Sola Scripture?

[D28guy]

Matt,

"The analogy is where you have President Bush make Statement A which can be interpreted one of two ways. Then the White House press spokesman (McClellan as was or whoever it is this week ) comes on your screens and says :"To clarify, the President meant [the first way]". It's unnecessary to have further statements issued; the press spokesman's Statement B is sufficient to clarify/ interpret Statement A. Of course any number of political commentators and journos will attempt to pick apart and comment on both Statements A and B, but they don't add to the factual information contained within both statements.

Thus when John writes "Jesus said 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no part of me'" (Statement A) and Ignatius his disciple and appointed successor writes about the Real Presence in the Eucharistic bread and wine (Statement B) we can see that Statement B explains, interprets and clarifies Statement A. Theologians can then argue about how the Real Presence exists in communion (Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, receptionism etc) but there is no need for further Statements to establish the truth of the Real Presence - what we have is sufficient."

The problem is you are leaving something out.

If President Bush had the ability to send a part of himself, to be the interpreter and explainer of everything he said, into the heart of everyone on earth, than the White House spokesman would no longer be needed.

God bless,

Mike

 

[nate]

Originally posted by D28guy:
If President Bush had the ability to send a part of himself, to be the interpreter and explainer of everything he said, into the heart of everyone on earth, than the White House spokesman would no longer be needed.

The Apostles and their immediate successors had more knowledge of the era, culture, and actually lived during the founding of Christianity. I trust their interpetation of Scripture over my own.
In Christ,
Nate

 

[D28guy]

Nate,

"The Apostles and their immediate successors had more knowledge of the era, culture, and actually lived during the founding of Christianity."

Did the apostles and their successors have better knowledge of the era and culture than the Holy Spirit...who is God...has?

"I trust their interpetation of Scripture over my own."

Who said anything about our own interpretations?

And its a good thing you dont trust Peters interpretation (he was an apostle you know) since Paul rebuked him to his face for his hypocrisy.

And it was the teaching of an apostle whom the folk at Berea were "testing" by making sure it lined up with the scriptures...and they were commended for doing that.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[nate]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Did the apostles and their successors have better knowledge of the era and culture than the Holy Spirit...who is God...has?

No God certainly. But you and another friend of yours read the same passage and get two different doctrinal points from it. Both claim the Holy Spirit led you which is right?

And it was the teaching of an apostle whom the folk at Berea were "testing" by making sure it lined up with the scriptures...and they were commended for doing that.

Exactly. But at the time Christianity was developing. The Scriptures were the OT because the NT hadn't been compiled up to that point. Once the early Church hamered out the doctines I'm going to stand on those rather than create my own.
In Christ,
Nate

 

[Eric B]

Part of the problem with the early post-apostolic Church is that they did not yet have all the scriptures, and had to go only by the OT, and oral tradition, and this left them in a very shaky position. So the postapostolic fathers got the basic essentials right and passed them down, but then many began putting their own spins on things, putting things in their own ways, and using metaphors and allegories to illustrate the point (like Ignatius. statement). Those after them, then built their own on top of that. By the time the NT was published, it's basic message about Christ was widerspread, but all of these other interpretations of it had been added. The later Church would then just read these things into those scriptures, assuming they actually were what was referred to as "the apostles tradition". It's an easy mistake to be made, over centuries.
People now claim God would never let "the gates prevail against the Church", but that does not mean not allowing the Church to fall into error in certain areas. The entire history of the Church; both Western, and the united East-West before that, is proof of that. However, the Gospel of Christ and the real teachings of the apostles would be preserved in the written testimony, for all to see afterward. Whether men twist it, teach all sorts of things, and create thousands of different groups in conflict in different doctrines it still does not mean the truth is not preserved, or that only one group aout of all the others holds it. It would always be possible for someone to read and believe the saving message (less possible when the "one Church" tried to keep the scriptures away from the public, to avoid "private interpretation", and thus maintain surface "Church unity" and more importantly, control) despite all that other stuff all the groups add and argue over.

