Will the real Sola Scriptura please stand up

A Defense of Sola Scriptura

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

 

Hi Lisa!

I will take a little time off to study those links you provided.

And when I will get back to you with appropriate comments.

Got your E-mail and sent a reply! Thank you!

This "harmless little fuzzball" will be sticking around!

ON EDIT: I have scanned your three links. The first two seemingly speaks against Sola Scriptura, although I may have overlooked something in my brief scanning.

The third link is easily refuted. Be aware that the early church fathers must be taken in context in the entire work quoted and the body of their writing concerning where they stand on this issue.

Be aware that the early fathers debated their adversaries from scripture only because it was the only "common ground" between then; the heresies being put down certainly does not recognise Church authoriy and tradition.
END OF EDIT

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

[ February 19, 2003, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

Bill,

I still have to reply to your other four posts, and will try to do so today. But, I just wanted to address you last few comments.

They are not against sola scriptura, they are clarifying the term, which is probably against your (and many other people's) understanding of the term. There is only one correct meaning for the term sola scriptura, irregardless of how many different explanations that are given by different people. If the definition given does not jive with the correct term, then what they believe does not fall under the scope of sola scriptura. Therefore, if you take time to search out the correct meaning for yourself, then when you encounter someone who disagrees, you will be obliged to correct them. And you can do so based upon fact and not what you've been told by others.

Be aware that I've heard that before. Also, that's why I have decided to read the fathers for myself. Just because only partial comments are posted, does not mean the entire text has not been read.

I disagree.

 

Lisa,

OK, I will lay low until you reply to my long message.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now…"

1 Peter 3:20-21

[ February 20, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

Sir.

Was it the water that saved him and his family, or the faith it took to build the ark, and the faith it took to bring him and his family onboard, and the faith that God meant what he said, when he told Noah his family would be spared ?

Sir.

 

Hello Bro. Curtis! I've read several of your posts and wanted to meet you, so here is my opportunity!

Let's look at my previous "tagline" once again:

"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now…"

1 Peter 3:20-21

The bottom line, in my opinion, is Noah's faith in God.

This certainly had to be there if he was to do anything at all. Having this, he certainly built the Ark at God's instructions, into which he and his family was certainly saved (not counting all of the animals and stuff.) Therefore, I think I am agreeing with you here...

But looking deeper, I think Peter saw the "water" upon which the ark floated upon as a prefigurement of something that Christ established, the Sacrament of Baptism, which of course uses water.

And for me, the important part of the quote is the last sentence, "this prefigured baptism, which saves you now."

We Catholics see this sentence as scripturally proving that this sacrament actually saves an individual, cleans him/her of all sins, and makes him/her a "child of God" in that they are initiated into the family of the Church in which they are in this "new ark" (church) by which we may be saved.

I may speak a bit too far here, as I also imply that while we see and believe in an initial salvific power of baptism, we also see the continuing need for the Christian to avoid sin that the salvation road they start on will be maintained, and they they do not fall into a ditch and return to a pre-baptism state of sin.

Now, what the the subject of the original thread?

Anyway, sincere greetings to you, Bro. Curtis!

Like I have cultivated a good beginning in Christian friendship with Lisa, I hope I may include you as well in my efforts here.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila -

 

Bill,

I was really hoping to get to respond today, but didn't have a chance. Tomorrow! I promise!!

God Bless!!!

 

You too!

Take your time, Lisa!

You sound like a momma!

Ask my wife, we had SEVEN! (All grown up now, giving us 15 grandchildren at last count!)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

Hey Bill ,

Let's see if I can get to all four of your posts this morning, okay?

And what I've been trying to impress on you is that there is only one correct definition to sola scriptura. And once you figure out what it is, you will have the edge on your debate partner by correcting him.

See, my point is the majority of debates that you feel disprove sola scriptura are debates built upon a "straw man." You are not really arguing against the real term, just your understanding of it.

Yes. That's why I've decided that you should search out the one true meaning of the term and then you can quickly dispose of wrong definitions given to you and save yourself a lot of wasted hours.

I didn't mean to imply that you did.

Did it not perhaps ring a bell indicating that just perhaps you were getting close to defining SS?

Other protestants disagreeing with the definition would not be evidence that the definition is wrong.

