Sola Scripture?

Matt Black,

Nonsense. Utter rubbish.

If that were so, how come when I was lost and under conviction I encountered witnesses who shared with me from both of those groups and I heard the same gospel from both of them. The same for pentecostals, charismatics and non-denominationals who shared with me.

The same gospel.

I never once walked away saying "This is driving me crazy!!! All these different gospels!!!! Which one is correct????"

This is just more Catholic rubbish being thrown out.

Let me ask you this...

Ok, then which group do you consign to hell?

Mike

 

That's funny--I can't seem to locate the phrase "write down" in John 16 where Christ says the Spirit will guide them into all truth. In fact, I don't see anywhere in the gospels where Christ commands the apostles to write down anything. There is certainly no command to "Go forth and write the New Testament". Nor is there is any mention of a forthcoming 27 book NT canon anywhere in Scriptures for that matter. (The only place in the New Testament where Christ specifically commands any of the apostles to write anything is in the Book of Revelation where John records that Christ commanded him to write to the seven churches in Asia). Yet one must read such anachronisms into the text to support the man-made doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Measure up to Scriptures as interpreted by whom? The Judaizers? The Gnostics? The Marcionites? The Sabellians? The Arians? (And which Scriptures? The OT only? Marcion's canon? The Gospel of Thomas? of Philip? of Mary?) Remember, the Scriptures don't come with their own table of contents and the first complete listing of our 27 book NT wasn't until 367 AD. Every list before that left out some books and/or added others that eventually were excluded.

Of course not--that's consistent with gnosticism. The body of truth deposited by the Apostles was visible for all to see in the Church, not just some self-proclaimed spiritually enlightened elite.

 

No, it's actually open your mind and consider that where the Fathers--who were much closer to the apostles in time and cultural mindset--are in substantial agreement in time and space on a given teaching, and that agreement is fundamentally different from one's modern interpretation, they might actually be right and the new interpretation wrong.

So which few found the truth? The Docetists? The Gnostics? The Ebionites? The Marcionites? The Sabellians? The Arians? The Manicheans? The imaginary proto-(fill-in-the-blank) Baptists, SDAers, Mormons, etc?

 

I knew you would try yo jump on that. That's why I added "and teach", just for your sake. Still, their "source" teachings would not be some additional body of teaching and practices omitted from the writings based on that same source.

And the fact that the books were not completely agreed upon until thrn explodes your theory. If everything was passed down orally, they they would have been told directly by the apostles which books were correct. That they had to figure it out based on a "tradition" shows they did not have this direct oral link to the apostles. It was God who directed them in that instance, because there are other books containing Catholic-orthodox doctrine and practice that were left out. If it was tradition alone, a lot more of that stuff would have been included.

. Your once again jumping the "all truth" from the apostles to the later Church. Christ promised that to THEM directly. They would then relay that to the Church, orally and written. Whether or not men would remainfaithful to the oral teaching is one thing. But it's the written word alone that would be preserved for all to see. That would be less susceptible to corruption, where anybody can tell their flock that they got any doctrine or practice from the apostles.

 

And that is closing your mind and putting all your trust in them just because of their 'seniority'. That is evidence the teachings MAY be right. And they actually are subjected to people's modern interpretations of their teaching. You read your whole liturgy into them as well as the Bible, when it was gradually developing throuhg the fathers. That is why that way is not trustworthy.

And which majority found the truth? The East, the West, the Arians when they gained the upper hand for a while, the Nestorians when they had some influence, The Augustinians who condemned Pelagius (and became the inspirationfor the Reformers), or Pelagianism which eventually prevailed in practice? How about the unbelievers, Islam and all the other religions? Your logic relativizes everything more than we do.

 

Yet where does it say "write", Eric? (Are you adding to the Holy Writ?) Still waiting...

