Sola Scripture?

Once the decision is made that "the traditions of man" and "fallible sources" are a MORE RELIABLE platform than the infallible source "scripture" -- the door is wide open to error and the stage set for The Dark Ages!

History anyone?

In Christ,

Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed - how "nice" for your argument if we could PRETEND that the "man's-tradition over scripture" experiment HAD NOT already been tried!!

Obviously your argument "needs" us to pretend the experiment HAD NOT already been tried. To pretend that "It just might work so lets give it a try".

How sad.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I see so your convoluted self-conflicted argument here is "I refust to trust John. So let me read Polycarp INSTEAD and TRUST what I READ of HIM but NOT what I read of JOHN".

Then I argue that John is the ONLY infallible SOURCE in that mix -- Polycarp IS NOT his equal NEITHER is there ANY claim to infallibility in what Polycarp writes AS WE HAVE in the case of John.

BUT STILL you want to dump John for Polycarp??!!!

How "odd" Matt.

Plolycarp IS fallible John's writings ARE NOT!!! Why is this concept so difficult for you Matt?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Can someone share with me...

E...C...F stands for what?

Thanks,

Mike

 

Early Church Fathers

 

DHK,

Thanks!

I knew from the way it was being used that it must mean something like that, but I just wasnt sure exactly what it meant.

Mike

 

I see so your convoluted self-conflicted argument here is "I refust to trust John. So let me read Polycarp INSTEAD and TRUST what I READ of HIM but NOT what I read of JOHN".

Then I argue that John is the ONLY infallible SOURCE in that mix -- Polycarp IS NOT his equal NEITHER is there ANY claim to infallibility in what Polycarp writes AS WE HAVE in the case of John.

BUT STILL you want to dump John for Polycarp??!!!

How "odd" Matt.

Plolycarp IS fallible John's writings ARE NOT!!! Why is this concept so difficult for you Matt?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]No, you misunderstand the argument. John's Gospel is infallible. However, it contains material such as that in my example which can be and indeed has been interpreted in more than one way. Polycarp and Ignatius, whilst fallible like ourselves, provide an interpretation which, because they knew John personally and indeed were discipled by him, is far more likely to be correct than our own various interpretations some 1900 years later.

So, just to be clear, there is certainly no 'dumping of John for Polycarp'; rather, Polycarp helps explain John

 

So although we can not trust ourselves to read the infallible words of John - WE CAN trust ourselves to read the FALLIBLE words of Polycarp many years later and TRUST HIM to fallibly interpret John!

I get that part of your argument.

My argument is that my ability to read Polycarp IS NO BETTER than my ability to read John!!

But only JOHN's writing is infallible.

 

But go back to my White House press-spokesman analogy:

Now, if a point is clarified in that way, then you don't need any further ability to 'read' the secondary source - the point is crystal clear.

 

Sola Scriptura comes naturally from the Truth that:

1) Human beings are sinful and weak and cannot see even behind one paper.

2) God is righteous and Omni-Present,Omni-Scient, Omni-Potent

3) Bible Scripture is the Words of God.

What if any human traditions contradict Scripture?

Any objection to Sola Scriptura comes from the disobedience to God, and from paganism, polytheism.

[ April 24, 2006, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

So they cannot provide an infallible interpretation as individuals.

...or it might stem logically from the truth of my above comment.

 

Matt,

Eliyahu said...

And you responded...

But YOU believe they can....but only if they wear elaborate robes and costumes, and live in a fancy "castle" in Rome.

While God goes right on teaching truth. In Acts the regular folk there were judging the "hierarchy" of that day by taking it upon themselves to test everything the apostle Paul taught against the scriptures, to make sure it lined up.

But Rome commands its people that they are to NEVER do that, but rather blindly accept their interpretations.

Just like the Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons and David Koresh.

Mike

 

no... but they can give an accurate and true interpretation... being fallible doesn't mean to be mistaken in every respect.....

nor can the church (ie in the Roman sense of the word) give an infallible interpretation (though of course they can be correct, that is, their fallibility, as above, does not necessitate error) because it's history reveals the lack of the very thing they claim to have, and so we have "infallible" popes opposing one another, anathematizing one another etc, if the RC church really was what they claim to be, there wouldn't be so much evidence to the contrary for their position...

blessings,
Ken

 

Let us count the fallacies in that opening premise.