Perhaps not. But, as I've conversed with you, I have thought about this. I'm sure than most non-RCs have gone along with the definition given by their respective churches and haven't sought the true meaning on their own. So, basically, what they are arguing, they may believe. However, the fact is what they believe is different than sola scriptura.

Okay.

Well, this priest was sent packing.

Well . . . I believe we have to look closer to the Reformation era to find the right definition.

Yet, there are still people of the RC faith who have different understandings on RC doctrine. See my post from the Layperson.

But, that's an unreasonable desire.

You left one out . . . Roman Catholicism.

Okay.

See ya on the next post!

 

Maybe in regards to knowing the ECFs and the Catechism you are correct. But, my experience with non-RCs is that they know their Scriptures pretty dern good.

Well, I don't think it would be too much for you to expect your counterparts to reveal their particular denomination or belief practices so you can argue effectively.

Well, there is a definite definition for SS, you just need to figure out what it is.

I don't think you would be being unreasonable if you refused to debate with such a person.

Yes, we know where to go. However, it's not as easy as you believe.

Maybe, but I think you can correct that.

But, it's the RCs who place themselves in this position. If you stopped the argument of RCism vs all Protestantism, many of your major arguments used to disspell non-Catholic teachings would become null and void.

Could you just give me one tiny example. Maybe, I'll start another thread.

I disagree. Was the Church formed before or after the Gospels were delivered? Not necessarily written down, but delivered. Did the Church exist before Jesus' ministry? We know from Matt 16:18 that the Church was not yet formed, because Jesus said, " . . . upon this rock I will build my Church."

Yes, but you still have not proven that the Church was formed before the Gospel.

See next post . . .

 

I continue . . .

I know that. I wasn't trying to assert that the OT's importance was taking away from the NT, just to show that it is evident by the foreshadowing in the OT that the Gospel was planned already.

Bill, that doesn't mean the Church came before the Gospel--just before it was put in writing. The formation of the Church was part of the Gospel, it was part of Christ's ministry.

Yes.

But, it was written down. Why do you suppose that is?

It may not have been activated, yet. But, I believe it did exist.

No, it's not. God already formulated the Gospel, before the Church was established. The foundation of the Church was part of His plan in the Gospel.

But, not before the Gospel.

So, when do you assert that the Church was established?

That doesn't mean it didn't exist.

It has been preserved for us in writing. That's how the earliest christian leaders ensured that it was passed on accurately to us.

But, they did write it down. Why do you think they did?

And you continued to converse with this person?

Where it's always been.

Wherever the Gospel was being preached--church.

But, the Gospel still existed.

Let me ask you. When you were in school, your teacher was in charge of the class. Did that mean she could get up and teach whatever she wanted? She had a source for what she taught--a text book. She was bound to follow what was in that book. Just like the church is bound to follow Scripture and teach what is there.

More to follow . . . .

[ February 21, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

(Continued from previous message)

Ingrained in the Gospel. You know I keep hearing, "NT Scripture wasn't written until . . . " However, that does not account for the epistles written by Paul. Maybe you can enlighten me. Did Paul not write those epistles? And there's no way to know for certain that none of these teachings were being cirulated in some type of written form.

The authority was in the same place it is today, the Gospel as delivered in person by Jesus Christ. It's not the written form that gives the Scriptures their autority. It is the written form which has preserved the Gospel so that it would be passed on to us. No, I don't agree that the authority rested in the Church.

In the teachings delivered by Christ or in St. John's case in Revelation, as revealed by God.

If you read the New Testament you'll see it everywhere.

And there are people today who can't read and therefore only hear the Gospel.

To where the Gospel was being preached.

Yes.

It's not the Scriptures which possess authority. It's the teachings contained therein that hold the authority.

I already have.

That still does not disprove the fact the Gospel was formed before the Church.

There is not evidence of that. If so, can you please show me.

You're going to have to show me this evidence.

Once again, I beg to differ. What we have in this passage is Jesus saying He will found His church . . . And I have to remind you that all twelve of the apostles, including Judas, were given the power to loose and bind. And as far as being given keys to the Kingdom, I don't see it as the same level of power/authority that you do. If I give someone the keys to my house, he will still operate according to the rules I lay down.

Just because it wasn't written does not negate it's existance.

Really? Guess we'll have to see about that.

Continue . . . .

[ February 21, 2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

from WPUTNAM


Hello Bro. Curtis! I've read several of your posts and wanted to meet you, so here is my opportunity!


