Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

[Eric B]

The Church of Rome (and its bishop) might have been coming to prominence as early as the early second century, bt that doesn't mean that this was a legitimate authority accepted by all. Polycarp and Polycrates (the former supposedly being directly connected to John!) opposed the Roman bishop over the issue of Easter. (Rome following a "tradition" of Sunday, and the two Asia Minor leaders favoring the continuation of the Passover date, while no longer mandated as a law, still had some sort of biblical basis over the tradition of Sunday, which was based on a generalization of references in the NT, and not any clear command).
And as others have said, "catholic" was a generic term in 110, not some sort of official institutional name.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Church of Rome (and its bishop) might have been coming to prominence as early as the early second century, bt that doesn't mean that this was a legitimate authority accepted by all. Polycarp and Polycrates (the former supposedly being directly connected to John!) opposed the Roman bishop over the issue of Easter. (Rome following a "tradition" of Sunday, and the two Asia Minor leaders favoring the continuation of the Passover date, while no longer mandated as a law, still had some sort of biblical basis over the tradition of Sunday, which was based on a generalization of references in the NT, and not any clear command).
And as others have said, "catholic" was a generic term in 110, not some sort of official institutional name.

Great points!

 

[Dr. Walter]

That is not an observation about the bible. It is a statement of your belief. The observation about the bible would be the text indicates that all scriptures are inspired. However, the text doesn't define what all means.

No, that is an observation about the Bible as it affects one's entire view of that book not merely of that one text.

 

[JesusFan]

No, that is an observation about the Bible as it affects one's entire view of that book not merely of that one text.

It just refers to the fact that the HS inspired the entire Bible , and that in the original text was fully without any errors, and completely accurate and trustworthy...

the Bible has that feature by intrinsic nature of it being inspired revelation, NOT because Rome "made it/approved it" etc!

 

[WestminsterMan]

The Southern Baptists have provided a doctrinal statement to express what they believe as a denomination. Your position is not Southern Baptist in regard to what Southern Baptists as a denomination believe. I was a Southern Baptist for years. I attended a Southern Baptist Seminary and I know what Southern Baptists beleive in regard to the authority of the scriptures as a denomination. They do not believe what you teach. Yes, there have been and are heretical persons within the ranks of Southern Baptists since the establishment of Southern Seminary but they are not the expression of the Southern Baptists as a denomination. So, Hmmmmmm.....

First of all doc... I am not teaching anything, but thanks for the compliment. Let’s see - you attend a Landmark university... do you hold to every jot and tittle of the Landmarkist doctrinal statement? I doubt it!

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

I didn't say "claim to be" did I? You know very well that Paul says the spiritual man compares spiritual things with spiritual things. Scripture is a product of the Holy Spirit and when a born again Spirit indwelt child of God follows that method under the leadership of the Spirit scriptures interpret the scriptures perfectly, consistently and without contradiction of other scriptures.

Irrelavant. You "claim" to be infilled with the HS. Now how about answering the question?

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

The Church of Rome (and its bishop) might have been coming to prominence as early as the early second century, bt that doesn't mean that this was a legitimate authority accepted by all. Polycarp and Polycrates (the former supposedly being directly connected to John!) opposed the Roman bishop over the issue of Easter. (Rome following a "tradition" of Sunday, and the two Asia Minor leaders favoring the continuation of the Passover date, while no longer mandated as a law, still had some sort of biblical basis over the tradition of Sunday, which was based on a generalization of references in the NT, and not any clear command).
And as others have said, "catholic" was a generic term in 110, not some sort of official institutional name.

Yet, according to the EFC's by A.D. 170, the Church of Rome and its Bishop were preeminent over that "generic" Church. In all probability, due to Peter's preeminence amoung the Apostles - and being the first Pope, it was so from the beginning.

WM

 

[lakeside]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
Paul had the primacy among the apostles among the Gentile congregations including Rome. He not Peter was the apostle to the Gentiles. He rebuked Peter and claimed primacy over Peter among the Gentile congregations.