Not at all. You assume that the apostles were conscious of the fact they were compiling a 27 book NT canon (again, an anachronism). But nowhere do the Christ or the Apostles indicate that in Scripture, nor do I (or others who hold my position) hold that this unwritten-but-agreed-upon NT canon table-of-contents was uniformly handed down. In fact, as writings circulated they were deemed authentic based on their apostolicity--if they were actually written by an apostle or close associate AND the teachings lined up with the oral tradition handed down in the church. The concept of a NT scriptural canon grew organically and gradually, primarily to exclude writings of others which spuriously claimed apostolic authorship and those, though basically consistent with orthodoxy, which couldn't be demonstrated to date back to the apostles.

And of course God guided the Church (after 350 years) to finally "fix" the New Testament canon--the same Church that God guided to defend the truth of the Trinity and the Deity and full Humanity of Christ; the same Church which you suppose apostasized shortly after the apostles died and practiced all those things you disagree with.

Wrong for the reason I mentioned above. In your adherence to sola scriptura you are presupposing I believe that the apostles must have known about the fixed 27 canon which would supercede the importance their oral teaching. I don't presuppose that, nor is there any historical evidence that that was the case.

Yet there is no hint of "written word" in this passage (John 16). And Paul in 2 Tim 2:2 expects Timothy to pass on what he HEARD down at the very least two more generations. (No hint of an expiration date in the Church's ability to maintain oral tradition here).

Really? Is that why it was so hard for the heretics to twist the Scriptures to their own destruction? A fixed text doesn't prevent misinterpretation. In fact, without a living authentic interpretive context, the text can be twisted to mean whatever the group or individiual wants it to mean.

I asked first Eric; are you evading the question because you can't answer it? Who were the faithful few, if the majority went off into error? The gnostics? ebionites? marcionites? arians? sabellians? the hypothetical but imaginary proto-baptists (or mormons etc) of which there is no historical evidence? (Or the group that was raptured--with the exception of the Apostle John--in AD 70?) Who? (if you are so certain that the orthodox catholic church is the majority which fell into error).

My logic doesn't relativize anything. I'm not the one who supposes the visible, apostolic church--the pillar and ground of truth--derailed after the death of the apostles. I'm not the one who has to invent an ahistorical ecclessiology to justify my position. Answer--who was that faithful few that kept the faith through the long centuries while everyone else including that degenerate catholic church fell into error? If you can answer that, and I'll answer your question.

 

No it is not. Either God predestines men or he allows free will. It cannot be both.

We do preach the same Gospel. When Calvinist witness we do not walk up to someone and tell them that God has either predestined them to hell or heaven. At the same time most Arminians do not tell folks that this is just a decision God may not be able to keep you saved.

This is complete and utter nonsense.

 

Doubting Thomas, you said

and who this is, is debatable, you have to decide for yourself, subjectively, as an individual, which group best conforms to the apostolic witness, which group best fits the definition of a church....

and whether or not you have the kind of conscience that can allow itself to be subjected to interpretations/doctrines that you might disagree with...

so where do you go for your definition of a church anyway? where you go says a lot about who your ultimate authority is.... despite attempts by some to say that the church and the scriptures share equally, usually, in reality, only one authority can exist... and if it's not the infallible scriptures, its fallible man..... pretty straightforward really... you can trust the Scriptures to have all you need for life and godliness, interpreting them as best as you can by yourself, with the Holy Spirit AND by looking at what the church has believed about the Scripture.... availing yourself of the teachers the church has been given by the Holy Spirit... and lets face it, within any group you are affiliated with, interpretations will vary... people will disagree... as far as I know neither Rome nor the East has a (supposedly) infallible
interpretation they are giving to each and every passage in the Bible..... there isn't even a set list of ex cathedra statements... in fact, they can't even agree on Trent and are busy word spinning their way out of Rome's previous dogmatism and moving towards modernism....

you can either trust other people to interpret the Bible for you, for which you will be responsible...or you can you can work within the parameters of the larger church and decide for yourself who's interpretation best fits the overall biblical story using hermeneutical skills (whether you call it that or not) to the best of your ability, realizing that you are ultimately responsible for what you believe

either way, you will be responsible, as an individual for what you believe... it seems more fitting and more consistent with the idea of personal responsibility to not allow someone else to interpret the word for you...

blessings,
Ken

 

says who? oh wait.. I know.. Anglicans, Rome and the East...

and like I said (and just like you did)... you have to decide, for yourself, which group you feel best comports with the data you have available as to what the church should look like... and where is this data located?

