I am interested in a conversation

[Marooncat79]

yet ALL claim they were “led” by the Holy Spirit.

And thats the problem huh? We are to be led by the Scripture as Luther said The Spirit testifies of the Scripture not my wild haired ideas. He does this by illuminating our hearts w the truth of Scripture and illuminates man made doctrine

 

[1689Dave]

I am interested in a conversation about sola Scriptura.

First, I would like a definition of it. Can anyone provide a definition of sola Scriptura, using sola Scriptura? If no definition can be provided using sola Scriptura, who gets to define it?

I would also like to discuss how effective sola Scriptura has been in resolving theological differences.

Sola Scripura (scripture alone) is the constraint applied to the study of Biblical Theology.

 

[JoeT]

To me, anything written after the time frame of the apostles, and by the apostles, is not Scripture. The whole word of God is Scripture.

Sacred Scripture is indeed the Word of God, but it is not the complete Word. If so then there is no eternal life outside of the first century. But we see a definite formation of an organization referred to as the Kingdom. The Kingdom, i.e. Church, is formed with Bishops as the head [Acts 20:28]; they are to rule “rule the church”. Priests and deacons are to serve [1 Peter 2:18] as are the laity.
This is all while Christ walked the earth and came into its own on Pentecost.

Basically put, Magisterium, if that is what is being addressed here, is not valid.

If it deviates from Scripture one iota, Magisterium is disqualified as a combination of man's words and teachings, plus God's words and teachings.

The Magisterium is nothing more than the Holy Spirit teaching through the Bishops of the Church. The revealed word of Christ was transmitted to His disciples either from the lips of Christ or through inspiration by the Holy Spirit and then to the world. Initially, His Word was not transmitted in writing rather by the teaching of the Church in the persons of her Bishops guided by the Holy Spirit.

God, who cannot lie, and man, who does. The two are diametrically opposed to one another.

Nor does Scripture lie being the Word of God, but one can lie to himself out of avariciousness when left to himself. The teaching arm of the Church, the Magisterium, is congruous with the teaching of the Apostles. And in doing so, the Magisterium is congruous with the Word of God.

This is why we hear in Scripture that we are to listen to the Church [Matthew 18:17] which through the Apostles is given the power to bind and loose [Matthew 18:18]

The only time a man's words are to be trusted as coming from God, is if they line up with God's perfect and written words.

Even then, quoted Scripture is often misused by false teachers ( who are known by their lack of spiritual fruits ), and believer's are to mark and avoid them.

This is why we are to hear the disciples of Christ, because He that heareth you [the Church in the person of the disciples], heareth me [Jesus Christ]; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." [Luke 10:16]. Then to object and despise the teaching of the Church is to despise Christ.

As for traditions, anything taught contrary to Scripture is in essence not to be trusted or treated as coming from God.

Teaching the commandments of men as doctrines, is also elevating man's words above God's.

Then you would take Holy Scripture to in that category of ‘contrary’. Sacred Scripture is in itself the ‘Tradition of the Catholic Church’. Scripture was written by the Apostles for the authority of the Church else they would be countermining their own words.

Men's teachings and God's teachings are not mutually compatible.

May God, in His grace, bless you, sir.

Christ was God/man, Theandros, who walked this earth teaching the Apostles. If man’s teachings and God’s are not mutually compatible are His teachings ‘not mutually compatible’ with the Father?

May God bless you with the Wisdom of God, as it goes before all things. [Ecclesiasticus 1:3]

 

[Revmitchell]

Sacred Scripture is indeed the Word of God, but it is not the complete Word. If so then there is no eternal life outside of the first century.

This statement busted the face glass out on the ridiculous meter.

 

[JoeT]

Sola Scripura (scripture alone) is the constraint applied to the study of Biblical Theology.

Where in Scripture does it say Scripture prohibits or inhibits recognizing the hand of God to what is written in it? Do we only see Christ through the eyes of the first century man?

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

This statement busted the face glass out on the ridiculous meter.

Then your meter's face-glass was faulty to begin with, because if Sacred Scripture is complete, then God is not in the world and is prohibited to speaking to this era. In essence a Sola Scriptura BOOK locks God up to act only in the first century. Every time you close the BOOK you lock God between the bindings.

JoeT

 

[Dave G]

Christ built ONE Church (Matt. 16:18-19, John 17:20-23).

That He did.
But I do not believe that it is embodied in the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church is a visible body of believers – not some secret, invisible gaggle of “believers” around the world.

