QUESTION - absolutely no discussion - references only
In building an argument map, I frequently run into this argument in some form:
David T. King said:Protestants have always accepted apostolic teaching that was oral in nature and which preceded its inscripturation. But apostolic revelation which God desired to preserve has been inscripturated in its entirety. Scripture never designates "oral tradition" as a continuing source of revelation. Scripture reserves this norm for itself alone.
I have spent several weeks reading many resources with this argument but I have not been able to find any that provide a Biblical reference for:
- "apostolic revelation which God desired to preserve has been inscripturated in its entirety"
- "Scripture reserves this norm (continuing source of revelation) for itself alone"
- the implied end point of the validity of using oral apostolic revelation.
bolding is mine as the primary element in the assertion that needs a Biblical reference. Literally all I want is references - no discussion of how they fit the bill, no discussion of whether or not the interpretation is correct. In my argument map I want to show the best arguments of each side.
The Topic Guide and the Theological Guide did not provide the answer nor did any obvious search. A technique to find these references would be even more valuable than the actual references.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Comments
-
Would it be possible for you to list the resources that hold that argument that you've already consulted? That might help to lead me to another resource.
Or, do you have any resources which make the continuing revelation argument which site good opposition sources that you could then track down?
Disclaimer: I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication. If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.
0 -
Answers to Catholic Claims (James R. White) chapter 4, "The Authority, Consistency, and Sufficiency of the Scriptures"
and
Scripture Alone (James R. White) the entire book, and especially chapter 9, "Tradition, the Church, and the Development of Doctrine"
0 -
For purely bible references there are 1 Cor 4:6, and 2 Tim 3:16 which specifically talk about Scripture and what is written. As for the closing of the canon I have always been pointed to Jude 3. Hopefully some commentary articles can provide other references?
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
A technique to find these references would be even more valuable than the actual references.
You imply that you are asking a question. What is the question?
Are you asking for a list of references only?
Are you asking for a way to find such references?
Are you asking for argument-tags of references?
Are you asking for implementation of argument tags by reference?
0 -
Joseph Turner said:make the continuing revelation argument which site good opposition sources that you could then track down?
I hadn't thought of attacking it from that direction - I was leaving continuing revelation primarily to a separate category outside solo scriptura. I'll see where that gets me.
Joseph Turner said:Would it be possible for you to list the resources that hold that argument that you've already consulted
I've consulted more than 50 books ... and found this line of argument (although not always in these words) frequently - usually associated with 2 Tim 3:16-17. I have several lines of argument against this argument ... but I've found no defense of the argument ... it is merely asserted which is why I finally broke down and tried "crowd sourcing" the defense of the argument. For the argument map my concern is to give each set of beliefs a fair shake by presenting the best possible argument ... and noting flaws/weaknesses in reasoning. I've got 10 dead tree format books on my desk plus these Logos resources that I've used for some tidbit of information on solo/sola scripture:
Sola-solo-prima BibliographyAnderson, Ray Sherman. The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Armstrong, Dave. 100 Biblical Arguments against Sola Scriptura. San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers Press, 2012.
Armstrong, Dave. Bible Conversations: Catholic-Protestant Dialogues on the Bible, Tradition, and Salvation. Dave Armstrong, 2007.
Bacote, Vincent, Laura C. Miguélez, and Dennis L. Okholm. Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Bauckham, Richard, and Benjamin Drewery, eds. Scripture, Tradition, and Reason: A Study in the Criteria of Christian Doctrine : Essays in Honour of Richard P.C. Hanson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.
Benedict XVI. God’s Word: Scripture—Tradition—Office. Edited by Peter Hünermann and Thomas Söding. Translated by Henry Taylor. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008.
Boosalis, Harry. Holy Tradition: Ecclesial Experience of Life in Christ. South Canaan, PA; Waymart, PA: St. Tikhon’s Monastery Press, 2013.
Carter, Craig A. Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A division of Baker Publishing Group, 2018.
