Sola Scripture?

[BobRyan]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt (turning a blind eye to history)
Sigh, "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition" on a debate about the ECFs,

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

 

[BobRyan]

If Polycarp is a 'mere reflection' being only three generations removed from Jesus and thus apparently disqualified to interpret Scripture, then how much more disqualified are we!

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

 

[D28guy]

Can someone share with me...

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

Thanks,

Mike

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Can someone share with me...

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

Thanks,

Mike

Early Church Fathers

 

[D28guy]

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

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
If Polycarp is a 'mere reflection' being only three generations removed from Jesus and thus apparently disqualified to interpret Scripture, then how much more disqualified are we!

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

 

[BobRyan]

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.

 

[Matt Black]

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

"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."

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.

 

[Eliyahu]

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 ]

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Sola Scriptura comes naturally from the Truth that:

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

So they cannot provide an infallible interpretation as individuals.

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

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

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

Eliyahu said...

Sola Scriptura comes naturally from the Truth that:

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

And you responded...

"So they cannot provide an infallible interpretation as individuals."

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

 

[epistemaniac]

So they cannot provide an infallible interpretation as individuals.

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

 

[nate]

Originally posted by epistemaniac:

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)

I agree the Roman Church cannot. But can the Church not? According to Paul the Church is the pillar of truth.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Matt said --
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

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

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Matt,

Eliyahu said...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sola Scriptura comes naturally from the Truth that:

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

And you responded...

"So they cannot provide an infallible interpretation as individuals."

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)

and live in a fancy "castle" in Rome.

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

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.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by epistemaniac:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So they cannot provide an infallible interpretation as individuals.

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.

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

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'?

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
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.

Matt said --
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

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

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

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

#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".

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

#4. Polycarp is NEVER said to be "infallible"!!

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!

]

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by nate:
God knows how many believers were in Asia, in India since the first century AD thru 16 c AD. but the people start to realize there existed millions of believers in India, China, Mongolia, Armenia, etc. They may have had their own tradition, which is Truth if the traditions of the churches are different and contradict each other?

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.

 

[Living_stone]

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"!!

Where is that in scripture?

 

[Living_stone]

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

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).