I know we can can trace Christian theology back to one holy apostolic church... it just so happens that today, this church is not fully or even better... best represented in any one of the ecclesiastical bodies you mention.... I am not saying that there is no truth in these bodies, but Rome has it's problems, too many to list... Anglicanism is basically saying "Protestantism", it doesn't mean much of anything, you have everything from JI Packer to John Stott to NT Wright and beyond to radical liberalism and persons who might as well be Roman Catholic... and the East have their issues though I admit I am far less informed on the East's beliefs, and just as important, their history... though I do know there is a resurgence in that body and there have been some well known converts to Orthodoxy... I guess the same could be said for Rome as well... but then, that means exactly nothing as well...

so if I cannot in good conscience submit myself to any of these organizations, believing that none of these represents the kind of church we see represented in the NT by Jesus and the apostles and their immediate descendants, then what.. I might as well join one of the bodies you just mentioned? Based on what then...? Your opinion of who has the most or fewest problems? Or should I ask an Anglican...? an RC? Or the Orthodox?

And why commit the fallacy (argumentum ab annis) that just because something is old, it's automatically true?

blessings,
Ken

 

Yet where does it say "write", Eric? (Are you adding to the Holy Writ?) Still waiting...

Not at all. You assume that the apostles were conscious of the fact they were compiling a 27 book NT canon (again, an anachronism). But nowhere do the Christ or the Apostles indicate that in Scripture, nor do I (or others who hold my position) hold that this unwritten-but-agreed-upon NT canon table-of-contents was uniformly handed down. In fact, as writings circulated they were deemed authentic based on their apostolicity--if they were actually written by an apostle or close associate AND the teachings lined up with the oral tradition handed down in the church. The concept of a NT scriptural canon grew organically and gradually, primarily to exclude writings of others which spuriously claimed apostolic authorship and those, though basically consistent with orthodoxy, which couldn't be demonstrated to date back to the apostles.

And of course God guided the Church (after 350 years) to finally "fix" the New Testament canon--the same Church that God guided to defend the truth of the Trinity and the Deity and full Humanity of Christ; the same Church which you suppose apostasized shortly after the apostles died and practiced all those things you disagree with.

Wrong for the reason I mentioned above. In your adherence to sola scriptura you are presupposing I believe that the apostles must have known about the fixed 27 canon which would supercede the importance their oral teaching. I don't presuppose that, nor is there any historical evidence that that was the case.

Yet there is no hint of "written word" in this passage (John 16). And Paul in 2 Tim 2:2 expects Timothy to pass on what he HEARD down at the very least two more generations. (No hint of an expiration date in the Church's ability to maintain oral tradition here).</font>[/QUOTE]OK, I get it now. The writings were not divinely comissioned at all; and it was all about oral teaching, and God just happened to give us the canon later as a sort of afterthought, but the oral teaching is the final authority.
I wonder why they even wrote at all, then. Everybody just pass it down, and God will make preserve the oral word (wonder why there would be heretics at all, then)

I specifically said LESS SUSCEPTIBLE. But if man cannot even get black abd white text right, how do you think he can keep "pass it down"? Or if God preserved one way, why were there heretics at all, or why couldn't God preserve the truth the other way?

