Sola Scripture?

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
Eliyahu, Living_stone put it better than I can. I agree with you that interpretation does not change Scripture, it...er...interprets it. But, since Scripture alone does not always give us that interpretation, then we have to rely on something outside of Scripture ie: the Tradition of the Church, to give us that; therefore, whilst I accept that Scripture is supreme, it cannot stand alone and needs Tradition to interpret it

So Matt,
We should all follow the "tradition" of Origen and become heretics. Even the Catholic Church finally recognized Origen as a heretic. But in his writings we do find tradition.

Or shall we follow the "tradition" of Augustine and all become hyper-Calvinists, the same Calvinism that Calvin himself plagiarized. Be sure to allegorize all of Scripture while you are at it. Is this the tradition that we should follow. Is Augustine's interpretation right?

One after another ECF and other early theologians have been dead wrong when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. Early does not mean better. The Bible itself is our only authoritative guide in all matters of faith and doctrine. It alone is inspired and infallible.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Er...Origen was condemned as a heretic by that same Tradition which you condemn. Augustine was not a hyper-Calvinist but in any event has not been accepted as an ECF by the Eastern Church and therefore cannot be regarded as truly 'catholic'

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, but Tradition interprets Scripture.

Bob said
That is certainly how the Jews of Christ's day "played the game".

Bravo!

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

And it is NOT what the saints did in Acts 17:1-11 as they "judged the statements of Paul" by studying scripture "TO SEE IF those things were so"!

</font>

Matt said --
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would accept you argument if Tradition contradicts or nullifies the word of God - but where is explains, clarifies and interprets that word, no way!

Great! So how do you "tell the difference" so that you don't fall into the Mark 7 problem?

In Christ,

Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Ever heard of the Vincentian Canon?

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Let's just take the first bogus example of error claimed at your link.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
#1: Seven Hills


Hunt argues that the Whore "is a city built on seven hills," which he identifies as the seven hills of ancient Rome. This argument is based on Revelation 17:9, which states that the woman sits on seven mountains.

The Greek word in this passage is horos. Of the sixty-five occurrences of this word in the New Testament, only three are rendered "hill" by the King James Version. The remaining sixty-two are translated as "mountain" or "mount." Modern Bibles have similar ratios. If the passage states that the Whore sits on "seven mountains," it could refer to anything. Mountains are common biblical symbols, often symbolizing whole kingdoms (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Amos 4:1, 6:1; Obad. 8–21). The Whore’s seven mountains might be seven kingdoms she reigns over, or seven kingdoms with which she has something in common.

The number seven may be symbolic also, for it often represents completeness in the Bible. If so, the seven mountains might signify that the Whore reigns over all earth’s kingdoms.

Even if we accept that the word horos should be translated literally as "hill" in this passage, it still does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven hills as well.

Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome, which Rome are we talking about—pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of Hunt’s criteria as well, or better, than Rome during the Christian centuries.

Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City—the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered—and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one:

It is meandering and lacks any point at all!!

#1. Rome was called the "city of 7 hills" OUTSIDE of the book of Revelation! ALL historians (even Catholic ones) admit this.

#2. This is only ONE identifying mark. But the obvious fact is that the RCC ITSELF as identified ITSELF with "ROME" see it's name as an example.

#3. RC authors and historians and others "like Malachi Martin" ALSO freely admit that the RCC WAS the GREAT super power in Europe to follow Pagan Rome. The succession is admitted to by ALL historians!!

#4. Trying to "pretend" that the "city of 7 hills" is not being mentioned here is totally bogus EVEN in the text of the argument it is ADMITTED that pagan Rome IS identifiable as such!!

#5. Constantine TURNED OVER the entire city as the Capital city of the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome when he MOVED his capital to Constantinople. This gave the Bishop of Rome supremecy over the other Bishops.

In any case - this first example is a good one for how their case WAS NOT made against Hunt!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]I understand Washington is built on 7 hills too. So Americans are now the Whore of Babylon and I'm going to go round gibbering that to everyone who can't run away from me fast enough.

 

[Eliyahu]

I think it is not appropriate to discuss Harlot here as we another thread running for this.
As you mentioned, shortly I want to point out.

The requirements for the Harlot:

1) She should sit on the 7 hills : Vatican yes.
2) She should have persecuted the Martyrs of Jesus
RC tortured and killed millions of true believers. No other religion killed so many Christians.
3) She should have control over many countries.
Vatican has the state-ship and controls many countries behind, via Freemason, Illuminati, Jesuit, Templar Knights, and so on ( I forgot one which I learned recently)
4) She is now integrating many other religions in order to increase the power all over the world, in order to be prepared for the persecution of Christians at the end times.