Castelo, Daniel, and Robert W. Wall. The Marks of Scripture: Rethinking the Nature of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2019.
Congar, Yves. The Meaning of Tradition. Translated by A. N. Woodrow. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.
Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Word of God. A Theology of Lordship. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2010.
Hahn, Scott. Spirit & Life: Essays on Interpreting the Bible in Ordinary Time. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2009.
Humphrey, Edith M. Scripture and Tradition: What the Bible Really Says. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Lee Martin McDonald. Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.
Jenks, Gregory C., and Jay Harold Ellens. The Once and Future Bible: An Introduction to the Bible for Religious Progressives. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2011.
Kistler, Don, ed. Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible. Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009.
Lathrop, Gordon W. The Four Gospels on Sunday: The New Testament and the Reform of Christian Worship. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012.
Lee, Gregory W. Today When You Hear His Voice: Scripture, the Covenants, and the People of God. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016.
Liderbach, Daniel. Christ in the Early Christian Hymns. New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1998.
MacArthur, John, ed. The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016.
Madrid, Patrick. Scripture and Tradition in the Church: Yves Congar, O.P.’s Theology of Revelation and Critique of the Protestant Principle of Sola Scriptura. Melbourne, Victoria: Freedom Publishing Company Pty Ltd, 2014.
Mathison, Keith A. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001.
McCarthy, James G. The Gospel according to Rome. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995.
McFarlane, Graham. A Model for Evangelical Theology: Integrating Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience, and Community. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020.
Packer, J. I. Engaging the Written Word of God. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers; Paternoster: Thinking Faith, 1999.
Packer, J. I. “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God: Some Evangelical Principles. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958.
Peckham, John C. Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological Method. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016.
Reasoner, Mark. Five Models of Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021.
Shea, Mark P. By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition. Revised and Expanded Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2013.
Sproul, R. C. Can I Trust the Bible?. Vol. 2. The Crucial Questions Series. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust: A Division of Ligonier Ministries, 2017.
Swain, Scott R. Trinity, Revelation, and Reading: A Theological Introduction to the Bible and Its Interpretation. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2011.
Thompson, Mark D. A Sure Ground on Which to Stand: The Relation of Authority and Interpretive Method in Luther’s Approach to Scripture. Studies in Christian History and Thought. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. First edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Warfield, Benjamin B. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Revelation and Inspiration. Vol. 1. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.
White, James R. Scripture Alone. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2004.
White, James R. The Roman Catholic Controversy. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1996.
Whiteford, John. Sola Scriptura: An Orthodox Analysis of the Cornerstone of Reformation Theology. Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 1996.
Williams, D. H. Evangelicals and Tradition: The Formative Influence of the Early Church. Evangelical Ressourcement. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.
Williams, D. H., ed. Tradition, Scripture, and Interpretation: A Sourcebook of the Ancient Church. Evangelical Ressourcement. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
Wright, N. T. Scripture and the Authority of God. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2005.
Tabletalk Magazine, August 2001: Sola Scriptura. Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2001.
Credo: Sola Scriptura (December). Credo Magazine, 2016.
Exported from Verbum, 11:43 AM March 4, 2022.Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Thanks Morgan. These references are already in my sights and the commentaries upon them (esp. 2 Tim 3:16) are what raised the questions - independent of the truth of the conclusion, the argument uses premises/propositions for which it has not provided Biblical references. Because it is solo/sola scripture, I assume that there is Biblical support -- I simply haven't found it. Most of the discussions seem to focus on "sufficiency" which is interesting but not the issue separating solo-sola-prima-scriptura, scripture+tradition, scripture+tradition+experience, holistic, human reason+experience ...Example theologies roughly covered by this list are Anabaptist/Restorationist, Lutheran/Calvinist, Anglican, Catholic, pietist/Methodists, Orthodox, progressive/perennial philosophy.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
GaoLu said:
What is the question?
Sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear. I want scripture references that support the three premises used in the argument without support.