H. Peter not in Rome.





Dr. Walter, St. Peter is mentioned 155 times and St. Paul and the rest of the apostles "combined " are mentioned 130 times . St. Peter is also listed first except in 1 Cor. 3v 22 and Gal. 2 v 9 [ which was the obvious exceptions to the rule ]
St. Peter was in fact in Rome , Peter writes from " Babylon " which was a code name for Rome during those days of persecution.example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock

Peter while in Rome was always under persecution by the pagan Roman soldiers who were constantly seeking out Christians [ soldiers called Christians , " those that eat their God '' in reference to their eating the Blessed Bread ,the Eucharist ] so naturally Christians tried to keep a low profile on themselves and their 'Bishop Of Rome St. Peter', who did have [ for being a Bishop ] a very large price for his head.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, that is an observation about the Bible as it affects one's entire view of that book not merely of that one text.

The funny thing is Dr. Walter is that it is exactly that an observation. It doesn't require a belief about anything its a statement regarding an observation. The text doesn't define what it means by all. Certainly it means every but which are included in the every? It could mean just the 66 books or 39 because the 27 hadn't been complete at this time. It could include apocrypha maybe not. The text just doesn't say.

The only reason you could conclude that this comment is not an observation about the bible. Is that you already have a predisposed translation of all which has nothing to do with the text itsef but rather your overall theology. Ie... Where the bible is vague you cannot see the vagueness because it is forced into your theological box rather than relying on the text alone. However, the comment doesn't affects one's entire view of that book. Just yours. But that is the problem isn't it? You believe you have come into all truth and your god has taken your world view and passed it on into his book. So who really is god? You or God?

 

[Matt Black]

First, that is not my criteria that I put forward but that is the criteria Paul, John and Isaiah put forward. The Bereans searched the scriptures to see if even the words of apostles were to be trusted.

Here are the mechanisms:

1. Ability to read or hear the translation of the Bible

2. Ability to follow common sense rules of interpretation

3. Ability to compare scripture with scripture within the framework of common sense rules of interpretation.

4. Willingness to seek and submit to the Holy Spirit to teach you (1 Jn. 2:29).

5. Willingness to acknowledge that the scriptures are totally sufficient for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

These a,b,c's are summed up in Paul's command to "rightly dividing" the scriptures.

The scriptures were written in the common language of the people in order to be understood by the common but saved person. Don't need to be a scholar to understand the a,b,c's of Bible doctrine. Don't need to attend college or seminary to understand the a,b,c's of Bible doctrine. Just need to be committed to the a,b,c mechanisms above.

Except, as we keep pointing out to you, it doesn't jolly-well work. That's the elephant in your sola Scriptura drawing-room.

 

[DHK]

Question. How do you disagree with the bible if you're making an observation about it? For instance. My bible is leather bound. Now nothing in scriptures suggest that my bible should be leatherbound therefore my comment on it being leather bound disagrees with the bible?

Are you being contentious just for contentious sake? The Word of God is not made up of paper, covers, ink, etc. It is the words that God has imparted unto us that we are concerned with.

Wellhausen is an unbeliever who has attacked the Bible on a consistent basis. He denies the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, thus denying the testimony of Jesus and calling His integrity into question. Though Jesus quotes several times from the book of Isaiah, and names Isaiah as the author, Wellhausen claims there are two separate authors. As I previously mentioned he tries to do away with the supernatural in the Bible and the relevance of prophecy. This is a man on a mission out to destroy the Bible as the Word of God.

It is not the Bible as a book; his attack is against the Scripture itself, the very Word of God.

 

[DHK]

Buzzer saying your wrong. I believe in the miracles, I believe in the incarnation, and I believe these men have valuable things to say. Whether they are faithful to the faith is an entirely different thing. But applying scholarship and training to understand the scriptures is not a bad thing and if you discover something you're uncomfortable with then maybe its you.

Wrong again.
Humanistic secular scholars. Jewish Academics. Islamic Scholars.
Three groups of academia.
Would you trust an Islamic Scholar in the interpretation of the Bible? Why or why not? You just said:

"Whether they are faithful to the faith is an entirely different thing. But applying scholarship and training to understand the scriptures is not a bad thing..."

Are you really serious? Islamic scholars? There is no difference between Muslims, Jews, and secular humanists, in their attitude and scholarship toward the Bible. They are all the same. They are all unsaved and work for the same master, and it isn't God.

Again, the truth of 1Cor.2:14 shines forth:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

 

[Rippon]

Again, the truth of 1Cor.2:14 shines forth:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

You have misused this passage a lot. Now you have correctly applied its truth.

 

[DHK]

You have misused this passage a lot. Now you have correctly applied its truth.