That, sir, is where we disagree.

The church, the body of Christ, is a spiritual thing ( 1 Peter 2:5 ).
It represents everyone who has been truly born of God, and it's doctrines are pure.
Those doctrines are developed in His word, and the teachings of men are not part of it.

His church is composed of every born again believer in whose hearts He dwells ( Ephesians 1:13, Romans 8:9 ).
Wherever two or three of them are gathered together, He is in the midst of them ( Matthew 18:20 ).
The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it ( Matthew 16:18 ).
He did not build His church on Peter...He built it upon Himself.

He is the Rock ( Psalms 18:31, Psalms 62:2, Psalms 62:6 )...not Peter.

His church is not a man-made institution that teaches things contrary to His word, sir.
His word is the only thing that we as believers can trust...

Not the words of men.

This is one of many things that separates us, @MarysSon ...
The belief that an organization, of any kind, is the one true church.

As you can see, I identify as a "Baptist".
Mainly I do so because the building I first heard the Gospel of my salvation in, was a "Baptist" church.
But I also do so because I see the things that "Baptists" have historically taught, in Scripture for myself.

For example, we do not believe that Scripture teaches baptismal regeneration.
We believe in something called "believer's baptism".

We also believe that salvation is a work of God, start to finish, not a cooperative work of both man and God that depends, in the slightest bit, on the efforts of men.

Nowadays we are called "Particular Baptists", but as recently as 200 years ago, simply "Baptists".
Few who identify as "Baptists" today hold to this doctrine of salvation ( election, predestination, calling and so forth ), but long ago, many did... at least in America, Canada and the British Isles.



Jesus is my Saviour.
His word is precious to me.
I am beholden to Him and to my brothers and sisters the world over, who suffer for His sake.

Jesus Christ is our Head.
He is our representative both in Heaven, at the right hand of the Father, and on earth, in the hearts and minds of His people.
He is our life, our bread, our blood and our hope.

Respectfully, we owe our allegiance to Him, and no one else.
No organization of men can ever stand between us, and none can ever demand what He alone commands...our love, worship and devotion.

As you can see, we will have agree to disagree with one another.
My sincere hope is, that someday He will reveal Himself to you as He has done to me.


I wish you well, sir, and this is my last reply in this thread.

 

[1689Dave]

Where in Scripture does it say Scripture prohibits or inhibits recognizing the hand of God to what is written in it? Do we only see Christ through the eyes of the first century man?

JoeT

All I'm saying is that biblical theology is bible only.

 

[Marooncat79]

Sacred Scripture is indeed the Word of God, but it is not the complete Word.

Yes it is. The Apostle John announces a curse (if I remember correctly) at the end of Revelation to anyone who adds to the Word.

2nd century Church Fathers confessed that their writings were not on the same level as the apostles. They continually addressed this issue

 

[Particular]

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I cannot find anyplace that says, "All claims of Apostolic tradition is breathed out by God..."

Since scripture gives no precedence for honoring an Apostolic succession as equal to or greater than scripture, I must acknowledge that scripture determines whether a tradition is God honoring and true or whether it is man-centered and false.

Therefore, Sola Scriptura.

 

[Revmitchell]

Then your meter's face-glass was faulty to begin with, because if Sacred Scripture is complete, then God is not in the world and is prohibited to speaking to this era. In essence a Sola Scriptura BOOK locks God up to act only in the first century. Every time you close the BOOK you lock God between the bindings.

JoeT

Nothing in this post is true.

 

[Dave G]

To me, anything written after the time frame of the apostles, and by the apostles, is not Scripture.

My apologies for dropping in on the thread again, but I need to clarify this post, as it has gone past the point of editing...
It should have read,

" To me, anything written after the time frame of the apostles, and not by the apostles, is not Scripture. "

I am of the firm belief that the Lord only vested the authority to establish the Gospel and His words in the hands of His Son, His prophets and His apostles.
There is nothing of equal or greater authority outside of His word.

If there is nothing of equal or greater authority than His word, then I say, "Toss the rest out. We as believers have all that we need that pertains to life and godliness through His Spirit and through His words." ( John 17:17, 2 Peter 1:3, 1 John 2:20-27 ).

That is "Sola Scriptura".


May God bless all of you.

 

[Reformed1689]

Basically Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone is our authority. It was a mantra of the Reformation against the RCC who thought that they alone could interpret and arbitrate Scripture even go against Scripture. They believe in Papal Infallibility. Sola Scriptura goes against all of that. The Bible is the final word. Not pastor, not priest, not pope, not church, Scripture alone.