MJ. Smith said:- "apostolic revelation which God desired to preserve has been inscripturated in its entirety"
- "Scripture reserves this norm (continuing source of revelation) for itself alone"
- the implied end point of the validity of using oral apostolic revelation.
Why am I only interested in Biblical references? because at this point, I am working on solo scriptura and sola scriptura ... so only Biblical evidence is acceptable.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I don't have this.Gregory Lawhorn said:Answers to Catholic Claims (James R. White) chapter 4, "The Authority, Consistency, and Sufficiency of the Scriptures"
Gregory Lawhorn said:Scripture Alone (James R. White) the entire book, and especially chapter 9, "Tradition, the Church, and the Development of Doctrine"
Getting close but its evidence is from Church Fathers which solo/sola scripture deny as a ground for the rule of faith. Yes, I'm aware of the allowance for tradition (not Tradition) in sola but not solo. I may end up using a Church Fathers' argument -- a label it a logical foul.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I don't have this.Gregory Lawhorn said:Answers to Catholic Claims (James R. White) chapter 4, "The Authority, Consistency, and Sufficiency of the Scriptures"
Gregory Lawhorn said:Scripture Alone (James R. White) the entire book, and especially chapter 9, "Tradition, the Church, and the Development of Doctrine"
Getting close but its evidence is from Church Fathers which solo/sola scripture deny as a ground for the rule of faith. Yes, I'm aware of the allowance for tradition (not Tradition) in sola but not solo. I may end up using a Church Fathers' argument -- a label it a logical foul.
Here's a link to Dr White's Monergism Page that contains some of the information that would be found in these works:
https://www.monergism.com/search?keywords=james%20white&format=All&f%5B0%5D=topic%3A30874
Here's a link to a search of Alpha Omega Ministries for Sola Scriptura:
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/?post_type%5B%5D=&s=sola+scriptura
Logos 10 - OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Windows 11, Android 16 & Android 14
0 -
Frank Sauer said:
What I find here consistently treats "sufficient" as "only" which is another form of the assertions/propositions I want to find evidence for; "sufficiency" only requires the bare minimum and is, therefore, a very low bar -- a far cry from the "only" qualifier that I'm trying to document. I have found nothing in the traditional Christian stances that denies sufficiency. It is the "only" which is disputed and therefore of interest to me at this time.
Frank Sauer said:I check this out later - I prefer reading to watching. Thanks for the hints ... they may lead somewhere.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I have not been able to find any that provide a Biblical reference for:
- "apostolic revelation which God desired to preserve has been inscripturated in its entirety"
- "Scripture reserves this norm (continuing source of revelation) for itself alone"
- the implied end point of the validity of using oral apostolic revelation.
bolding is mine as the primary element in the assertion that needs a Biblical reference. Literally all I want is references - no discussion of how they fit the bill, no discussion of whether or not the interpretation is correct.
MJ. Smith said:A technique to find these references would be even more valuable than the actual references.
One technique might be to look at what relevant theologians see (and rule out) as potential other sources of revelation. For example, if someone holds that the only possible sources of revelation are scripture and X, then all that person needs is Bible verses to use to argue against the Christian use of X. S or X, not X, therefore S. That line of attack wouldn't get you to the sufficiency of the scriptures, but it would look after "only".
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
SineNomine said:
One technique might be to look at what relevant theologians see (and rule out) as potential other sources of revelation. For example, if someone holds that the only possible sources of revelation are scripture and X, then all that person needs is Bible verses to use to argue against the Christian use of X. S or X, not X, therefore S. That line of attack wouldn't get you to the sufficiency of the scriptures, but it would look after "only".
I'll give this a try ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Literally all I want is references
I humbly suggest John 21:24-25. It requires deductive reasoning, but why does John write these things (v.24) but omit other things (v.25)?
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = LogosMax on Microsoft Surface Pro 7 (Win11), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone & iPad mini, Proclaim (Proclaim Remote on Fire Tablet).