I am only using it in its general sense. The topic here is intense Bible Study, studying the very meat of God's word, not just the milk. Right after this verse is chapter three where Paul calls the Corinthians carnal because they could not be fed the meat of God's Word. They were still on milk. Calvinism denies that an unsaved person can even understand the milk of God's word, i.e., the gospel. That is what I don't believe. But this discussion is not about the gospel and/or the milk of God's Word.

 

[Eric B]

Yet, according to the EFC's by A.D. 170, the Church of Rome and its Bishop were preeminent over that "generic" Church. In all probability, due to Peter's preeminence amoung the Apostles - and being the first Pope, it was so from the beginning.

WM

But still, not all followed it; including those connected to apostles. It seemed to be something rising up into prominence, that was not there before, and then gradually muscled its way into the subjugation of all the churches. (And the thole thing about Peter as a retrospective justification of the rising system).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Except, as we keep pointing out to you, it doesn't jolly-well work. That's the elephant in your sola Scriptura drawing-room.

It certainly does work. The only people it does not work for are those who do not follow #3 and the only divisivness that occurs is when they do not follow #3.

 

[DHK]

Yet, according to the EFC's by A.D. 170, the Church of Rome and its Bishop were preeminent over that "generic" Church. In all probability, due to Peter's preeminence amoung the Apostles - and being the first Pope, it was so from the beginning.

WM

Why not go through Scripture? Go back and read. I have gone through the book of Acts, along with Gal.2, and 1Pet.5, and it is easy to see that there is absolutely no time in Peter's life for him to spend even one year in Rome. How can you make such a ridiculous claim without any evidence?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Why not go through Scripture? Go back and read. I have gone through the book of Acts, along with Gal.2, and 1Pet.5, and it is easy to see that there is absolutely no time in Peter's life for him to spend even one year in Rome. How can you make such a ridiculous claim without any evidence?

Not only so, but the book of Romans has no greeting to Peter, no mention of Peter. When Paul talk about trying false teachers in regard to the doctrine they had received there is no credit given to Peter (Rom. 16:17). If Peter had started this church or had ministered there, such silence by Paul would be the height of arogancy and pride especially when he told the Romans:

Rom. 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:

Failure to give credit to Peter throughout the book of Romans if he actually founded this church or Pastored it would be the height of arrogancy on Paul's Part.

Neither Peter or Paul founded this church. It was most likely founded by those Jews that came to Rome on Pentecost, heard Peter preach the gospel, received it, were baptized and added to the congregation at Jerusalem and trained and then ordained and went back home. Hence, indirectly Peter was influential in its origin just as Paul indirectly was influential in its growth not merely by his letter to Rome but through his disciples at Rome (Aquilla and Priscilla - Rom. 16).

Obviously Paul came to Rome (Acts 28) at least twice. This does not deny that Peter eventually may have ended upon in Rome just before his death just as Paul did. But there is no Biblical or historical evidence that either one constituted or pastored any of the multiple churches in Rome (Rom. 16).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Except, as we keep pointing out to you, it doesn't jolly-well work. That's the elephant in your sola Scriptura drawing-room.

It has worked within those who maintain those principles and their confession of faith is demonstrative of that.

However, please explain how your theory has worked? There is Rome, there is Orthodox Constantinople. There is Reformed Rome and reformed Reformed Rome and the list goes on and on! Please explain how your position fares any better?

 

[Dr. Walter]

You believe you have come into all truth and your god has taken your world view and passed it on into his book. So who really is god? You or God?

If I had said this about you or anyone else on this forum I would have been immediately charged as being arrogant and proud. However, when I or my position is the object of redicule than another standard is in play.

My world view is formed by the principles I follow in interpreting the Scriptures. Unlike Rome, I receive the Old Testament Scriptures from their careftakers - Israel. I reject the Old Testament Apocrapha as inspired as did the caretakers of the Old Testament Scriptures. I receive the New Testament Scriptures not from the rash hands of Rome, obviously, as they include the Old Testament apocrapha but I receive them from the cartakers of the New Testament, the congregations of God as they are defined as the "pillar and ground of the truth."

New Testament congregations separated from and condemned the church/state denomination began by Rome. The Ancient Waldenses preserved a translation from a pre-Jerome Latin text that was later the basis for the 1609 Diodati Bible that omitted the Old Testament Apocrapha. Jerome also rejected the Old Testament apocrypha as inspired scriptures, separating them.

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).