#1. Christ is the one speaking in John 6. Not John. Christ speaks "infallibly" - we all agree.

#2. THEN John TELLS us what Christ said - John writes "infallibly".

#3. Polycarp IS NEVER said to be "John's Successor" -- at least not by John. But it is easy to see why one might want to "make that up".

#4. Polycarp is NEVER said to be "infallible"!! The Infallible chain is lost AS SOON as the infallible writing of John reports to US the infallible words of Christ. ALL those left are "FALLIBLE"!!

REFUSING to read the INFALLIBLE source "John" (as if you can not read him) but then ACCEPTING the FALLIBLE source Polycarp is to "invite error by the truckload".

As Paul stated in Acts 20 - the ERROR was to come in "AS SOON AS HE LEFT" the church!

As Paul stated in 2Tim 1 - He left Timothy at Ephesus BECAUSE doctrinal ERROR was aLREADY at work in the church. We see the same point made again by Paul in Titus 1.

The "Holy grail HOPE" that NO ERROR existed until after Polycarp WAS ALREADY refuted by Paul IN the NT TEXT ITSELF!!

So my initial point above - stands. Your "trade" that selects an FALLIBLE source INSTEAD of an infallible source merely INTRODUCES more indirection, more gaps, more risk!

And the "dark ages" already show the result.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And you responded...

But YOU believe they can....but only if they wear elaborate robes and costumes,</font>[/QUOTE]No, only if they and their successors are appointed by Christ to do so (Matt 18:18-19)

Show me where I've mentioned Rome as the source of all dogma. You've merely assumed I'm referring to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

no... but they can give an accurate and true interpretation... being fallible doesn't mean to be mistaken in every respect..... </font>[/QUOTE]But that plainly doesn't happen: just look at the disputes on this board alone about the nature and effect of baptism, eschatology, soteriology, ecclesiology etc, all involving individuals who have the Holy Spirit and the Bible and yet can agree on precious little; that fact demonstrates I'm afraid that the idea of individualistic inspiration and interpretation doesn't hold any water.

Again, same question to you as to Mike: what have I said that makes you think I'm referring solely to the Roman Church? Why all this obsession with 'The Italian Mission'?

 

Let us count the fallacies in that opening premise.

#1. Christ is the one speaking in John 6. Not John. Christ speaks "infallibly" - we all agree.</font>[/QUOTE]Why is that a 'fallacy'? I never said that John 'said' it, I said he 'wrote' it

Again, I'm not sure what exactly you're claiming is a 'fallacy' here: again, you're agreeing with what I wrote

Ignatius and Irenaeus tell us he was. Do you have any evidence that he wasn't and does it date from that time?

Quite correct. I never said he was. I just said that his interpretation of John's Gospel was likely to be far more accurate and trustworthy than ours.Again, where's the 'fallacy'?

I'm really not sure of the point you were trying to make, other than to use it as yet another excuse to vent your obsession with the Roman Catholics, which is not the issue under discussion here.

[ETA - for the record, anyone else who wants to use this thread as an excuse to bang on about the Roman Catholic Church and the Inquisition is going to get either sections of the relevant Monty Python sketch quoted at them or a rather novel impression of Gollum from Lord of the Rings from me in return - the Catholic Church is not what this thread is about.

You have been warned! ]

 

Most of the churches hold much similar doctrine to the Church before 1054 than they do your Protestant church. Some of the Churches you mention in the far East are the Monophysite heretics.
.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

You don't know the discoveries in Asia.
Check this out:

http://www.edessa.com/history/monument.htm

http://keikyo.com/ (Japanese)

http://www.aina.org/books/mokk/mokk.htm#c1
http://www.edessa.com/


Warning !

you are blinded.

 

Where is that in scripture?

 

Or from the fact that the bible never states "sola scriptura" or gives the principle of it. The scriptures are "god breathed" and "profitable" that we might be more fully "equipped" (2 Tim 3:15).

But it's the Apostles and Teachers who are also to "equip" the holy ones of God, that "we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ," and not "be tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery" and "that we may no longer be infants" (Eph 4:11-14).