5) She should have all the heretic pagan worships, including Idol Worship which is the adulterours fornication against God.

Therefore we can safely conclude that the Great Harlot is the very Roman Catholic.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...Origen was condemned as a heretic by that same Tradition which you condemn. Augustine was not a hyper-Calvinist but in any event has not been accepted as an ECF by the Eastern Church and therefore cannot be regarded as truly 'catholic'

"A heretik after the first and second admonition reject."
A heretic holds beliefs which go contrary to the fundamental beliefs of the Bible. Many people hold beliefs which are contrary to tradition and are not heretics. It is the Bible that condemned Origen, not tradition. His beliefs went too far astray from orthodox Christianity. Thus when you get right down to basics it is sola scriptura in action that condemned Origen. The Bible became the standard by which Origen was condemned. His beliefs were measured against the only standard which we have--the Bible. His doctrines went too far astray from those fundamental doctrnes which we glean from the Bible--our standard, our rule of faith and practice. That is sola scriptura.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
I think it is not appropriate to discuss Harlot here as we another thread running for this.
As you mentioned, shortly I want to point out.

The requirements for the Harlot:

1) She should sit on the 7 hills : Vatican yes.
2) She should have persecuted the Martyrs of Jesus
RC tortured and killed millions of true believers. No other religion killed so many Christians.
3) She should have control over many countries.
Vatican has the state-ship and controls many countries behind, via Freemason, Illuminati, Jesuit, Templar Knights, and so on ( I forgot one which I learned recently)
4) She is now integrating many other religions in order to increase the power all over the world, in order to be prepared for the persecution of Christians at the end times.

5) She should have all the heretic pagan worships, including Idol Worship which is the adulterours fornication against God.

Therefore we can safely conclude that the Great Harlot is the very Roman Catholic.

Your absolutely right. Another thread should be started for this topic.
The topic of this thread is sola scriptura. Let's try and stay focused on the topic of this thread.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...Origen was condemned as a heretic by that same Tradition which you condemn. Augustine was not a hyper-Calvinist but in any event has not been accepted as an ECF by the Eastern Church and therefore cannot be regarded as truly 'catholic'

"A heretik after the first and second admonition reject."
A heretic holds beliefs which go contrary to the fundamental beliefs of the Bible. Many people hold beliefs which are contrary to tradition and are not heretics. It is the Bible that condemned Origen, not tradition. His beliefs went too far astray from orthodox Christianity. Thus when you get right down to basics it is sola scriptura in action that condemned Origen. The Bible became the standard by which Origen was condemned. His beliefs were measured against the only standard which we have--the Bible. His doctrines went too far astray from those fundamental doctrnes which we glean from the Bible--our standard, our rule of faith and practice. That is sola scriptura.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I think you'll find that Origenism was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Church, not by sola Scriptura

 

[Eliyahu]

I think we better learn a little on this thread by verifying the 5 sola's

1) Sola Scriptura

2) Sola Fide

3) Sola Gratia

4) Solo Christo

5) Solis Deo Gloria.

In a certain sense we don't find these words themselves in Bible, and therefore we don't have to stick to them. But for example Sola Fide is correct. The others will follow the Fide.

Sola Scriptura is correct, and the others such as Tradition and Interpretation are under Scriptura. They can help us understand Scriptura, but if there is any contradiction between Scripture and Tradition or Interpretation itself, then we should retract those Tradition or Interpretation to stick to Scriptura

Sola Scriptura!

 

[Living_stone]

How can Sola Scriptura be correct when the bible states that the Church - i.e. the Apostles, Bishops and Priests were given to the church for their betterment and learning.

The scriptures aren't called "the pillar and foundation of the truth", even though they are god-breathed.

The scriptures are clear that the church is supposed to have bishops, and that these bishops are carefully selected and ordained through the laying on of hands, and that this was intended to continue to happen.

The scriptures do not tell us what books belong in scripture, therefore while invaluable, they are of little value without the lense of tradition. Why not accept the gospel of thomas? "Because it's aginst scripture!" Yeah, but why? Why is it not in and the others in? How did god let us know?

