Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

[Amy.G]

AG, your signature is interesting in light of your belief of tradition vs. SS.

The Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Bible, it is built upon the apostles and prophets. Christ did not leave a written book to guide his Church, he left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit.

This could be reworded to say:

Christ did not leave a written book to guide His church, He left living men who being empowered by the Holy Spirit wrote the book which guides Christ's church.

Sola Scriptura.

 

[Eliyahu]

Bible is the Words of God.

God is the Word.

Church didn't produce God.

God produced the Church.

Words of God produced the Church.

Church didn't produce the Words of God.

Church didn't produce the Bible.

Bible existed before the existence of the church.

Sola Scriptura.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

AG, your signature is interesting in light of your belief of tradition vs. SS.
This could be reworded to say:

Christ did not leave a written book to guide His church, He left living men who being empowered by the Holy Spirit wrote the book which guides Christ's church.

Sola Scriptura.

Blessings Amy.G

First keep in mind that Christ didn’t instruct His Apostles to write a Book, much less write anything. Christ’s instructions were quite explicit, make disciples and baptize and upon them a Church would be made. The Apostles and the likes of Luke and Mark had no idea that what they were writing would be collected into a book, since none of their letters suggest such notion.

Moreover, it was the Early Church Fathers, through largely Tradition and the Councils that weeded though hundreds of manuscripts to determine which were counterfeit and which were authoritative and thus developed the NT canon today that you carry to Church.

In addition the Church was well established before the canon of Scripture was settled. So my signature is quite accurate.

Keep in mind too, that just b/c Orthodoxy rejects Sola Scriptura in no way proves that they see Scripture in any other light than the very words of God which are authoritative.

In today’s protestant world you could say the many Church’s are built upon Sola Scriptura, but its not the Bible that guides the Churches, its mans infallible interpretations that are doing the guiding, and we see the results…division and arguing…quite sad…
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Bible is the Words of God.

True

God is the Word.

True

Church didn't produce God.

True

God produced the Church.

Hmmm, with the aid of the Apostles, from whom the Church is built upon.

Words of God produced the Church.

Hmmm, with the aid of the Apostles and Church Fathers. Christ did say He would lead His Church into all Truth and guide her and be with her until the end of the world.

Church didn't produce the Words of God.

Hmmm, the Apostles put pen to paper…

Church didn't produce the Bible.

Wrong, the Canon of Scripture was most defiantly the Church’s doing.

Bible existed before the existence of the church.

Sola Scriptura.

OK now you sound like my mother. Bless her heart, she thinks that the KJV has all ways existed. This is coming from a ‘pastor’ who believes dinosaurs are a hoax!
Sad indeed….
-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Let the Orthodox give answer:

The charge that is being repeated against protestants here is that Sola Scriptura is false as evidenced by many different protestant denominations. The idea is present that Scripture is not sufficient alone, but requires Orthodox Tradition or Sacred Tradition if your Roman Catholic, both teach the same necessity of Scripture and Tradition.

Is it true:

1. There are 15 self-governing church bodies and 4 autonomous groups, plus three Moscow Patriachate making 19 Churches.

2. Autocephalous Churches are in full communion.

3. There are 4 separated churches not in full communion. a) Coptic Orthodox Church b) Church of Armenia c) Church of Ethiopia d) Church of the Assyrians

4. There are Uniate Churches, Orthodox Catholics. These churches recognize the supremecy of the pope.

If this is true, and at one time all churches were in full communion, it appears that Orthodox Tradition has not kept an ecclesiastical unity the Orthodox are demanding to see in Protestantism. Therefore, the rhetoric that Sola Scriptura has not created an ecclesiastical unity is empty. Orthodox Tradition has not created such unity.
2.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Let the Orthodox give answer:

The charge that is being repeated against protestants here is that Sola Scriptura is false as evidenced by many different protestant denominations. The idea is present that Scripture is not sufficient alone, but requires Orthodox Tradition or Sacred Tradition if your Roman Catholic, both teach the same necessity of Scripture and Tradition.

Is it true:

1. There are 15 self-governing church bodies and 4 autonomous groups, plus three Moscow Patriachate making 19 Churches.

2. Autocephalous Churches are in full communion.

3. There are 4 separated churches not in full communion. a) Coptic Orthodox Church b) Church of Armenia c) Church of Ethiopia d) Church of the Assyrians

4. There are Uniate Churches, Orthodox Catholics. These churches recognize the supremecy of the pope.

If this is true, and at one time all churches were in full communion, it appears that Orthodox Tradition has not kept an ecclesiastical unity the Orthodox are demanding to see in Protestantism. Therefore, the rhetoric that Sola Scriptura has not created an ecclesiastical unity is empty. Orthodox Tradition has not created such unity.
2.

Hi RB, I'll give answer tomorrow...blessings and goodnite...