I'm not arguing for one particular group, small or large like you are. You are taking "the gates will never prevail" and "guide you into all truth" and applying them to a corporate organizational state government (hence reading a later mindset back to the apostolic Church. Or was that really back then, and kept from the writings as well?)
But regardless of what men would do, the truth would be passed down through those texts. Anybody who received Christ was apart of the true spiritual body. That was all that was needed. All of the other dtuff is just what men add on to try to be better that others. It's not the scripture' fault, as was insinuated by saying that Arianism is the result of using scripture alone.

 

Yet where does it say "write", Eric? (Are you adding to the Holy Writ?) Still waiting...

Not at all. You assume that the apostles were conscious of the fact they were compiling a 27 book NT canon (again, an anachronism). But nowhere do the Christ or the Apostles indicate that in Scripture, nor do I (or others who hold my position) hold that this unwritten-but-agreed-upon NT canon table-of-contents was uniformly handed down. In fact, as writings circulated they were deemed authentic based on their apostolicity--if they were actually written by an apostle or close associate AND the teachings lined up with the oral tradition handed down in the church. The concept of a NT scriptural canon grew organically and gradually, primarily to exclude writings of others which spuriously claimed apostolic authorship and those, though basically consistent with orthodoxy, which couldn't be demonstrated to date back to the apostles.

And of course God guided the Church (after 350 years) to finally "fix" the New Testament canon--the same Church that God guided to defend the truth of the Trinity and the Deity and full Humanity of Christ; the same Church which you suppose apostasized shortly after the apostles died and practiced all those things you disagree with.

Wrong for the reason I mentioned above. In your adherence to sola scriptura you are presupposing I believe that the apostles must have known about the fixed 27 canon which would supercede the importance their oral teaching. I don't presuppose that, nor is there any historical evidence that that was the case.

Yet there is no hint of "written word" in this passage (John 16). And Paul in 2 Tim 2:2 expects Timothy to pass on what he HEARD down at the very least two more generations. (No hint of an expiration date in the Church's ability to maintain oral tradition here).</font>[/QUOTE]OK, I get it now. The writings were not divinely comissioned at all; and it was all about oral teaching, and God just happened to give us the canon later as a sort of afterthought, but the oral teaching is the final authority.
I wonder why they even wrote at all, then. Everybody just pass it down, and God will make preserve the oral word (wonder why there would be heretics at all, then)

I specifically said LESS SUSCEPTIBLE. But if man cannot even get black abd white text right, how do you think he can keep "pass it down"? Or if God preserved one way, why were there heretics at all, or why couldn't God preserve the truth the other way?

I'm not arguing for one particular group, small or large like you are. You are taking "the gates will never prevail" and "guide you into all truth" and applying them to a corporate organizational state government (hence reading a later mindset back to the apostolic Church. Or was that really back then, and kept from the writings as well?)
But regardless of what men would do, the truth would be passed down through those texts. Anybody who received Christ was apart of the true spiritual body. That was all that was needed. All of the other dtuff is just what men add on to try to be better that others. It's not the scripture' fault, as was insinuated by saying that Arianism is the result of using scripture alone.

 

and who this is, is debatable, you have to decide for yourself, subjectively, as an individual, which group best conforms to the apostolic witness, which group best fits the definition of a church....</font>[/QUOTE]True, and you can look at how the earliest Christians in the Apostolic Churches consistently interpreted Scriptures on the key doctrines of God, Christ, and salvation and find a consistency across time and space. Now that consensus may not agree with one's perception of what the apostolic witness is based on ones modern day interpretations of Scripture, but that consensus regarding those key doctrines is still there historically.

Ultimately, yes, and that authority is Christ. But Christ also delegated His authority to MEN, namely the apostles, and they founded a Church which the Apostle Paul called "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

No it's not that straighforward. It's actually a false dichotomy. Scriptures were written by fallible man, yet they were also inspired by God and are infallible. Likewise, the Church is made up of fallible men founded upon fallible apostles, yet the Holy Spirit guides her into all truth. Scriptures were written by the Apostles of the Church to members of the Church, and the canon was determined and defined by the church. It's that simple, really.