My reputation preceeds me!!



The bottom line, in my opinion, is Noah's faith in God.



Amen to that. Also, seems like God had a little faith in Noah, that he would obey his word, to the letter.




I may speak a bit too far here, as I also imply that while we see and believe in an initial salvific power of baptism, we also see the continuing need for the Christian to avoid sin that the salvation road they start on will be maintained, and they they do not fall into a ditch and return to a pre-baptism state of sin.



Here is where we will disagree. Your theory violates my belief in the OSAS doctrine. Let’s look at this verse...

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

From the very beginning, God has required the shedding of blood to hide sin. When Adam and Eve could not face him due to their shame, God provided a blood sacrifice to cover them. We also see it in Egypt, on the very first passover, where people were spared only by the power of blood. You could have a good argument that water saves only with Namaan, but I still am not convinced. His faith, and God’s grace, were what healed him.

The thief on the cross was never Baptized.

I don’t even see where Paul was Baptized, but am willing to be proven wrong.

The water, in Noah’s time, was judgement.




Anyway, sincere greetings to you, Bro. Curtis!

Like I have cultivated a good beginning in Christian friendship with Lisa, I hope I may include you as well in my efforts here.



And you as well, Mr. Putnam. Please rest assured, even if we disagree on every major doctrine we discuss, and even if we feel the other is way off, you have the respect due anyone with gold on their cover. My angry posts come when I feel people insinuate that if I would only educate myself, I would be catholic also. I’m no Einstein, but I tested at 127 IQ in my pre-teens, and 123 last year. I graduated in the top 10% of anyone who ever went to my “C” school. I have moments of blinding brilliance, but speak in layman’s terms.

Anyway, I don't expect you to agree, but at least understand my position.

 

Okay, Bill, I think this is it . . . whew!

Authority rests with God. The people who wrote, taught, combined Scripture were merely vessels God used to deliver His message to us, just as Scriptures are merely the mode He chose to ensure their preservation.

I never implied any such thing. And you are wrong in stating that many Fundementalists believe this way.

Glad you think so!

I'm sorry I don't interpret those verses as giving Peter or the Church the authority claimed by the RCC.

No, what you could say is that Christ bestowed the responsibity of spreading and teaching the Gospel upon the Church. But, He did not give the RCC the authority to define His word.

Once again, I do not believe that those verses imply what you believe. There is a thread here on forgiving sins. Check it out, Briguy gives an excellent explanation of John 20:22-23.

Here's an analogy for you, say a person is a writer and dies, leaving masses of unpublished poems, short stories, etc . . . Then, some of his contemporaries and peers decide that an anthology of his unpublished writings should be published. So, they sort through the massive amounts of writings left by him. These people being very well versed on his style, etc . . . are able to tell that some of the texts are not actually written by him, so they discard these writings. Anyhow, they also find that some of his work is so similar that it is only necessary to publish one or two say of a particular type of poem that will represent this type of text. This helps in regards to space and number of pages. Do you see where I'm going with this? Although, fans of this writer are grateful to these people, who so diligently aspired to do justice to the author, they are not responsible for the authors work, they do not exercise authority over his work, etc . . . .

But, the church didn't come before the New Testament.

The church was part of the plan of the New Covenant. It was not established before Jesus' ministry or even before the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

I've already said that the church was already formulated--as part of the New Covenant plan.

Okay, the Church held a council (or councils) to determine what texts belong or didn't. The church took it upon itself to say the canon was closed. They did this under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not of their own accord or based upon any type of authority.

No, I don't see your dilemma. Scripture does not supersede the authority of the Gospel. It is the Gospel of which the church is supposed to follow. As the pillar and foundation of the Gospel, the church is suppose to preserve, uphold and adhere to the Gospel. The church operates according to the Gospel, which just happens to be contained in Scripture. It's only a problem for people who insist that the church possesses this infallible authority.

Like I said, all teachers have a text book they must follow when they are teaching.

This is only a dilemma for you, who insists the Church has this authority. For those of us who do not place the type of authority in the Church that you do, it's not a problem.

No. You just need to obtain a different understanding of them . . .

'Fraid I can't do that for you. You're going to have to get a grasp on the definition of SS and reconcile it for yourself.

You're that old . . . .

Bless you, Pop!

You are most definitely in my prayers as I know you are praying for me.