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Let the Orthodox give answer:

The charge that is being repeated against protestants here is that Sola Scriptura is false as evidenced by many different protestant denominations. The idea is present that Scripture is not sufficient alone, but requires Orthodox Tradition or Sacred Tradition if your Roman Catholic, both teach the same necessity of Scripture and Tradition.

Is it true:

1. There are 15 self-governing church bodies and 4 autonomous groups, plus three Moscow Patriachate making 19 Churches.

2. Autocephalous Churches are in full communion.

3. There are 4 separated churches not in full communion. a) Coptic Orthodox Church b) Church of Armenia c) Church of Ethiopia d) Church of the Assyrians

4. There are Uniate Churches, Orthodox Catholics. These churches recognize the supremecy of the pope.

If this is true, and at one time all churches were in full communion, it appears that Orthodox Tradition has not kept an ecclesiastical unity the Orthodox are demanding to see in Protestantism. Therefore, the rhetoric that Sola Scriptura has not created an ecclesiastical unity is empty. Orthodox Tradition has not created such unity.
2.

Let’s compare for a second…

In regard to the Orthodox Church, there have been 3 main breaks at roughly 500 years apart. The first of the breaks began in the fifth and sixth centuries that resulted in the Oriental Churches. This was in due to a rejection of Christological dogma that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. These Churches are the ones you listed in your no. 3 bullet.

The second division reached its apex in 1054 that resulted in the Great Schism between the east and the West obviously the issues of the pope of Rome and also culture issues caused this split.

The third resulted in the reformation that gave birth to the Protestant Churche(s).

There are Orthodox Catholics, which fall under the Pope, if I’m not mistaken these Churches hold to the Eastern style of worship and Liturgy.

There are Western Orthodox Churches, which are in full communion with the four main Patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. These Orthodox Churches liturgy is more of a Western…pre Vatican II type liturgy to make a comparison.

Now in regard to Protestantism, we see constant division, constant schism, so much so, that a new denomination is born almost weekly, from what I read awhile ago from the Christian Science Monitor.

Hope that helps…
-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Let’s compare for a second…

In regard to the Orthodox Church, there have been 3 main breaks at roughly 500 years apart. The first of the breaks began in the fifth and sixth centuries that resulted in the Oriental Churches. This was in due to a rejection of Christological dogma that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. These Churches are the ones you listed in your no. 3 bullet.

The second division reached its apex in 1054 that resulted in the Great Schism between the east and the West obviously the issues of the pope of Rome and also culture issues caused this split.

The third resulted in the reformation that gave birth to the Protestant Churche(s).

There are Orthodox Catholics, which fall under the Pope, if I’m not mistaken these Churches hold to the Eastern style of worship and Liturgy.

There are Western Orthodox Churches, which are in full communion with the four main Patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. These Orthodox Churches liturgy is more of a Western…pre Vatican II type liturgy to make a comparison.

Now in regard to Protestantism, we see constant division, constant schism, so much so, that a new denomination is born almost weekly, from what I read awhile ago from the Christian Science Monitor.

Hope that helps…
-

It does help Angus, knowing that the information I have found is true. Please understand, I don't think this "proves Orthodoxy false" for that would be rehearsing the same argument you propose against Protestants. What it does prove, however, is that the idea of Tradition you have has not kept a unity that you claim it does or should. There has been schism not only in the Orthodox Church, but even in the early Church. It was even foretold by the Apostles.

In regards to unity I cannot relate how many times I have read from two opposing sides (let's say between Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism) how they are BRETHREN. I keep an ecclesiastical separation from those who practice infant baptism, but not a "communion" separation. If a presbyterian came to our assemply I would gladly share in the Lord's Table with with him or her. If I go to a Roman Catholic church they will not share that table with me (not that I would want to). I am not welcome at their table because I have no communion with them.

 

[DHK]

First keep in mind that Christ didn’t instruct His Apostles to write a Book, much less write anything.

If you knew your Bible better you would know that this statement is blatantly false.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1. If you believe in the trinity you believe that the Holy Spirit is God.
2. The Scriptures were not written by the will of man. That is what it says.
3. By whose will were they written then? It was by the will of God.
4. These holy men of God spoke God's Word as they were directed of the Holy Spirit, and thus they were God's Words--just as he commanded them to write.

The verse is applicable to the Apostles in as much as it is to the prophets.
How do we know?

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--A little further in the same epistle Peter instructs his hearers to be mindful of the words spoken of both the prophets and of us the apostles. He puts the Apostles on the same level and importance as the holy prophets of old. Their words were inspired of God.

In fact:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--All Scripture is inspired of God.

The holy prophets and the Apostles gave the church (more accurately the churches) the Scriptures.

Question: Both James and Matthew were written very early, ca. 50 A.D. If they are the only two books that I have, do I have the Word of God?