 

[MarysSon]

That He did.
But I do not believe that it is embodied in the Roman Catholic Church.

That, sir, is where we disagree.

The church, the body of Christ, is a spiritual thing ( 1 Peter 2:5 ).
It represents everyone who has been truly born of God, and it's doctrines are pure.
Those doctrines are developed in His word, and the teachings of men are not part of it.

His church is composed of every born again believer in whose hearts He dwells ( Ephesians 1:13, Romans 8:9 ).
Wherever two or three of them are gathered together, He is in the midst of them ( Matthew 18:20 ).
The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it ( Matthew 16:18 ).
He did not build His church on Peter...He built it upon Himself.

He is the Rock ( Psalms 18:31, Psalms 62:2, Psalms 62:6 )...not Peter.

His church is not a man-made institution that teaches things contrary to His word, sir.
His word is the only thing that we as believers can trust...

Not the words of men.

This is one of many things that separates us, @MarysSon ...
The belief that an organization, of any kind, is the one true church.

As you can see, I identify as a "Baptist".
Mainly I do so because the building I first heard the Gospel of my salvation in, was a "Baptist" church.
But I also do so because I see the things that "Baptists" have historically taught, in Scripture for myself.

For example, we do not believe that Scripture teaches baptismal regeneration.
We believe in something called "believer's baptism".

We also believe that salvation is a work of God, start to finish, not a cooperative work of both man and God that depends, in the slightest bit, on the efforts of men.

Nowadays we are called "Particular Baptists", but as recently as 200 years ago, simply "Baptists".
Few who identify as "Baptists" today hold to this doctrine of salvation ( election, predestination, calling and so forth ), but long ago, many did... at least in America, Canada and the British Isles.

Jesus is my Saviour.
His word is precious to me.
I am beholden to Him and to my brothers and sisters the world over, who suffer for His sake.

Jesus Christ is our Head.
He is our representative both in Heaven, at the right hand of the Father, and on earth, in the hearts and minds of His people.
He is our life, our bread, our blood and our hope.

Respectfully, we owe our allegiance to Him, and no one else.
No organization of men can ever stand between us, and none can ever demand what He alone commands...our love, worship and devotion.

As you can see, we will have agree to disagree with one another.
My sincere hope is, that someday He will reveal Himself to you as He has done to me.


I wish you well, sir, and this is my last reply in this thread.

Hi Dave -
If you don't want to talk anymore - that's fine. However, I will respond one more time to what you said.

First of all - your idea that Catholics believe the Church to be a "man made" institution is dead wrong. It was built by Christ (Matt. 16:18-19).

Secondly - whether you want to accept it or not - the Church is made up of human beings. We are NOT pure spirits - we have bodies. Christ's Body is His people - and He is the Head (Col. 1:18, 1 Cor. 12). That is what the Word of God says, so if you reject this - you are rejecting HIM (Luke 10:16).

Thirdly - you state that the "Roman Catholic Church" is not the embodiment of Christ's Church. I agree. there is NO such Church as the "Roman" Catholic Church. There is only the Catholic Church.
"Roman" or "Latin" simply refers to the Liturgical Rite - of which there are some TWENTY that comprise the Catholic Church. When you say "Roman" Catholic Church - you are discounting the Maronites, Melkites, Byzantines, Rutheninans, Coptics, etc.

Finally - if you want to reject Baptismal Regeneration - be my guest. This is a Biblical truth, so once again - to reject His Word is to reject HIM. John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Col 2:11-15 and others clearly teach this doctrine.

As to your last line - He HAS revealed Himself to me. I simply chose to trust in the Church that He left.
YOU chose to trust in men in the 16th century who thought their was was better . . .

 

[MarysSon]

Basically Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone is our authority. It was a mantra of the Reformation against the RCC who thought that they alone could interpret and arbitrate Scripture even go against Scripture. They believe in Papal Infallibility. Sola Scriptura goes against all of that. The Bible is the final word. Not pastor, not priest, not pope, not church, Scripture alone.

And you have YET to show where Scripture teaches this.
We have shown repeatedly where Scripture gives FINAL Authority to Christ's Church . . .

Matt 16:16-19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the CHURCH. If he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an oral statement OR BY a letter from us."

