proclaims that IT has produced the ONLY 'interpretation' that is valid of the remainder.
3. Had the political clout early on to squash any dissent of it's power thru intimidation, torture and death.
4. Can't hold it's kingdom together; thus the EO folks.
5. Goes thru a series of quite evil men leading the flock.
6. Many Catholics 'appeal' to Rome to get it to change it's ways.
7. Luther finally succeeds in doing so and does NOT get killed for his efforts.
8. 'Mary' continues to rise to PROMINENCE in the church; thereby softening it's image.
9. Still trying to control ACCESS to GOD, it loses control of the access to and possession and interpretation of the 'Holy Bible'.
10. Fragments even further as a pope kisses the Koran instead of raising a sword to it's believers.
11. Is reduced to Rodney Dangerfieldesque apologists infesting chatrooms; while lamenting the fact that it has such POOR leaders at the helm of the once mighty ship.
We've just gotten four new kitties here on the farm.
Three are lovable and quite tame; allowing me to pick them up and talk to them and stroke them and feed them.
The other one is as wild as a puma; hissing, spitting, trying to claw and fight at every turn; even as I give it food and drink.
From a Post by jjsheridan 5 (May16,2015):How liberals think: His thoughts as to why Massachussetts and Bostonians oppose the death penalty for Tsarnaev."What you are seeing is the liberal mind in action.First, like petulent children, they arrive at the conclusion they want to arrive at, without any thought of the consequences -- in this case, they are opposed to the death penalty because it makes them feel noble, caring, and intelligent, and therefore arrive at the conclusion that Tsarnaev shouldn't be executed.Second, they come up with some flimsy justification for that position, that is also impossible to argue with -- in this case, the opinion that it is worse to be in prison than to be executed. Patently absurd, but also impossible to disprove.Third, should it come to that, they will defend their position, and their justification of it, as if it were the last piece of habitable land on earth -- regardless of how idiotic they sound, and despite the fact that they never really believe in their justification, just their conclusion.Finally, should it be necessary, or, just out of habit, they will label any other conclusion, especially any rational or well-thought out one, as evil in both intent and effect."
I saw what you did there...! ;) (if I had just been drinking coffee, you would have owed me a new monitor)
Balaam was blessed with a key to God’s wisdom...it was his “DON-key”!
Actually he saw my remark and to prove that he knew scripture, too he compared me with Eliab. David’s elder brother. Now to be fair to PT, I didn’t recognize the name immediately but “he clued me into” his identity. I did remember that David’s elder brother had gotten a little hot under the collar watching his brother David asking who this Goliath thought he was but I didn’t remember his name. So I looked up the story. You can read my responses to PT regarding his comparison of my person to ELIAB. Needless to say, PT doesn’t look into a mirror much. As for my middle name...why it is DAVID!(and I pointed that out to him) The point I was making was subtle but implicent!
I agreed with his assertion that I was full of vanity and pointed out that so was he...after all, vanity is what got us all in trouble and in need of salvation in the first place!(”like sheep gone astray”!)
I'd have to say the odds of this happening would be slim.
I've been called ugly by many a toad.
Sounds like some of the same things I read from some-”who”- else....Oh CS LEWIS! His “Abolition of Man” and “The Screwtape Letters”.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”
I have to disagree.
He does it QUITE often.
"Why?" one might ask...
Because he has forgotten what he looked like the LAST time he peered into it.
A toad would accuse a handsome prince and a beautiful princess of both being ugly and having tongues that have no useful purpose. Yet I could befriend a toad who with his tongue, kept my yard free of loathsome insects!
That might be bad enough, but I fear worse for him, that the mirror he looks at only shows him what he thinks he should see about himself and continuously reinforces such an unfortunate presupposition!
And now a tangential aside, related perpendicularly to my comment.....
(Ring around the rosary! Ring around the Rosary! Excuse me sir, you have Ring around the Rosary!...Try TRUTH with active ingredient John 3:16! It gets rid of Ring around the Rosary!)
Keep trying with that one because if you win it’s trust, it will be your loyal companion for life but it probably won’t let anyone else close! (such fierceness will certainly make it a deadly enemy to all vermin who would think about invading your farm!)
The Didache contains a number of contradictory statements when compared to the NT. One can understand why it wasn't included.
You may or may not be aware but the Catholics are jumping up and down that he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in 2017.
1. Insist he can interpret the Scriptures for himself
2. Speak his interpretations as categorical facts
You discount the movement of the Holy Spirit to guide us as we read the Bible.
The Bible is designed to be understood.
This is greatly aided by:
1). a working knowledge of the first century
2). a working knowledge of Greek
3). a willingness to read the text in context
The argument has not changed from St. John chapter 6 to today. Your premise easily translates into St. John 6:61 "Many therefore of His disciples, hearing it, said: this saying is hard, and who can hear it?" This came on the heels of Jesus proclaiming in St. John 6:54~59: "Amen, Amen I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed: and My blood is drink indeed. He that eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he that eats Me, the same also shall live by Me. This is the bread that came down from Heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eats this bread, shall live forever."
This being said we would submit to you, that the more pertinent, efficacious and salvific discussion should center on the Eucharist and therefore Christ's continued presence here on the Earth through the Eucharist. He did after all promise to never leave us nor forsake us, to be with us till the end of time and this is His method for keeping that promise. The Grace's that we receive in a validly transubstantiated host are what helps us to keep out of "sins unto death" (1John 5:16&17) and opens our understanding of who we are receiving in the Eucharist. The Eucharist therefore is both the means and the end for our salvation, and so is a more efficacious matter for discussion, and that should prompt us rather to a discussion of the Priesthood and Apostolic succession and the fulfillment of Malachias 1:11: "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, My Name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My Name a Clean Oblation: for My Name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord of Hosts." This obviously also necessitates a solid discussion on the continuing need for Priests and Sacrifice.
Humbly submitted by Trad Bishop
IMO there are many places where the Scriptures are not clear, and it's best to admit it straight-up. So going back to the two steps, in keeping with step (2) I'd expect a fundamentalist to make an interpretation anyway, probably in a dogmatic tone. Then I could fall back on step (1)issue my own interpretation. But seeing the game at play, I couldn't be dogmatic about it as in step (2), because step (1) tells me no interpretation is so compelling as to override the question of who made it -- so why take it super-seriously?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.