 

[BobRyan]

If you knew your Bible better you would know that this statement is blatantly false.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1. If you believe in the trinity you believe that the Holy Spirit is God.
2. The Scriptures were not written by the will of man. That is what it says.
3. By whose will were they written then? It was by the will of God.
4. These holy men of God spoke God's Word as they were directed of the Holy Spirit, and thus they were God's Words--just as he commanded them to write.

True enough - the "Scriptures" which in this case is primarily what we call the OT -- were written as God directed.

God gave us His Word - not the Papacy.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 17:11 SHOWS the blessed practice of Sola Scriptura used by NT saints.

What more do you ask?

in Christ,

Bob

I am going to have to go with the NT pattern of "Sola Scriptura" methods to validate/test/prove NT teaching.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

1. There continues to be a fundamental flaw at the heart of your argument. You are failing to realize that sola scriptura is an objective reality.

2. Our interaction with the text is where the problems lie; the problem is not with the text. It is with us. Therefore, sola sciptura stands.



3. Now you find yourself attacking the all sufficiency of Scripture. It is not up to the all sufficiency of Scripture to produce consistent results. It is up to the interpretaters to arrive at consistent results.

4. And as reflected in all the major creeds, I believe that interpreters have done quite well. But that is not the basis of my argument.

5. You are taking shots at the all sufficient of Scripture because of differences among Christians.

6. If Scripture did not reveal an obvious unity, then I would oblige your criticism. But there's an obvious unity of Scripture, and not only that, but Scripture is all sufficient (Ps 19:7-14).

7. A painter paints a wonderful portrait. He puts it on display. He's conveying a message through it. Observers begin to look and it and offer there interpretation of the portrait. Now the results of the portrait is no the painters problems. The results are based on the observers interpretation.

8. I hope you see that sola Scriptura stands.

No, not really. Nothing you have posted here gets us any closer to solving the epistemological problem created by SS

 

[Matt Black]

It proves that "scripture" is sufficient to lead you to salvation that the "man of God may be adequately equipped for every good deed".

Never - (not EVER) do we see Bible writers proclaiming "Scripture is insufficient! Scripture is insufficient!" .

Not in any age.

We're still talking about the OT here, Bob - that, as you have agreed, is the contextual locus for the passage as it is for Acts 17. So, from this we deduce that the OT is 'sufficient'. Apparently.

 

[Matt Black]

I agree - they were reading the OT.

Paul's NT had to be "validated" against the "scripture" and it had to "stand the test" or it would be dumped EVEN by these non-Christian reviewers.

The practice was approved.

in Christ,

Bob

But that presents a whole different problem: you see, the Jews of Jesus' day had the same OT Scriptures as the Bereans. Now, based on your argument above, they should have 'validated' Jesus' teachings against the 'scripture' and His teaching had to likewise 'stand the test' or it would be 'dumped' by them. They did just that - and dumped His teaching - and Him.

Are we to take by their example that we are to do the same?

 

[Eliyahu]

Agnus,

At least I want to thank you again for your courage to respond to my statements.
However, you need a little more thoughts:


Originally Posted by Eliyahu
God produced the Church.

Hmmm, with the aid of the Apostles, from whom the Church is built upon.


=> Please think about again. Who educated Apostles? Wasn't He Jesus, the Almighty God? Moreover, were the Apostles not the part of the Church? Therefore Wasn't the whole church built by Words of God?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliyahu
Words of God produced the Church.

Hmmm, with the aid of the Apostles and Church Fathers. Christ did say He would lead His Church into all Truth and guide her and be with her until the end of the world.

=> Again, God didn't need anything, or anyone for His work, but He chose the human beings and they were saved. Were the Aposltes able to help God without having received from God first? Don't you believe that Apostles could contribute for the church only out of what they had received from God before?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliyahu
Church didn't produce the Words of God.

Hmmm, the Apostles put pen to paper…

=> Apostles did it according to the will of God.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliyahu
Church didn't produce the Bible.

Wrong, the Canon of Scripture was most defiantly the Church’s doing.

= > Was the Canon of Bible decided without the decision of the Holy Spirit? Maybe your canon was decided without the Holy Spirit as it contains the human pollution and contaminations like Apocrypha, right? However, my Bible was written by the Inspiration of Holy Spiirt, and they started to exist before the church started.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliyahu
Bible existed before the existence of the church.

Sola Scriptura.

OK now you sound like my mother. Bless her heart, she thinks that the KJV has all ways existed. This is coming from a ‘pastor’ who believes dinosaurs are a hoax!
Sad indeed….

=> Always your system may be this: Scriptura + APocrypha+Tradition
Grace + Works
RCC + other pagan religions, denying Acts 4:12.

Sola Scriptura,
Anyone denying Sola Scriptura do not know what is the Christian Truth.