I've yet to hear an answer to this except from our Catholic and Orthodox (and Anglican) friends.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think you'll find that Origenism was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Church, not by sola Scriptura

Protestants throughout the ages have condemned the teachings of Origen--on the basis of the authority of the Bible.
The Fifth Ecumenical Council was a mere formality. It recognized the heresies of Origen on the basis of the authority of the Scripture.
No matter which way you cut it the Scripture became the authority. Heresy can only be determined by the authority of Scripture. There must be a standard. The standard is the Scripture. And thus Origen was condemned by sola scriptura--the authority of the Scriptura. Doctrine was compared with doctrine. His doctrine was found wanting.
DHK

 

[Living_stone]

There must be a standard. The standard is the Scripture.

Does it matter that you have fewer scriptures than I do? How do we know who has the correct canon, if scripture itself does not tell us. In some things, scripture must be subordinate to an infallible tradition - at least in the matter of the Canon.

Otherwise you have books that people think are inspired by god but nobody could know either way for certain. How do you know that the 66 books that are in your bible are inspired? Who put those 66 together? Why do most Christains have 73 books in their bibles? How do we know which canon is correct?

 

[Eric B]

Originally posted by Living_stone:
How can Sola Scriptura be correct when the bible states that the Church - i.e. the Apostles, Bishops and Priests were given to the church for their betterment and learning.

The scriptures aren't called "the pillar and foundation of the truth", even though they are god-breathed.

The scriptures are clear that the church is supposed to have bishops, and that these bishops are carefully selected and ordained through the laying on of hands, and that this was intended to continue to happen.

The scriptures do not tell us what books belong in scripture, therefore while invaluable, they are of little value without the lense of tradition. Why not accept the gospel of thomas? "Because it's aginst scripture!" Yeah, but why? Why is it not in and the others in? How did god let us know?

I've yet to hear an answer to this except from our Catholic and Orthodox (and Anglican) friends.

The pillar and ground of truth is God. Not the entity that is "of" God, as if it were equal to Him.

In deciding the canon of the NT, we do have the OT (which is what the early Churched judged teachers and teachings by), and those other books you can tell were not inspired. When I first read the NT apocrypha (which includes the apostolic fathers; esp. Books like pseudo Barnabas, which were believed to be by NT), I could tell a subtle difference from God-breathed scripture, even though the language wa similar. The way allegory was used was a bit different, and the way things were termed, for example. And books like the Gospel of Thomas are way out there in teaching. These are known to be Gnostic fabrications, that bring in Gnostic concepts. You don't need any oral tradition to know that that was no the truth, because it is the antithesis of the principles established in the Law (even in its 'spiritual' form).

BTW, priests aren't in the NT,a dn bishop was an overseer. The other offices were evangelists, teachers and pastors, which meant 'shepherds'.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living_stone:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There must be a standard. The standard is the Scripture.

Does it matter that you have fewer scriptures than I do? How do we know who has the correct canon, if scripture itself does not tell us. In some things, scripture must be subordinate to an infallible tradition - at least in the matter of the Canon.</font>[/QUOTE]Your position is absurd.
Man is fallible. Tradition is fallible. Tradition is full of mistakes and even heresies.
On the other hand God's Word is perfect, inspired, infallible, without error. It is God's revelation to mankind. It is the only standard that we have. God wrote a book for man. Man didn't put together a book for man. That is absurd. You have negated the work of the Holy Spirit and limited the sovereignty of God. Man didn't write the Bible, God did.

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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.

The word of God did not come by the will of man. It plainly says that; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Notice also that the Bible does not have any private interpretation as the Catholic's claim (only the magesterium's private interpretation is allowable). This is in direct violation to Scripture.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

Private interpretation - as the Apostle makes clear in the passage you have just cited - is not permitted; one clearly needs the counsel of the Church to interpret Scripture. You yourself have admitted that man ifs fallible and therefore the purported private interpretations of men are doomed to failure

And if you really think that Church Councils are 'mere formalities', try telling that to the countless people who lost their lives defeding the Truth against heretics - who arose, incidentally, because of sola Scriptura - as a backdrop to those Councils.

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

"Your position is absurd.
Man is fallible. Tradition is fallible. Tradition is full of mistakes and even heresies.
On the other hand God's Word is perfect, inspired, infallible, without error. It is God's revelation to mankind. It is the only standard that we have. God wrote a book for man. Man didn't put together a book for man. That is absurd. You have negated the work of the Holy Spirit and limited the sovereignty of God. Man didn't write the Bible, God did.

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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.

The word of God did not come by the will of man. It plainly says that; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Notice also that the Bible does not have any private interpretation as the Catholic's claim (only the magesterium's private interpretation is allowable). This is in direct violation to Scripture."