 

Bro. Curtis,

Didn't Paul get baptized in Acts 9:18? (Back in his "My friends call me Saul" days...)

Mark

 

Where I last said: (with a bit of editing.)

I may speak a bit too far here, as I also imply that while we see and believe in an initial salvific power of baptism, we also see the continuing need for the Christian to avoid sin that the salvation road they start on will be maintained, and they they do not fall into a ditch and return to a pre-baptism state of sin.

Exactly! Which is why He waited until after His resurrection and His first appearance to the apostles that he gives His power to forgive or retain the sins of men in John 20:22-23!

Before the blood was shed, God could still forgive sin, but the gates of heaven were still closed. And the above quote is that mechanism by which the Christian could restore his path to salvation, once lost by sin.

Yes, the blood you speak of is a foreshadowing of the blood that needed to be shed but once. And by our acceptance of Christ, come to believe in Christ, including to observe what He commands us,
the blood of the cross applies.

But what of the following quotes:

Paste-in here...

Mt 10:22
But whoever holds out till the end will escape death. (NAB)

Mt 24:13
The man who holds out to the end, however, is the one who
will see salvation. (NAB)

Mk 13:13
Nonetheless, the man who holds out till the end is the one
who will come through safe. (NAB)

Rom 5:2
... we boast of our hope for the glory of God. (NAB)

NOTE: Why "hope" if salvation is assurred?

Rom 8:24-25
In hope we are saved. But hope is not hope if its object is
seen; how is it possible to hope for what he sees? And hoping
for what we cannot see means awaiting it with patient
endurance. (NAB)

NOTE: The same key word again - hope.

1 Cor 10:12
For all these reasons, let anyone who thinks
he is standing upright watch out lest he fall! (NAB)

1 Cor 4:3-5
It matters little to me whether you or any human court
pass judgment on me. I do not even pass judgment on myself.
Mind you, I have nothing on my conscience. But that does
not mean that I am declaring myself innocent. The Lord is
the one to judge me, so stop passing judgment before the
time of his return. He will bring to light what is hidden
in the darkness and manifest the intentions of hearts. At
that time, everyone will receive his praise from God. (NAB)

1 Cor 9:27
No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after
having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.
(NAB)

1 Cor 10:12
Therefore whoever thinks he is standing secure should
take care not to fall. (NAB)

2 Cor 6:3
We avoid giving anyone offense, so that our ministry may
not be blamed. On the contrary, in all that we do we
strive to present ourselves as ministers of God, acting
with patient endurance amid trials, difficulties,
distresses, beatings, imprisonments, and riots; as men
familiar with hard work, sleepless nights and fastings...
(NAB)

Gal 5:1-4
1. For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do
not submit again to the yoke of slavery. 2. It is I, Paul,
who am telling you that if you have yourselves circumsised,
Christ will will be of no benefit to you. 3. Once again, I
declare to every man who has himself circumcised that he is
bound to observe the entire law. 4. You are separated from
Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you
have fallen from grace. (NAB)

Phil 2:12
So then, my dearly beloved, obedient as always to my
urging, work with anxious concern to achieve your
salvation, not only when I happen to be with you but
all the more now that I am absent. It is God, who, in
his good will toward you, begets in you any measure of
desire or achievement. (NAB)

Phil 3:11-14
11 if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the
dead. 12 It is not that I have already taken hold of
it or have already attained perfect maturity , but I
continue my persuit in hope that I may possess it,
since I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ
[Jesus]. 13 Brothers, I for my part do not consider my-
self to have taken possession. Just one thing: for-
getting what lies behind but straining forward to what
lies ahead. 14 I continue my pursuit toward the goal,
the prize of God's upward calling, in Christ Jesus.
(NAB)

1 Tim 4:1
Not the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times
some will turn away from the faith by paying attention
to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions...(NAB)

1 Tim 5:15
For some have already turned away to follow Satan. (NAB)

Heb 3:12-15
12 Take care, brothers, that none of you may have an
evil and unfaithful heart, so as to forsake the living
God. 13 Encourage yourselves daily while it is still
"today," so that none of you may grow hardened by the
deceit of sin. 14 We have become partners of Christ if
only we hold the beginning of the reality firm until
the end, 15 for it is said:

Oh, that today you would hear his voice:
"Harden not your hearts as it the
rebellion." (NAB)

Heb 6:4-6
4 For it is impossible in the case of those who have
once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift
and shared in the holy Spirit 5 and tasted the good
word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and
then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance
again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for
themselves and holding him up to contempt.