 

[MarysSon]

My apologies for dropping in on the thread again, but I need to clarify this post, as it has gone past the point of editing...
It should have read,

" To me, anything written after the time frame of the apostles, and not by the apostles, is not Scripture. "

I am of the firm belief that the Lord only vested the authority to establish the Gospel and His words in the hands of His Son, His prophets and His apostles.
There is nothing of equal or greater authority outside of His word.

If there is nothing of equal or greater authority than His word, then I say, "Toss the rest out. We as believers have all that we need that pertains to life and godliness through His Spirit and through His words." ( John 17:17, 2 Peter 1:3, 1 John 2:20-27 ).

That is "Sola Scriptura".

May God bless all of you.

And yet - the very Scriptures YOU purport to be our SOLE Authority never teach this fallacy.

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an oral statement OR BY a letter from us."

 

[church mouse guy]

All I'm saying is that biblical theology is bible only.

Millions of people rely on custom and tradition that are not found in Scripture. Some have incorporated books into the OT that the Jews say are not part of the OT. So the fuss will go on until the end of time. As for the RCC, we see them for what they are in today's world. We see that the Pope is an absolute monarch who refuses to get rid of clergy who abuse people sexually. And we see that he has the support of cardinals and bishops to coverup the sex scandals in the RCC. And we have seen the Pope attend a pagan ceremony with an Peruvian Indian Idol, a naked pregnant woman who nurses baby pigs and humans alike--Pachamama. The Pope was even criticized for this on his own TV network EWTN by a Jesuit priest named Mitch Pacwa, who appeared on the John Ankerberg show decades ago. So why should we listen to a denomination notorious for wanting state government to clean out its sex abusers and a denomination that incorporates primitive idols into their rituals?

 

[Revmitchell]

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an oral statement OR BY a letter from us."

You really need to stop misusing that passage. The context of that passage is the gospel. That is the tradition being taught. The warning is not to be deceived by false teaching contrary to the gospel. When it is spoken of as being delivered by word or the letter it again is a reference to the gospel. What it is not a reference to is any teaching that is outside of scripture. the phrases "the word or by letter" is simply a reference to how the gospel of salvation was delivered.

 

[Adonia]

I cannot believe that I am going to respond to this but here goes.

There is a little thing called the internet that provides the type of information that you claim that you want to study. Might want to try it.
If you really want to study it then get Bruce Metzgers book on it or FF Bruce. They are both good

Here are a couple of my answers

Thank you for desiring to study the WoG!


The New Testament does not even exist as a canonical collection of books until the 3rd century.

Not true. Marcions list is known from about 140 AD or so


The New Testament does not even claim that the Old Testament is inerrant. The inerrancy claim is a modern Fundamentalist imposition on Greek terms like "theopneustos" (2 Timothy 3:16) which the Greeks commonly use vaguely to allege the inspiration of Greek secular literature.

The Church only adopted the OT. We did not write it. The Jews certainly understood it was inerrant and so did Jesus and the Apostles. Please see the every jot and tittle phrase and think it through logically.


And what exactly do you mean by Scripture? Baptists here must remedy their deafening silence at repeated Catholic challenges on this site to identify a pre-Reformation source for precisely 66 canonical books

Again, Marcion is generally believed to have listed the 66 first in 140 AD

Marcion, a few facts.

1. He preached that the God who sent Jesus into the world was a different God that the God of Judaism.
2. He considered himself a follower of Paul the Apostle and he believed him to be the only true apostle of Jesus.
3. Some of the Church Fathers considered him a heretic.
4. He was excommunicated by the Universal Christian Church around 144 AD.

And about that "canon" he introduced according to Wikipedia:

"Marcion was the first to introduce a Christian canon. His canon consisted of only eleven books, grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon, a shorter version of the Gospel of Luke, and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle, which were also slightly shorter than the canonical text. Early Christians such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius claimed that Marcion's editions of Luke and the Pauline epistles were intentionally edited by Marcion to match his theological views, and many modern scholars agree.[15] However, some scholars argue that Marcion's texts were not substantially edited by him, and may in some respects represent an earlier version of these texts than the canonical versions".

I just knew there was more to the story of Marcion than you were telling us. It seems his "Canon of Scripture" was not quite complete nor accepted by the Universal Christian Church as a whole, and it of course remained not decided upon for a couple of hundred more years. Nice try.

 

[tyndale1946]

How many times have we heard this argument?... For you newbies on here, same song second verse... There are no added books of the Bible, the OP just wanted to rile up the Baptist, who didn't buy it... A conversation?... No a confrontation!!!... Brother Glen