We MUST have an unchanging truth standard. Its absolutly imperitive that we do. How can anyone even build a house without an unchanging standard? You try to measure a door and one person says its 6, another says its 8, and another says its 12.

6 what? 8 what? 12 what?

Once we bring in the unchanging standard of the tape measure we get someplace.

God scriptures are our unchanging standard. We ALL are accountable to it, and we ALL are expected to use it alone as our standard to judge doctrine. Churchs are accountable to it. Believers are acountable to it. Bible teachers and leaders are to be held accountable to it by the "regular folk" in that fellowship.

The instant that any organisation, be it David Koresh or the Mormons, be it the Jehovahs Witnesses or the Catholic Church, comes along and says...

"NO! You "regular folk" have no buisiness interpreting the scriptures or testing us against the scriptures! We fobid it! WE tell YOU what they mean, because you cant do it yourself!"

...they have entered the world of the cults.

Anybody that tells Gods people that God is not communicating with them individually, and they can not interpret the sciptures themselves, and they MUST heed to interpretations that they are commanded to believe, that group is doing Satans work and propagating ideas hached in Hell itself.

What a hidiously sad thing it is.

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

But the point is, Mike, under your system we don't have the "unchanging truth standard" which you - rightly - crave. What we instead have is sola Scriptura+private interpretation=multiple, changing truth standards.

 

[BobRyan]

I understand Washington is built on 7 hills too. So Americans are now the Whore of Babylon and I'm going to go round gibbering that to everyone who can't run away from me fast enough.

Having rejected "sola scriptura" you apparently don't think much of exegesis either.

#1. It is historic fact that Rome was commonly referenced as the city on 7 hills. John's statement was well recognized to his first order intended - primary audience. "Making stuff up" as you are doing is not "equivalent".

#2. Washington D.C is built on a swamp - wetlands. In fact the representatives that went there in the early days were given hazerdous duty pay due to the difficulties with that.

#3. Simply being well known as the city of 7 hills (alone) does not "make" the RCC the entity of Rev 17. It has to match ALL the identifying marks - not just the first one. "The point" was to seriously review the bogus arguments in the link claimed that ROME could NOT be identified as such starting with the first point THEY listed.

(Easy to miss the entire context of THIS discussion I suppose -- if you are determined enough.)

 

[BobRyan]

Since Matt is pretty good at dodging questions and switching topics - how about we get back to the one at hand?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But the Jews in all instances had only the OT at the time [/QB]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob said
This only makes your problem worse.

#1. In Acts 17:1-11 They were able to do with just 39 books of the Bible what you claim you can not do with all 66!

#2. You still have not answered the question in the post above - how do you avoid the Mark 7 problem GIVEN that you already admit to the problem of Tradition that contradicts scripture!

 

[Matt Black]

No dodging here: my point stands. Your argument if anything merely supports sola OT ie: kind of a reverse Marcionism, were your point to be correct. But it isn't correct in any event because they needed the preaching of the Apostle to enlighten them further, just as did the Ethiopian eunuch.

My point about Washington, as you must surely realise, was tongue-in-cheek, showing that if you want to you can read anything into Scripture.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Living_stone:
How can Sola Scriptura be correct when the bible states that the Church - i.e. the Apostles, Bishops and Priests were given to the church for their betterment and learning.

Where does Bible state so as you describe above?

Originally posted by Living_stone:
The scriptures do not tell us what books belong in scripture, therefore while invaluable, they are of little value without the lense of tradition. Why not accept the gospel of thomas? "Because it's aginst scripture!" Yeah, but why? Why is it not in and the others in? How did god let us know?

It is a matter of Bible Canon. In canonizing, there have been lot of examination according to the Holy Spirit verifying whether it was the Words of God or not.

Why don't Roman Catholic include Esdras while they include Maccabees? Is it because Esdras condemn the prayer to the dead and Idol worship severely while Maccabees recognize the prayer to the dead? Can Traditions establish Bible Canon?
Your comment sounds like the whole Christianity is human made religion and Roman Catholic was established by human tradition.

Originally posted by Living_stone:
I've yet to hear an answer to this except from our Catholic and Orthodox (and Anglican) friends.

There is no mentioning about Roman Catholic or Anglican in the Bible. Which church is Pillar of Truth? You said Idol Worshipping churches are not qualified and Roman Catholic is worshipping Idols. Do you still believe that it is OK by tradition ?