Sola Scriptura

by dieselman 106 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Perry

    sola scriptura - Scripture is final authority

    solo scriptura - my individual interpretation is final authority

    ala scriptura - religious interpretatioin is final authority with a few scriptures thrown in

    nolo scriptura - the interpretation is final regardless of scripture

  • dieselman

    Perry, I'm not prepared to pander to your off topic deviation, which has no bearing whatsoever on the subject at hand. I will however restate that you clearly do not understand how the covenant arrangement operates, and will also very likely be unwilling to grasp it in the context of David and Bathsheba for example. You have already given up on the understanding of scripture according to the opinions of the WTBTS, and that is your choice. However I know that you know what I will offer as reply to you so it is a waste of time to continue discussion with you. Shaking the dust off my feet now.

    Eyes wide shut, you still dont get the point do you. I responded to a definition by yknot, and then further responded to a definition by Titus, I do not have a definition of the term Sola Scriptura, as you correctly indicated it is not my term. I also never suggested that the WTBTS has Sola Scriptura as part of any so called doctrine of theirs. I suggest you go back and read my posts more carefully. I also have not pirated it in any way, I cast my personal opinion on the matter in the case of yknot's definition, and in the case of Titus' definition I provided some fact which is well documented in the writings of the WTBTS which I imagine most of you have access to.

    Perhaps you should be directing your question of the definitions to yknot and Titus, but thusfar noone is able to refute anything that I have said other than twisting what I say to further their own devices.

    Stick to the facts of the discussion without springing inconsequential verbage.

  • dieselman

    JT, you also seem to lack understanding of the concept of freedom of choice. Noone, but noone forces anyone to be Jehovah's Witness. Everyone is responsible for their own salvation, and that is a viewpoint also held by the GB. But back to the proof you provide to refute my statement, your proof is irrelevant in connection with my statement. I said no person is obliged to be a Jehovah's Witness, and that was in context with a discussion with Titus. You come along and proudly announce "Nonsense" and sprout off topic. What you say has nothing to do with what I said. I will restate and expand a fact. No person is obliged to be, become or remain a JW.

  • dieselman

    Eyes wide shut said

    They opening thread asks if the GB believe in Sola Scriptura.

    The answer is a fallacy based on the common definition of Sola Scriptura.

    For the information of eyes wide shut and other confused people the opening of this thread was not a question of if the GB believe in Sola Scriptura, but was a statement made by yknot in another thread. I quote "Please note the WTS doesn't believe in sola scriptura (bible understood alone by individuals), if you are 'lurker' and want to refute this fact, please start a new thread or feel free to PM me …… (reproof will be accepted if you can show me my error of understanding on the matter)" end quote

    The answer was I went on to agree with that statement citing my own opinion of the matter, and that answer was not in any way connected with the common definition of Sola Scriptura, and my opinion cannot amount to a fallacy. I also never sought to offer any reproof of his statement as his statement is correct, for reasons that I later expanded on.

    Eyes wide shut said

    THEY (GB) believe that Sola Scriptura points only to them.

    What rubbish you speak, because you say that does not make that a fact. You are entitled to make that your opinion but your opinion cannot be taken as fact.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    DD, my opening statement is quoting yknot. I am stating that they do subscribe to sola scriptura in the correct definition, but they do not subscribe to the definition according to yknot. In other words, the WTS believes what God's word says, that someone needs to help another person to understand his word. The Ethiopian in point. However, the WTS also believes that scripture explains scripture, and that m.o. is used repeatedly in their explanations of scripture.

    I'm stating they do not. I don't care what they say. They lie.


    ... I provided some fact which is well documented in the writings of the WTBTS which I imagine most of you have access to.

    How are the facts (documents) you point to, relevant to what the WTBTS actually believes or practices?

    What are we missing here? When you said:

  • Titus


    "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "sola scriptura" = "fish" and "motorbike"

    Phrase "sola scriptura" occures 3 times in WT publications, and all 3 times is in connection with the Protestants.

    *** g02 6/22 p. 11 A Tolerant Kingdom in an Intolerant Age ***
    Yet, some in the 16th century chose to go against tradition and examine the Scriptures in an attempt to clarify such mysteries. Their motto was sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Those who rejected the Trinity doctrine—some of whom were later called Unitarians, as opposed to Trinitarians—often became the object of intense persecution by Catholics and Protestants alike. They printed their widely read works under pseudonyms and hid themselves away to avoid persecution. Anti-Trinitarians were also at the forefront in the fight for tolerance. Some, such as the Spanish theologian Michael Servetus, even paid for their convictions with their lives.

    *** g02 6/22 p. 13 A Tolerant Kingdom in an Intolerant Age ***
    Controversy over the Trinity began to swell, and with it came demand for a public debate on the subject. In line with the principle sola Scriptura, Biandrata held that at such debates only Scriptural, not philosophical, language should be used. Following an inconclusive debate in 1566, Sigismund gave the anti-Trinitarians a printing press to spread their ideas.

    *** sh chap. 13 p. 318 par. 26 The Reformation—The Search Took a New Turn ***
    Finally, Luther contended that all doctrinal matters are to be confirmed by Scripture only (sola scriptura) and not by popes or church councils.

    Now, "DIE sel MAN", examine the life and the background of persons who advocated the "sola scriptura" philosophy, and then say something about the philosophy of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

    "Sola scriptura" is man-made philosophy, and you know who tried to connect "man-made philosophy" and "Christianity" - the apologists from 2nd century A.D. You can read more about them in the June 1 2010 Watchtower, page 28 (The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?).


  • Titus

    *** sh chap. 13 p. 318 par. 26 The Reformation—The Search Took a New Turn ***
    Finally, Luther contended that all doctrinal matters are to be confirmed by Scripture only (sola scriptura) and not by popes, church councils [or Governing Bodies].

  • designs

    Even the great Martin Luther, patron saint to the Protestant movement, wanted to 'edit' the canon to his liking. The Book of James really through a wrench in his theology.

    Just another Bishop with scissors.

  • PSacramento
    The Book of James really through a wrench in his theology.

    Book of James ?

  • Titus
    Book of James ?

    Probably because James 2:24 says: "YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone".

    Luther advocated the idea of "justification by faith alone".

Share this