Heb 6:11-12
Our desire is that each of you show the same zeal till the
end, fully assured of that for which you hope. Do not grow
lazy but Imitate those who through faith and patience, are
inheriting the promises. (NAB)

1 Pet 1:13-15
So gird the loins of your understanding; live soberly; set
your hope on the gift to be conferred on you when Jesus
Christ appears. (NAB)

2 Pet 2:15
Abandoniong the straight road, they have gone astray,
following the road of Baslaam, the son of Bosor, who
loved payment for wrongdowing,...

2 Pet 2:20-21 20
For if they, having escaped the defilement of the world
through the of [our] Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again
become entangled and overcome by them, their last
condition is worse then their first. 21 For it would have
been better for them not to have known the way of righteous-
ness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy
commandment handed down to them.

End of paste-in...

And neither were many catechumens (Under instruction in the faith) who were martyred before they were baptized.

The Church considers the thief on the cross as having received a "baptism of desire." At that moment, had he been able, he would have received baptism (but his entry into heaven would still have been "delayed" until after Christ died and after He decended into Sheol (the creeds also say "hell") that the Old Testament saints would them proceed to heaven.

The holy Martyrs, including the Holy Innocents (the young children killed by Herod) received the "baptism of blood."

And so indeed, there are exceptions to baptism, which remains the normal way, per John 3:5 and as given to us by Peter in the letter we have been discussing.

As a matter of fact, Let me quote:

"So Ananias went and entered the house;laying hands on him, he said, 'Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the hoily Spirit.' Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his signt. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eater, he recovered his strength." (Acts 9:17-19 Catholic NAB)

But this does not explain the tail-end of verse 21:

"This prefigured baptism, which saves you now."

It is an after-thought by Peter to add that little tail on the end of his sentence here. He could of said, "This prefigured baptism," period, and let it go at that.

Of course, Peter is simply reminding them of the salvific nature of baptism, prefigured by the account of Noah!

I last said:

Anyway, sincere greetings to you, Bro. Curtis!

Like I have cultivated a good beginning in Christian friendship with Lisa, I hope I may include you as well in my efforts here.

Please call me Bill!

And I too have had angry encounters with others, but I don't expect that to occur between us at all!

After all, I have yet to have a moment of "blinding brilliance," so you have something on me!

Of course! And likewise with me in my position.

I have been doing Catholic apologetics for nearly 20 years now, and never has it occurred that someone came around to my way of thinking. I'm not glib of tongue enough to do that. And so I simply ask the holy Spirit to take over where I am deficient in my words...

For Lisa, knowing that she is hanging on my every word, I have your reply on the hard-drive to be replied to in a day or two...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Yet whenever this is brought up - the RC posts are "only" to condemn the concept NOT to argue "YES this is EXACTLY right and we also use tradition that way AS WELL".

It is only a death-to-scripture model of "you can't trust the Bible" that is presented.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Thess
Nothing? So you say that all Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura agree to what it is. I find that very odd since I have documented evidence about that with three different Protestants I have gotten three different explanations. Certainly if the concept of Sola Scirptura is biblical, the Bible must also tell us exactly what Sola scriptura means. Do you have a verse for a definitoin.



Case in point for the previous post.

Consistently "the Bible is insufficient" as the theme of the RCC response.

But according to the doctrine as stated above that would be like consistently arguing "Christ is INSUFFICIENT"

Since the RCC claims to venerate both the SAME.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Acts 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Timothy traveled with Paul on his missionary journeys, after he met him in Derbe. It says that in Derbe Timothy believed. After that Paul taught him, discipled him, until he came to the place where he was able to be the pastor of the church at Ephesus. Paul wrote Timothy two epistles, not to explain the gospel, but to give him instruction in the operation of the local church. These are pastoral epistles. He was a young pastor. Paul writes:
"The things that thou has heard of me the same commit thou also to faithful men who shall be able to teach others." (2Tom.2:2). Paul had taught Timothy already. He commands Timothy to take what he had taught him and teach that to faithful men, who in turn would teach others.
Of course, everything that was taught was Bible-based, from the Bible. They had the Old Testament Scriptures, from which Timoty was raised on. And as New Testament Scriptures became available they were used as well.
DHK