Sola Scriptura

by dieselman 106 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Perry
    Yet the JW's don't realize they stand on the same ground as all other religions.

    Wrong, and here's why.

    First, There are 5000 differences between the King James Bible and the NWT. So their bible is corrupted as is the basis of that Translation, the Master Greek Text made by the spiritists Wescott and Hort.

    Secondly, they reject God's spirit offered in the new birth.

    So, they have little connection to the Word of God and zero connection to the spirit of God. Traditional, non-catholic apostolic Christianity stands on both. It is like one standing on the north pole and the other on the south pole.

  • dieselman

    Perry, I am sure as a former pioneer you are well appraised of the situation, and do not require any explanation of how the Covenant is arranged. Your dramatics are wasted.

  • eyes wide shut
    eyes wide shut

    Very nice response eyes wide shut, and thank you for sticking to the topic. Of course that is a subjective opinion. Its entire premise is based on if you are indeed correct, and presupposes that your opinion is fact, which it is not, it is only your opinion, and the opinion of the source you quote. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see that at least somebody is getting the point. Almost.

    No that is not a subjective opinion.

    Those definitions for Sola Scriptura and Traditions, in relating to church Tradition, is founded in centuries of use throughout the world By billions of people.

    I know of no other definition for Sola Scriptura or Tradition. If there is it would be insignificant in comparison.

    Definitions are defined by society at large and are given meaning through consensus and agreement.

    Maybe you know something more than Martin Luther did on Sola Scriptura?

    In a sentence can you give me your definition of Sola Scriptura? Clearly defined. Because if no one here has a basis to go on the answer will never given.

    It will help you and everyone else.

    If none of us know what your animal looks like how are we to argue what is is suppose to do or not do.

  • dieselman

    It seems people have difficulty reading here. It is a subjective opinion, I make that comment in general to your entire previous comment of opinions, not the origin of the definition of sola scriptura. And the definitions (two of them) in discussion have been expanded on. Clearly little reading and much responding takes place in this forum.

  • eyes wide shut
    eyes wide shut


    What is your definition of Sola Scriptura?

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    eyes wide shut

    They WT Organisation believes in their own constructed authority in which they solely rely on the Bible. However, they believe that their members must rely on them and that sola scriptura does not apply to the faithful but must resort to something beyond the scriptures and that is them as holding the correct understanding.

    Wait a minute here, I must be missing something here, you say you agree with me, but, my point is they don't "rely on the bible" at all. They just say they do. Just quoting Mathew 24:45 doesn't give them any authority. They could pick any verse and distort it. That's not Sola Scriptura.

    They make up things as they go along. They pull dates out of their asses. Look at the failed prophecies 1879, 1914, 1925, ...75 and on and on it goes. Like the 607 BC fall vs 586 BC for another example. People are disfellowshipped if they don't accept these dates.

    Did Russell use Sola Scriptura for his pyramidology?

    Next someone will try to say William Miller used "Sola Scriptura" for his failed prophecies.

  • designs

    This is what Protestant philosophy boils down to- God creates Hell and predestines humans, that he created, to be in Hell then has himself killed and resurrects himself to save those who accept this story from the Hell he intended to put people in.

    Lovely just lovely, on par with the Muslims and a few others who still hold to a literal Hell.

    The Age of Enlightenment is about 100 years in the future for Fundamentalists and Witnesses and Muslims at this rate.

  • Perry
    how the Covenant is arranged


    Are you aware that the new covenant is for the forgiveness of sins?

    1. there is one Mediator between God and men

    2. Hebrews 9: 15 - he is the mediator of the new covenant

    3. Eph1:7 - we have redemption only through the blood

    4. Access to the covenant is only throught the blood. Hebrews 10:29 Of how much SORER punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

    So if you are outside of the new covenant (contract) and Jesus is not your mediator, how are your sins forgiven?

    All will be judged:

    Heb. 9:27 - it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

    So how are you going to escape judgment without a mediator, a contract, or your own righteousness?

    Do you believe that God will judge everyone individually? Remember that Eve didn't believe that God would actually follow through with her death when she ate.

  • Justitia Themis
    Justitia Themis

    Titus, in other words, a person is not obliged to be Jehovah's Witness. Everyone is free to choose their own course.

    Nonsense. The Catholic Church subscribes to the concept of the Magisterium, meaning that only the Pope and the bishops are able to interpret the Bible...or give the members their spiritual 'food at the proper time.' In like manner, JWs believe in the Magisterium that consists of the FDS, who provides 'food at the proper time.'

    Using your definition, one could state that the Catholic Church does NOT subscribe to the concept of the Magisterium because "a person is not obliged to be" a Catholic.

  • eyes wide shut
    eyes wide shut

    Deputy Dog,

    Only have time for a short reply,

    They, (the GB), not me, or you say that they rely on only the Bible to point to them as the authority. I don't agree with their belief. I believe in yours.

    I was only making a statement based on the principle of how THEY believe, not how I believe. It helps to gain ground on the question at hand.

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

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

    THEY believe that Sola Scriptura points only to them. That the Bible was meant for everyone but only through them. That's a fallacy based on the standard definition.

    I don't believe this and I don't think you do either. I was just trying to answer the question in its context not debate my beliefs or anyone elses.

    For my beliefs I don't believe in the WTBTS nor in the Protestant concept of Sola Scriptura. But I think that is irralevant for this thread. I also don't believe the WTBTS believes in Sola Scriptura.

    I don't know what other definition there is for SS, but I would like to hear other views.

Share this