[CS-FSLUG] Open Source Theology

[Chris Brault]

Sorry about that man,

I do believe God has preserved for us His word as He desires us to have 
it through the minds of brilliant and inspired men.

> Actually, Jesus stated the predicate of "sola scriptura" as
> He responded to the temptation of the Devil in the desert.

His temptation was a battle of "scripture taken out of context" against 
a dubious, deceptive and quite evil, yet brilliant biblical scholar. 
Some modern movements use scripture the same way. I have argued against 
them even while I was working with them teaching young children. Of all 
things, I must be honest even if it doesn't support my own view. That is 
very "answers in genesis" of me.

-------------------------------------------------------

> He later reiterated it when He confronted the confused religious
> leaders of His day.

I'll assume the verses you refer to: It was in matters of tradition and 
interpretation that he disputed the religious leaders on scripture. 
There is nothing sacred about human traditions and there never has been. 
However at the time, the NT didn't exist, only the verbal words of Jesus 
and the OT (of which Jesus was a walking concordance / encyclopedia / 
commentary on). So, Jesus was defending the accuracy of the OT, as 
correctly interpreted, and was in fact rejecting human traditions 
inserted into or holding power over it.

-------------------------------------------------------

> In the Canonical writings of the Apostles and other divinely
> called and inspired authors of God's Biblical text they repeated
> the construct of "sola scriptura".

They did indeed uphold the OT as received from "men ... inspired by the 
Holy Spirit."  For this reason we can assume that they saw non-scripture 
as inaccurate. We can also assume that their writings, as received in 
the original manuscripts, are also accurate representations of the words 
and teachings of Jesus the Christ. That said, I agree that apart from 
the words of the Apostles and those who accurately recorded their 
teachings, writings, even of the church fathers, are not accurate enough 
to be received into the Canon ... however, they are a good reference on 
historical beliefs of their century.

---------------------------------------------------------

> Sola scriptura is as soundly Biblical as is the Trinity.
> 
> Also, someone suggested that Revelation 22:18-19 applies
> only to the Book of Revelation.  That is a very unusual
> narrowing of the application of a piece of Biblical text
> and serves only to undermine the reliability the Word of
> God as a whole, thus I reject that proposition.

There was not NT when Revelation was written. John was referring to 
"this book" (scroll). The only "book" (scroll) he was writing at the 
time was that one. Even if he had some of the other letters (scrolls) 
with him, wouldn't he have said "these" and referred to the others. 
Perhaps he had a scroll with some of the other letters on it and then he 
added Revelation to it. Even in that very dubious case, the entire NT as 
we know it was probably not on it. So, either he was referring to his 
Divine Revelation or he was referring to a longer manuscript on the same 
scroll. Either way, he was not referring to the entire NT, 
never-the-less the OT.

Gabe Ginorio