 

[DHK]

Earlier does not mean more reliable. In fact it many cases it means just the opposite. That is why both Jesus and the Apostles admonished us to study the Word not the ECF.
A couple of examples should do:
Ireneus believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80. Are we to depend on his teachings?
Origen is known by many as the "Father of Arianisn." He incorporated much of his Greek philosophy into his theology. Even the Catholic Church declared him as a heretic. Are we to look to him for our understanding of the Bible? I hope not.

The final authority on all matters of faith and doctrine is the Word of God, not man or any other authority.
DHK

 

[Claudia_T]

1Cor:14:32: And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

2Pt:1:20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Let me tell ya something... when someone who claims to speak for God in addition to the scriptures goes AGAINST the Scriptures, then we can know they are not of God.


Just as an example-

"The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret, even divine laws....The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing the sheep."-From the Prompta Bibliotheca published in 1900 in Rome by the press of the propaganda.

"The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ."-Decretal de Translat, Episcop. Cap.


The Bible itself tells us what is in the realm of what is allowable.

The Bible itself tells us there would be prophets in these last days (Joel:2:28: And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions), but if someone claims to speak from God but then goes against the light given in the Bible, we can know they arent from Gid. If the Bible says believe not every prophet but test the spirits, well how do you think you would do that???

by the Bible of course.


Isa:8:20: To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.


that means by the scriptures themselves are we to test anyone who claims to speak for God. The Holy Spirit who inspired men to write the Bible isnt going to go contrary to itself if He speaks through someone else again.

Claudia

 

[Jim1999]

Quote:

Ireneus believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80. Are we to depend on his teachings?
=============================================

This was written in a letter, as Ireneus was accustomed to do, and he further attested that he was given this information by a long list of witnesses leading back to the Apostle John himself. Ireneus did not say how Jesus lived to that ripe old age. He did not say whether this was life before or after His crucifixion. Can we prove that Jesus did not continue to walk the earth?

Granted, not all extra-biblical information is of good report and the Bible remains the sole reliable source. Ireneus was reasning from what he considered reliable sources of extra-biblical information.

This fact does not negate the importance of extra-biblical history, information about customs of the times, and other vital information, even false doctrines, that may assist us in understanding just what the scriptures are saying, not only to the original recipients, but also to us.

The creeds that were passed down through the ages are formulations of theology and the test out against what we understand from scripture, and therefore, we accept them.

Ireneus' thesis on the extended life of Jesus is interesting, but I don't really accept it anymore than I accept his notion that man's redemptive grace is available through the life of Jesus coming to earth rather than in His death.

By the way, the supposed errors of Ireneus were corrected bt subsequent church fathers, and we still have correct theology passed down through the episcopate.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[BobRyan]

What is missed in the rejection of Sola Scriptura is this -

#1. The Bible CAN be trusted - as in read and understood even today.

#2. The Bible IS more reliable than the ECF's such that the Bible becomes their judge not their claydough. Just as we see it used as the standard to judge Paul in Acts 17:1-11.

#3. Methods that try to strain the Bible - sifting and filtering it "through the lense of ECFs" - merely promotes the adoption of errors PREDICTED in the Bible (Acts 20 comes to mind) that WOULD come into the church after the NT Apostles pass from the scene.

#4. It is much better to RETAIN the Bible as THE standard and then ACCEPT only those ECF teachings that measure up to the standard of the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Jim1999:

By the way, the supposed errors of Ireneus were corrected bt subsequent church fathers, and we still have correct theology passed down through the episcopate.

Cheers,

Jim

Why and how were they corrected?
1. They were "corrected" because they were wrong.
2. They were corrected according to the Bible; the Bible being our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine--in other words sola scriptura.
DHK

 

[D28guy]

Nate,

"But you and another friend of yours read the same passage and get two different doctrinal points from it."

Oh really?

How do you know that?

Or are you just making that up and presenting as truth to support your erronious stance?