0 -
David Thomas said:
I humbly suggest John 21:24-25. It requires deductive reasoning, but why does John write these things (v.24) but omit other things (v.25)?
This is definitely a useful line of defense ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. 1986. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and expanded. Chicago: Moody Press.
P 127-130; protestant response to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition.
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. 1986. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and expanded. Chicago: Moody Press.
P 127-130; protestant response to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition.
Worth reading for its stress on change/adaptability, but it will fit further into the argument map - as objections to the scripture+tradition view.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I've consulted more than 50 books ... and found this line of argument (although not always in these words) frequently - usually associated with 2 Tim 3:16-17. I have several lines of argument against this argument ... but I've found no defense of the argument ...
I may be off track..... if I am please forgive me and let me know. But... The argument of 2 Tim 3:16-17 "I believe" is valid...
2 Tim 3:16-17 is an assertion that the word of God, the Bible, is from the voice of God Himself. God does not have to justify His words... and most of the Bible cannot be "justified" unless the assertion God makes is understood.
To go further with this thought.... consider Joh 1:1-3 and vs 10 in relation to Heb 1:1-2. Jesus is "the Word" because He was given 3 directives...
1. To come be a sacrifice for the sins of the world Joh 1:29.
2. To bring God's word down to man Heb 1:1-2.
3. To start the church Mat 16:18.
So the word that came from the voice or mind of God the Father... was brought down to man by Jesus Christ.... but the Word... that Jesus brought down actually came from God.
Jesus further verifies this in Joh 4:34... He didn't come to do His will but the will of the Father....
Now... Do the Scriptures, the Bible, guide man into all (religious) truth even today? And do the Scriptures, the Bible, equip man for every good work today?
I put forth first the argument from God... 2Pe 1:20... no prophecy of Scripture... came from man. It only came to man from God through Jesus and was preserved by the Holy Spirit....
Then Galatians 1:8-10... ask this question about that passage.... would the apostles by condemned if they taught a different gospel? God never allowed men, apostles or angels from heaven to change His words.
In 1Cor 4:6 The apostle Paul makes an argument to not go beyond what is written. Which gives proof to 2 Tim 3:16-17....
Then John chimes in with 2 Joh 9-11 and states blatantly... if one transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ... he does not have God. It is God's word which came from God and God only.
Now having said all this..... I would be interested in your argument against this line of reasoning.... [8-|]
And I am not trying to discuss all this but trying to give credence to the argument of 2 Tim 3:16-17.
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
xnman said:
I would be interested in your argument against this line of reasoning...
My interest at this point is strictly:
MJ. Smith said:I have not been able to find any that provide a Biblical reference for:
- "apostolic revelation which God desired to preserve has been inscripturated in its entirety"
- "Scripture reserves this norm (continuing source of revelation) for itself alone"
- the implied end point of the validity of using oral apostolic revelation.
bolding is mine as the primary element in the assertion that needs a Biblical reference. Literally all I want is references - no discussion of how they fit the bill, no discussion of whether or not the interpretation is correct.
Why? Because these are assertions/propositions that are made (multiple times) in arguments that require justification in the argument. I started with a minimum number of premises that could be assumed regardless of which side of any particular debate a particular person wanted to hold. These are not among those assertions/propositions. Yes, my starting point might be unacceptable to some progressives/perennial philosophy sorts but they would understand the need for them in context. I'm suspecting that I will label these a logical foul -- which says nothing about whether they are true or false, only that they were added to the argument without support.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Why? Because these are assertions/propositions that are made (multiple times) in arguments that require justification in the argument. I started with a minimum number of premises that could be assumed regardless of which side of any particular debate a particular person wanted to hold. These are not among those assertions/propositions. Yes, my starting point might be unacceptable to some progressives/perennial philosophy sorts but they would understand the need for them in context. I'm suspecting that I will label these a logical foul -- which says nothing about whether they are true or false, only that they were added to the argument without support.
My apologies.... I'm a thinking I misunderstood... Exit stage right ----->>...