Which is why there is only one single sola sciptura ecclessiastical body proclaiming the correct interpretation of scripture...er...no...wait...

But which Church? Are you referring the historic church founded on the apostles? Or do you have something else in mind?
i

Indeed.

 

No, I don't think you get it at all.
The writings were indeed divinely inspired (I never said otherwise). However, "divinely inspired writings" doesn't automatically equal "sola Scriptura". Again, that would be an anachronistic assumption (if you are indeed making that assumption--I don't want to presume to know what you assume ). The bible is itself silent about a forthcoming NT canon, and historically the concept of the NT canon took time to develop, and it took close to 400 years for the NT canon to be universally recognized. Those are just simple facts.

They wrote for various reasons: to give a narrative of the events--particularly the ministry, passion, and resurrection--and teachings of the life of Christ; to correct errors in already established churches; to take the opportunity to teach more (or remind of previously taught) doctrine; to exhort individuals and churches to continue in the faith already delivered; to give a narrative account of the first several years of the church; to deliver God's "revelation" to seven churches in Asia; etc.

There were-and still are--heretics because some folks decide to reject the Apostolic tradition, whether delivered "by word or epistle".

Actually I'm not applying them to any "corporate organizational state government"; I'm applying them to the visible apostolic catholic Church, which began at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit poured out on the Apostles and other disciples and which continues to this day.

 

So many go back to Luther as the father of the Reformation, but everyone tends to forget what Luther believed in regards to the church he grew up in and loved, the church Fathers, creeds, et al.

He did not want to leave the catholic church, it left him. His original dispute had to do with indulgences and the pope's out-of-hand ruling.

Luther believed in sola scriptura, but he never denied the church fathers, the creeds and many doctrines some of you would label Romish heresy.

This is what some of us are saying. We don't negate the divine inspiration of scripture in the originals, and we don't deny those who had continuity in interpretative contact with those scriptures and the peoples who heard them passed on.

Cheers,

Jim

 

But the written Bible, whether a "canon" was mentioned in it or not, is still a SOLID transmission of what they taught, not "oral teachings", which no one can prove came from the apostles, except your argument "well, they consistently interpreted Scriptures on the key doctrines of God, Christ, and salvation and find a consistency across time and space. Now that consensus may not agree with one's perception of what the apostolic witness is based on ones modern day interpretations of Scripture, but that consensus regarding those key doctrines is still there historically". So then, just from that alone, plus their "seniority" in time, we are supposed to trust everything else they taught on liturgies, church organization and other teachings, even if we find no trace of it in the text. Sorry, but that is a fallacy. Getting a few things right doesn't mean you have everything right.
Once again, any oral teaching would be rendered unnecessary once the writings were widespread (whether a "canon" was mentioned by them or not). Yes, they may have mentioned "word or epistle", but the "word" part was person to person. I don't see how you figure that was to co-exist side by side with writing forever. You speak to one person; if you want the message to last, you write it down. Because you spoke it to one person doesn;t mean you expect people generations later to still receive the message both ways, (with different things being transmitted both ways).

I should have added more on this before, but still, the later leaders are still not the same as the original apostles. The original apostles are those who saw the risen Christ (including Paul, later on). There were a set number of 12, and when one died, they replaced him. Yet after this first generation, the 12 was no longer maintained. If God was passing down apostolic authority like that, then He could have divinely kept the office of the 12 going. But it was allowed to cease. Thats shows that the later leaders were not intended to be placed in the same category with the same authority as the original apostles. The original disciples are the one exception to "fallible men" being trustworthy. Everyone after that is to be judged by the apostles' teachings preserved to us through written text (the only solid guide we have), not through their own authority assumed to have passed it down orally prefectly.

Still, why didn't they just do that orally, since that is really the better way, with God making sure everyone gets it right?

If GOd made sure the fathers got it right, supernaturally, then why didn;t he make sure these other people did too?

