The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Partial Inerrancy - working definition

Straw,

1) Sola Scriptura isn't a doctrine to which one can stand with unwavering confidence because it came out of the Reformation. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> The doctrine was in existence long before the Reformation ever came along. ALL the prophets in the O.T. held to the doctrine as did ALL of God's elect. Likewise, it was a truth held by ALL the N.T. prophets/disciples. "Thus saith the LORD" was no fanciful cliché, but a total reliance upon what had been given and recorded was the very word of God. I have previously given you a link to myriad articles which describe and defend this ancient doctrine. One can only hope you took the time to read even a few of them, if not all of them.

2) As I mentioned to "Young Catholic", IF the extent manuscripts we have in our possession are not reliable (i.e., they are fraught with errors), then there is NOTHING in the Bible which one can look to and say, "This is what God has spoken.", or "This is the will of God". Thus, the person of Christ is questionable as is His atoning work. In fact, there is no warrant to speak about sin, faith or salvation nor to make determinations as to what is right or wrong; good or evil. Those denominations and groups which have forsaken the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible deny the necessity of salvation, the deity of Christ, the need of repentance and faith, ad nauseam. And, who can find fault with their reasoning if the Bible is nothing more than a literary work? It's either all or nothing my lost friend.

3) A couple of friends of mine have written a 3-volume work which can be said to be the last word on the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura". They have provided an incredible repository of biblical and historical arguments, which categorically show that "Sola Scriptura" is a doctrine of the Scripture itself. Although the main audience (antagonist) of the work was the Roman State Church, it applies equally well to anyone. You can read my book review of that set here: Sola Scriptura, by David T. King and William Webster.

4) Lastly, what is the alternative you would offer? Hmmmmm <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> . . . let me guess! A still small voice that whispers in your ear from God Himself, right? And what verity does that have over a physical record of God's will for mankind in the Bible? How can one really know if that is God speaking or one's own musings or the voice of the serpent? Since the Bible teaches that such "voices" are nefarious and are to be rejected cart blanc, then there is no "proof" you or anyone else can offer. I can just as quickly and easily respond to anyone who claims that "God told me . . ." that the Spirit spoke to me and specifically said that what you said is false and not of God. Then what? Are you going to charge God with failing to successfully communicate with mankind? Or, will you suggest that it is God's will that generations of men are to remain ignorant and confused as to His person and will? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,