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
MJ:
References without context will not illustrate the details behind the theological construct that serves as frame of reference.
So:
God fired the devil and is in the process of getting new management of this little region of His Kingdom: New admin: Jesus and His Bride (the gentile Church).
End of story for this region is Jesus New administrator of new heaven and Earth, Bride of Christ, faithful companion (as body). New rulers of new creation.
We become living stones (body of Christ) in the New Temple of God (Jesus Christ), but that does not make us the Spirit that will dwell in that New Temple, thus no self-existence for any of us.
That is how it will end and no one can change that: Believers with Christ forever, antiChrist, false prophet and satan burning in the lake of fire together with all that side with them.
So the closing of the Canon is due to that end explained and given in Revelation:
Jesus as judge makes it clear that the revelation given is "it" and will take care of those that want to twist it.
Rev 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues written in this book.
Rev 22:19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share of the tree of life and from the holy city that are written in this book.
Now in that Revelation, there is war, and some persons with certain gifts can give an insight of what it could be or will be like in the period corresponding to approach to the culmination:
That revelation is to help people understand what will happen and what part they will play, but the plot itself is given already and closed,
Tradition so to speak help believers prepare for what is coming, not to change or creatively reinterpret what is said in Revelation.
To see what tradition through modern revelation is in protestant P n C, check out Blake Healy's books.
According to Healy, believers will have to take a more active role in the unfolding of historical timeline as the culmination of history approaches.
So in recap:
Big picture of what is going to happen eventually: already given in Revelation and closed, no one can add or subtract.
little details for the role different actors will play can be disclosed by modern day believers with prophetic / particular gifts of the Spirit to aid in the prep of the sheep, not to change what has already been disclosed as to how it all will unfold.
Related to your points:
- "apostolic revelation which God desired to preserve has been inscripturated in its entirety"
Big picture of how it will all end, already given, not open to be changed.
- "Scripture reserves this norm (continuing source of revelation) for itself alone"
Regarding the end of it all, no one can say the date nor time, nor can say that it already happened because it obviously has not. (eg ulcers on those that take on the mark of the beast, commotion of heaven with asteroids / meteors falling on Earth, etc.
- the implied end point of the validity of using oral apostolic revelation.
Any one believer can warn about particular situations in the lives of the sheep using the gift of prophecy, but no one can reveal something that contradicts what has already been disclosed by the Holy Spirit in Scripture.
eg Ashera cohort of Yahweh? no way, not jibing at all with Scriptures, etc.
That many believers will learn to see in the Spirit like Blake Healy asserts, could very well be, as he mentions the veil ripped in half so that many things will be plain to see by common believers.
Remember I am not trying to discuss or polemicize with you, but trying to give you new angles for you to explore and reflect, and constructively comment if needed.
0 -
Hamilton, I have a context, an argument map comparing the various major rules of faith. What I need is specifically references in support of statements frequently made in support of the solo/sola scriptura. If I needed anything other than the references I would have said so ... but after reviewing some 60 resources both in and out of Logos and finding nothing nor a reference to follow as a rabbit trail, I decided to try crowd-sourcing in a location where some responses would be from the perspective of believers in the position. I specified in the title that I wanted NO DISCUSSION because I meant it. Violating that requests makes my post appear to be skirting the no theology boundary which I was very specifically trying not to do -- we all agree it is okay to request resources and references. If forum members insist on violating forum guidelines after the heading asks them not to, that eliminates my primary means of finding out why sola scriptura believers believe what they do.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Hamilton, I have a context, an argument map comparing the various major rules of faith. What I need is specifically references in support of statements frequently made in support of the solo/sola scriptura.
Yes I understand, it would be easier if you pointed to the arguments that you find have least support in the Bible.
I was thinking of the macro view.
Sola Scriptura is in many groups primarily related to Eschatology.
I do not know if that is in your argument map.
The other main point I see, is that the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself, so any revelation against the main thrusts in the Bible are non binding to many groups.
