Sola scriptura

[cksalmon]

Here are the relevant passages. I am sure you have heard them before.

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by bletter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Coupled with this verse

Acts 3: 21

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

This is a great vesre also for moderday prophets. In intertpetion of course.

Rev. 13: 7

7 And it was given unto him (the dragon) to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Rev 14:6

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every enation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

This we believe is a direct prophecy of the Angel Moroni, that an angel is the means for this restitution.

Rev 12:1-6,17

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The woman is the church and the man child is Christ and the seed is those that belong to the church. And there is a time given for how long the woman retreats to the wilderness until the woman returns.

Any way there you have it. There is plenty of evidence that God's church will be taken away and restored before CHrist returns.

I appreciate your response, here, Mola. I'm sure I'll have more to say about it at some later point.

At this point, I'd like to introduce a distinction into our discussion--a distinction gleaned from Keith Mathison's very helpful book The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Mathison makes a very useful distinction between what the Reformers taught about the Bible--sola scriptura (i.e., that doctrinal claims are to be vetted by reference, finally, to scripture) and what we find in modern American Evangelicalism--something Mathison labels solo scriptura: i.e., Bible only. Interestingly, at least to me, Alexander Campbell, was an adherent of solo scriptura: the idea that one can come to the Bible without any sort of traditional underpinning, or bias, or situated perspective, and simply understand the Bible in a superior manner to those who have come before. That sort of understanding is rampant in American Evangelicalism, and I'd wager that that belief (not one held by the Reformers) is what Catholics and LDS typically have their sights set on when they critique sola scriptura.

I'm a bit tied up at the moment, but I hope to get back to you on these matters relatively soon.

Best.

cks

[Pahoran]

CK,

some five days ago, I wrote:

Well, I've had my lunch. And my dinner, too. So, how about it, CK? Where's that marvellously cogent defense of Sola Scriptura from the Bible?

CK?

*Crickets chirp*

Regards,

Pahoran

[David Waltz]

Hi CK,

You posted:

>>At this point, I'd like to introduce a distinction into our discussion--a distinction gleaned from Keith Mathison's very helpful book The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Mathison makes a very useful distinction between what the Reformers taught about the Bible--sola scriptura (i.e., that doctrinal claims are to be vetted by reference, finally, to scripture) and what we find in modern American Evangelicalism--something Mathison labels solo scriptura: i.e., Bible only. Interestingly, at least to me, Alexander Campbell, was an adherent of solo scriptura: the idea that one can come to the Bible without any sort of traditional underpinning, or bias, or situated perspective, and simply understand the Bible in a superior manner to those who have come before. That sort of understanding is rampant in American Evangelicalism, and I'd wager that that belief (not one held by the Reformers) is what Catholics and LDS typically have their sights set on when they critique sola scriptura.>>

IMHO, Mathison

[cksalmon]

IMHO, Mathison

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I appreciate your response, here, Mola. I'm sure I'll have more to say about it at some later point.

At this point, I'd like to introduce a distinction into our discussion--a distinction gleaned from Keith Mathison's very helpful book The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Mathison makes a very useful distinction between what the Reformers taught about the Bible--sola scriptura (i.e., that doctrinal claims are to be vetted by reference, finally, to scripture) and what we find in modern American Evangelicalism--something Mathison labels solo scriptura: i.e., Bible only. Interestingly, at least to me, Alexander Campbell, was an adherent of solo scriptura: the idea that one can come to the Bible without any sort of traditional underpinning, or bias, or situated perspective, and simply understand the Bible in a superior manner to those who have come before. That sort of understanding is rampant in American Evangelicalism, and I'd wager that that belief (not one held by the Reformers) is what Catholics and LDS typically have their sights set on when they critique sola scriptura.

I'm a bit tied up at the moment, but I hope to get back to you on these matters relatively soon.

Best.

cks

It seemed that I thought there was a distinction between the 2 different ways to interpret sola scriptura.

To a point I accept sola scriptura in the classic sense, not the bible only sense.

Which seems to be the 2 ways I see it. The classic sense being a somewhat ambigious definition and the bible only sense it is the one that is argued the most.

It is possible I am mis-understanding you but I don't think I am.

With LDS theology "sola scriptura" changes because prophets speak the will of the Lord and can add to the scriptures.

[David Waltz]

Hello again CK,

Thanks for responding to my post

[cksalmon]

*Crickets chirp*

Hi Pahoran:

At such moments when I haven't been utterly down with disease this past week, I've been crafting a response. Mainly because I was sick at home from work, I've been able to give the topic some extended attention. At this point, I believe I'm going to post my response to my ne'er-yet-used blog: it seems like an obvious candidate for the first substantive post. Thanks for providing the stimulus. I will, of course, invite you and Mola and Waltz and anyone else who might be interested to respond there.

cks

[cksalmon]

I think you are missing one important point: all forms of SS, except nuda scriptura (what Mathison terms solo scriptura

[Pahoran]

Hi Pahoran:

At such moments when I haven't been utterly down with disease this past week, I've been crafting a response. Mainly because I was sick at home from work, I've been able to give the topic some extended attention. At this point, I believe I'm going to post my response to my ne'er-yet-used blog: it seems like an obvious candidate for the first substantive post. Thanks for providing the stimulus. I will, of course, invite you and Mola and Waltz and anyone else who might be interested to respond there.

cks

I'm sorry to hear that you weren't well. However it doesn't seem to have stopped you from continuing to post on this and the other related thread.

But no matter. So, when you (eventually) get around to posting the response on your blog, will you post a link to it here, since the question is, in fact, here?

Because you do realise, don't you, that we still have yet to see that marvellously cogent defense of Sola Scriptura from the Bible?

And that, absent such a defense, we really have no other option than to accept that the idea is actually self-excluding, i.e. contradictory?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

I'm sorry to hear that you weren't well.

I appreciate it. I certainly was not.

However it doesn't seem to have stopped you from continuing to post on this and the other related thread.

No, physical illness doesn't preclude my no-brainer responses to some comments, as I can only guess you're referencing here.

But no matter. So, when you (eventually) get around to posting the response on your blog, will you post a link to it here, since the question is, in fact, here?

Most certainly. As I already stated.

And that, absent such a defense, we really have no other option than to accept that the idea is actually self-excluding, i.e. contradictory?

I believe that that would be a premature conclusion.

cks

PS. I tried to PM you but received an error message stating that you could not receive any new messages.

[cksalmon]

Just to capture this before it runs off into oblivion.

At first I was primarily concerned with what Paul meant by ?????? in 2 Tim. 3.17, pursuant to Pahoran