Maybe he and I see the same truth. Maybe we see the same truth, but from a different point of view with a different application? Maybe we have different views but the 2 views fit together like a hand in a glove, and Gods wonderful truth becomes even richer.

It (((amazes me))) how you guys want to "dumb down" God so drastically, as if He only speaks with statments like "See Spot run" and "See Cat walk".

God is gloriously complex and He invites us to a lifetime journey of plumbing the inexaustible depths of His written wisdom.

But its impossible when we just say "Oh, I'm just so dumb and stupid, and my friend is just so dumb and stupid and we are so dumb and stupid that we need a group of elaborately robed and crowned "super holy* and *super special* clerics to spoon feed us."

And it renders Catholics utterly clueless regarding the idolatry, heresy, blasphemy, paganism and superstition that those poor decieved ones are telling them is true!

"Both claim the Holy Spirit led you which is right?"

Of course its right! Praise God \o/, I think he might be getting it!

To the scriptures...to the scriptures...to the scriptures alone...with the Holy Spirit as our guide.

What beautiful things happen when we heed Gods admonition.

...and by the way, nobody is saying we should never listen to good bible teachers. The scriptures teach us that there are those gifted to teach in the body of Christ.

But we are to never heed what any teacher says blindly, as if they are inerrant. We are to listen to them with discernment, always testing them against Gods word. And we should seek out other views to consider. As I have said before, I fall on 1 of the 2 sides regarding the calvinism/arminianism debates (I'm not gonna say which one)

, but I listen to the other sides teaching as well, and am greatly blessed by it.

God bless.

Mike

 

[nate]

Originally posted by DHK:
Why and how were they corrected?
1. They were "corrected" because they were wrong.
2. They were corrected according to the Bible; the Bible being our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine--in other words sola scriptura.
DHK

1. According to who? you?
2. Seeing as this answers number. Who's interpetation your private interpetation? And who is to say that your interpetation is any better than Bob's or the Pope's? Bob being an SDA claims to be led by the Holy Spirit Bob believes in soul sleep you don't. Is the Holy Spirit lying? Cause both aren't right.
In Christ,
Nate

 

[nate]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
#1. The Bible CAN be trusted - as in read and understood even today.

#2. The Bible IS more reliable than the ECF's such that the Bible becomes their judge not their claydough. Just as we see it used as the standard to judge Paul in Acts 17:1-11.

#3. Methods that try to strain the Bible - sifting and filtering it "through the lense of ECFs" - merely promotes the adoption of errors PREDICTED in the Bible (Acts 20 comes to mind) that WOULD come into the church after the NT Apostles pass from the scene.

#4. It is much better to RETAIN the Bible as THE standard and then ACCEPT only those ECF teachings that measure up to the standard of the text.

#1. No one has rejected or contradicted this line of reasoning.

#2. I still say that the ECF's interpetation is to be trusted more than mine or yours.

#3. What comes to my mind when reading Acts 20 is the SDA, Mormon, JW's churches.

#4. Practically all the ECF's doctrine line up with the Bible. At least the great majority.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by D28guy:
How do you know that?

I was just using a hypothetical instance.

Or are you just making that up and presenting as truth to support your erronious stance?

What if you have a friend for instance that is SDA and believes in soul sleep and no everlasting hell and claim their view of Scripture is the Holy Spirits guiding. Yet you claim that all souls are eternal and that there is a literal eternal hell and you claim that the Holy Spirit guided you to this position. Which of you are right? Certainly not both.
In Christ,
Nate

 

[Living_stone]

The Bible itself tells us what is in the realm of what is allowable.

Does it tell us which books belong in the bible?

Does it claim to be the only source of Christian formation?

 

[Eliyahu]

Some questions return to the same as the Serpent asked: " Has God said (it) indeed ?" Gen 3:1

As I said Sola Scriptura comes from Scriptura itself. Otherwise the Bible would not have
Rev 22:18-19.
Bible canon was clear by the guidance of Holy Spirit.
If any thoughts or doctrines are claimed, they should be tested according to the Bible.