Experience related to tradition is not clear.
For example:
Some believer saw that God takes the aborted infants and works on them to a particular objective, cannot recall if it was for rebuilding the infant and heal such to then send them to a special place where they are taught in Heaven.
If the believer that had such revelation is credible, and what is said is plausible, will it make it to tradition?
The fact that such leader saw such vision does not mean that abortion is justified because God then makes it right after the fetus is destroyed.
But how would such vision (if is true) affect doctrines like infant baptism, etc.
There are circumstances where the Bible is not clear cut on a topic (eg slavery), and believers have to work out doctrine taking into consideration the nature and character of God, other revealed truths in the Bible, to come up with an acceptable construct.
So I would imagine that maybe you could list some of the key issues that you do not understand in some groups defending of Scripture alone, so that the input from many could clarify where some groups come from.
You do not need to do it here, you can do it in a FL group designed for such exchange.
So, did God revealed all there is to know about the particular historical context we live in? probably not, but did He reveal the macro plot of how it is going to end?, yes, in Revelation, and cannot be changed by any tradition, revelation, insight or else of any group.
So for eschatology: sola Scriptura.
0 -
Incourigable?
tootle pip
Mike
Now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs. Latest Logos, MacOS, iOS and iPadOS
0 -
Binks, my spelling is want at times and it may be a UK thing, but I thinks the accepted spelling is "incorrigible." And by the way, I agree, though I think he is persuaded he is being helpful and thus he will vigorously defend his errant ways.Mike Binks said:Incourigable?
Meanwhile, Jesus kept on growing wiser and more mature, and in favor with God and his fellow man.
International Standard Version. (2011). (Lk 2:52). Yorba Linda, CA: ISV Foundation.
MacBook Pro MacOS Sequoia 15.5 1TB SSD
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
Yes I understand, it would be easier if you pointed to the arguments that you find have least support in the Bible.
No, your post shows you don't understand. I need three very specific pieces of information. Why I need them is my concern. I have such a Faithlife group to which you were invited.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I'll put this thought forth ....
If there are "modern day revelations" as was noted, whether in visions or otherwise... why would such not nullify the Bible?
As far as I have come to know.... "modern day revelations and such" ended in 96 AD when the Bible was completed.
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
Xnman:
Not to start a debate, but in your opinion all prophecies in the ancient times were recorded in the Bible?
Most likely not. It would seem that certain key revelations dealing with particular thrusts in the Bible were recorded: way of salvation, eschatology, true status of fallen man, etc.
What would the other ones be about? could it be about particular circumstances applicable to their time and issues?
What exactly does the gift of prophecy entail, who is it for, why Paul encourages believers to actively seek for it? If they do get it, why are their visions, revelations, etc. not included in the Canon?
Did Jesus mention that He has much to tell but that there is like a particular time when believers could bear what He was going to say? if He did say something like that, and if He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, does that mean that He can continue doing it now?
If there is a warning in Revelation that nothing can be added or subtracted from it, does that mean about the eschatological part or does it mean revelation in general?
Is there a particular time frame for which Joel's prediction of the coming of the Holy Spirit and in impartation of gifts given, or does it mean an indeterminate time in the future from his perspective? could it happen many times in the future time continuum?
And when leaders in cessationist groups, receive revelation about particular situations within and without their group, such experiences makes them unreliable?, corrupted? deceived? and what when the revelation received turns out to be true?
Plenty of interesting stuff to investigate (hopefully using Logos), but not to debate here, just to bring some issues to the microscope.
0 -
xnman & Hamilton, you are both ignoring the forum guidelines of no theology. As such your comments do more harm than good. Hamilton, you've been around long enough to know how to be a role model.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ:
what xnman mentions is very interesting and important, not to debate here, but to investigate further.
For some strange reason, members of particular traditions in the forums have a super ability to focus on key issues and show what their accepted support for those are in a neat way.
Even the awesome resources available sometimes do not give it all so neat in a nutshell.