And since the fourth century, a coprorate organizational state government is exactly what it has been. Even in the century before that, it had become what one person called a "microcosm of the empire" that impressed Constantine. The original Church was a fellowship, with its simple shepherds and overseers, which didn't even have buildings and state sponsorship and all that stuff. The offices now became big power bases, and it soon became heavily political and state sponsored. To follow these "apostolic traditions" means to align onesself with this organization and its now, kingly leaders. That is the problem with just closing your eyes and saying "I'm just going to follow this group because it has the seniority".

 

Declare Him...

Me...

You...

Oh really? You believe that God Himself cant reconcile them? This is God we are talking about here.

I personally fall on one of those 2 sides...but I'm not gonna say which one.

But in spite of that I have been positively influenced through the years by the good and profitable teaching found in both of those 2 camps. I consider both to be my brothers and sisters and they both have wonderful truth to share.

Me...

You...

I agree completly

Me...

You...

No its not. Whether Matt Black is a Catholic or not, he is consistently taking the role of a Catholic apologist. About 99% of what Matt posts is classic...CLASSIC...Catholic Church nonsense and cultism.

And one of the comical and ridiculous things that Catholics say is that in the non-Catholic world there are all these multitudes...the most hilarious figure is 30,000...multitudes of completly contradictory and totally different "gospels" and "truths" being taught in evangelicalism.

And that IS complete Catholic rubbish.

(and that is *precisely* what Matt was insinuating and I was responding to)

I personally am blessed and edified by the good solid teaching and preaching that is avaiable from the Baptists, Presbyterians, Assemblies of God, Non-denominationals, Pentecostals, Charismatics, Church of Christers, 7th Day Adventists, Cambellites, etc etc etc . Wether its through radio, TV, newsletters and magazines, or in person at meetings, I come in contact with teaching from all those groups and others and all of it is good and profitable.

The non-Catholic world is not szchitsophrenic, contradictory, or a mish mash of completly opposite truths. There are times when some see some non-foundational things differently than others, but this is not problematic at all. Its actually a good thing. Its a wonderful "checks and balances" system. The Charismatics keep the non-Charismatics from getting too dry and "comfortable". The Non-Charismatics keep the Charismatics from getting too extreme. It works in many other areas as well. Calvinists vs Arminians etc.

God bless,

Mike

 

Perhaps God has not chosen to FORCE you to remain saved?

I do find it odd, however, that since Calvanist deem predestination as such an important truth, so much so that 95% of the calvanists I know, who are also the rudest and most unloving people I know, completely refuse to acknowledge this "truth" while witnessing.

I could respect a Calvanist for his belief if he was able to be honest, and tell someone he was witnessing to: "well, honestly, as much as I want you to believe in Jesus, and although Paul said that "God wishes for every man to be saved", God may just have chosen to send you to hell. Would you like to accept Jesus as your savior?"

Until that day arrives, I cannot see how predestination is a consistent doctrine.

 

Actually, no. I feel that it is more likely that God has predestined some to salvation, and others have free will to choose. I see no scriptural support for claiming God has predestined anyone for hell.

I have heard terms like "soveriegnty" and "regeneration" and "permissive Will", but I fail to find them in scripture when discussion salvation.

 

DesiderioDomini,

Calvinists, at least ones who hold to the fullness of Calvinism, clearly believe and teach that God has predestined some to be saved, and others He has chosen not to save.

But...they are, historically, among the most evangelistic people to have ever walked this earth.

Any calvinist will share with any lost person..."Friend, you have the opportunity to come to Christ. Why not embrace Him now and be saved? Embrace Him through faith alone, and He will change your life and secure you for heaven."

Because Calvinists believe that some are predestined for salvation and some are not, does not mean that they know who is who. They dont. So they assume the best, and offer Christ to the "whosoever wills", and leave the rest to God.

The whosoever wills are the elect.

The whosever wonts are not.

Notice how I worded that? I'm still not "showing my hand" regarding my view.

Mike