I believe that the following criteria in rejecting Apocrypha were quite correct:

They are as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. ( they didn't say that they received the commandments from God, to write the apocrypha)
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Congregations, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

I already mentioned the Biblical support for the Sola Scriptura on this thread, the summary of which is follows:

If Sola Scriptura is not the doctrine in the Bible, the following verses would have not stood.

Deut 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverb 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


If there is any doctrine or any teaching other than the Bible Scripture which can be equal to Bible or which can supersede the Bible Scripture, or anything which can abolish or replace the Words of God, then it means that there exist another God which can be equal to the only True God, which can hardly be claimed by any True Believers in Jesus Christ.

No one can present anything equal to Bible or any literature or any doctrine which can supersede the Bible Scripture.

 

[D28guy]

nate,

"What if you have a friend for instance that is SDA and believes in soul sleep and no everlasting hell and claim their view of Scripture is the Holy Spirits guiding. Yet you claim that all souls are eternal and that there is a literal eternal hell and you claim that the Holy Spirit guided you to this position. Which of you are right? Certainly not both.

Really? In one sense they both are right.

One person believes "absent from the body, present with the Lord", meaning that when a christian passes away, at the moment they pass away they are immedietly in the presence of God in heaven.

To the one who holds to soul sleep in essence believes the same thing, since the one laying there in "soul sleep" is unaware of any time passing so to them they do indeed go to be with Christ in the next "moment".

But regarding the fact that we sometimes have a different view of how these sort of things play out, we again find the truth in the scriptures, or, sola scriptura...

"Let your brother be fully convinced in His own mind, for who are you to judge anothers servant. To his own master he stands or falls, and God is able to make him stand."

Again we see a great difference between what God says, and what man made false religion says.

False religion:

Nobody has any buisness hearing from God themslves, or gleaning truth from the scriptures themselves. Only WE, the high and lofty "Hierarchy" can do that. WE do that FOR them, and they must believe what we command them to believe.

Truth:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work"

The regular folk in Berea where commended for taking it upon themselves to test what the apostle Paul taught against Gods scriptures, to make sure it lined up.

False religion:

Nobody has any right to think for themselves. What they Hierarchy says it true is true, and everyone must accept that.

Truth:

"Let your brother be fully convinced in His own mind, for who are you to judge anothers servant. To his own master he stands or falls, and God is able to make him stand."

Who will we heed? God...or men?

Sadly,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Matt,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"The analogy is where you have President Bush make Statement A which can be interpreted one of two ways. Then the White House press spokesman (McClellan as was or whoever it is this week ) comes on your screens and says :"To clarify, the President meant [the first way]". It's unnecessary to have further statements issued; the press spokesman's Statement B is sufficient to clarify/ interpret Statement A. Of course any number of political commentators and journos will attempt to pick apart and comment on both Statements A and B, but they don't add to the factual information contained within both statements.

Thus when John writes "Jesus said 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no part of me'" (Statement A) and Ignatius his disciple and appointed successor writes about the Real Presence in the Eucharistic bread and wine (Statement B) we can see that Statement B explains, interprets and clarifies Statement A. Theologians can then argue about how the Real Presence exists in communion (Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, receptionism etc) but there is no need for further Statements to establish the truth of the Real Presence - what we have is sufficient."

The problem is you are leaving something out.

If President Bush had the ability to send a part of himself, to be the interpreter and explainer of everything he said, into the heart of everyone on earth, than the White House spokesman would no longer be needed.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I fully accept that all believers have the Holy Spirit but it is crystal clear that, despite your attempt at mental gymnastics, the HS does not work through individuals in that way.

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

Well, we have a problem here.

Matt says...

"Yes, I fully accept that all believers have the Holy Spirit but it is crystal clear that, despite your attempt at mental gymnastics, the HS does not work through individuals in that way."

Yet Almighty God says He does.

(And experience shows that it works beautifully.)

I'm sure you are a good fellow and all, but if it comes down to what Matt says vs what God says, I'm going to side with God every time.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Where does Almighty God say that the HS works through you and me as individuals in that way?