A few good questions (like you yourself many times ask without getting into a debate), open a whole new variety of angles not considered before, and good to research with L9.
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
what xnman mentions is very interesting and important, not to debate here, but to investigate further.
Yes, beginning with the question of an open or closed canon, and the role of personal revelation. Avery Dulles' Models of Revelation is a good starting point for investigation on the latter. However, those topics are both irrelevant to my original questions. However, I submit for your interest from Types of revelation - Revelation - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize
Or the slightly less interesting visually and in content:Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Does the verse in Deuteronomy apply to your first requirement of "apostolic revelation which God desired to preserve has been inscripturated in its entirety" which says (in the NASB):
Deu 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law."
It seems to imply that what God has revealed in Scripture is everything man needs to exist on earth, and nothing more is required this side of eternity.
Or am I off base?
John
Remember, an amateur built the Ark -
Professionals built the Titanic0 -
This is definitely a useful reference I didn't have although there are arguments for and against its applicability. Thank you.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
John Schneider said:
Deu 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law."
I have encountered many folks who quote this verse, usually in support of YHWH's employment and (so to speak) enforcement of "mystery". I usually reply with Mt. 10:26, Mk. 4:22, and Lk. 12:2. In my estimation, most of this revealing will be done before Yeishuua` returns.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:John Schneider said:
Deu 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law."
I have encountered many folks who quote this verse, usually in support of YHWH's employment and (so to speak) enforcement of "mystery". I usually reply with Mt. 10:26, Mk. 4:22, and Lk. 12:2. In my estimation, most of this revealing will be done before Yeishuua` returns.
I have also encountered Deu 29:29. That happens whenever I say that I would like to understand the "why" behind the "what" we believe. The word "mystery" gets thrown around whenever people are not interested in connecting dots from the Scripture to answer the questions I raise. I would love to have an easily applicable definition of mystery. Mortimer Adler in his famous book said something like mystery is an insolvable problem, a problem for which no solution exists as of now.
In my mind, God will be happy to reveal anything that advances His goals for humanity. That is my litmus test.
I believe in a Win-Win-Win God.
0 -
Nice rabbit trail, DP and 1Co - what is fascinating it that the theological term "mystery" seems to be used in a way other than the usage I know.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Well, my usage here is based on the common cliche "God works in mysterious ways." That usually isn't verbalized as a theological truism as much as it is intellectually crying "uncle". In other words, "I don't understand it...can't explain it...not going to think about it."
I know Catholicism has a whole thing (I don't know what else to call it...doctrine?) about mystery. For me, it is a concept bound up in YHWH's intentional obfuscation of prophecy within Scripture.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
The meaning I am familiar with is not exclusively Catholic but IIRC the Orthodox use the term as an equivalent for sacraments.
[quote]
In conformity with the usage of the inspired writers of the New Testament, theologians give the name mystery to revealed truths that surpass the powers of natural reason. Mystery, therefore, in its strict theological sense is not synonymous with the incomprehensible, since all that we know is incomprehensible, i.e., not adequately comprehensible as to its inner being; nor with the unknowable, since many things merely natural are accidentally unknowable, on account of their inaccessibility, e.g., things that are future, remote, or hidden. In its strict sense a mystery is a supernatural truth, one that of its very nature lies above the finite intelligence.
Theologians distinguish two classes of supernatural mysteries: the absolute (or theological) and the relative. An absolute mystery is a truth whose existence or possibility could not be discovered by a creature, and whose essence (inner substantial being) can be expressed by the finite mind only in terms of analogy, e.g., the Trinity. A relative mystery is a truth whose innermost nature alone (e.g., many of the Divine attributes), or whose existence alone (e.g., the positive ceremonial precepts of the Old Law), exceeds the natural knowing power of the creature.
John McHugh, “Mystery,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church, ed. Charles G. Herbermann et al. (New York: The Encyclopedia Press; The Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1907–1913).I'd not run into the term used as you use it before. Stay in the forums and you never know what you will learn.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
