Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Berean777]

So now rather than being a matter of objective fact, the divine inspiration of a writing is a matter of democratic consensus???

It is a right to worship the one true God without being bound by the judgements and dogmas of bishops.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

God did promise the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide His one Church into all truth, and that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against it. That, alone, settles it.

THE Church.

What does "humble and contrite" mean to you? To us, it means we submit to Christ's proper authority, the Church.

If you could only learn what the RCC teaches, that the Church is the collection of all baptized believers, then you would be correct. Instead you repeatedly twist the meaning of the Church to be your particular religious institution. This is not what scripture or your church teaches. But keep on repeating it as if it proves something.

CCC "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"
Paragraph 2. The Church - People of God, Body of Christ, Temple of the Holy Spirit​

782 - One becomes a member of this people not by a physical birth, but by being "born anew," a birth "of water and the Spirit,"203 that is, by faith in Christ, and Baptism.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Christ only instituted one Church. That's the Church I'm referring to.

The one Church is the one that Christ heads, which from scripture is all believers, not any specific religious institution.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It is a right to worship the one true God without being bound by the judgements and dogmas of bishops.

I see. So you can trust the word of "the disciples" and "later witnesses"... as long as they're not called bishops then?

 

[Berean777]

I see. So you can trust the word of "the disciples" and "later witnesses"... as long as they're not called bishops then?

Bishops are equals with the people and should not regard themselves as judges, so no one individuals or group of individuals can change or omit from the scriptures.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Bishops are equals with the people and should not regard themselves as judges, so no one individuals or group of individuals can change or omit from the scriptures.

Right, individuals cannot omit or modify the scriptures. Only the people collectively can do that when they all agree. I assume this applies to the canon, right? One person doesn't have the right to change the existing canon for everybody, right?

 

[Berean777]

Right, individuals cannot omit or modify the scriptures. Only the people collectively can do that when they all agree. I assume this applies to the canon, right? One person doesn't have the right to change the existing canon for everybody, right?

On the condition that it doesn't contradict it, that is if the people wanted to add to it, then it must be like a referendum. What happened in the past was a few bishops took it upon themselves to introduce new doctrine foreign to the first witness and then nit bother to ask the people. It was assumed that they can make changes and think to change the times and laws at whim without a referendum.

The protestant movement grew from opposition to ideologies like purgatory introduced by bishops who would then ask people to pay penance to shorten their time and their departed loved ones time in purgatory.

 

[Berean777]

The head of the church who is the one and only chief priest Jesus Christ encompasses his whole body and since no one member of tge body can act alone, then it requires a referendum. Having a hierarchy to decide for the body takes away the power from the people.

Christianity is for the people and not people for Christianity, in the same way the Sabbath was for the people and not the other way around.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

You're missing the point completely. Peter is important because God changed his name and appointed him leader of the other apostles. When God changes someone's name, it not only gives them a new moniker, He is making a point about the individual concerned (memorializing their spiritual accomplishments, their spiritual potential, and His blessing of them). So God made Peter the head of His Church.

I agree Peter was important in the new church, but understand what Jesus said. Don't read anything more than what is actually stated. Peter is the rock that Jesus builds "HIS" church on. It does not say Peter is the head of the RCC. Jesus did give Peter authority to judge people in the church and forgive or punish their sins. This was not unique to Peter.

Jesus did not create a new "priesthood" that perpetuated through apostolic succession. The example of the apostle Judas being replaced with Matthias certainly does not teach what you hold. First Matthias did not succeed Judas. Judas did not lay his hands on Matthias before dying to succeed him. Matthias replaced Judas according to what was written in Psalm 109. Is there an OT scripture that says Peter is the start of a new perpetual priesthood that should be succeeded? No.

Next learn what the analogy means, that Peter is a rock that is built on. Understand this to be likened to a foundation. Understand foundations are not built on foundations. Buildings are built on foundations. Understand that the early church grew out of the strength of Peter and the message he preached. He enlarged the church as Acts clearly states. Acts 2:41. Understand the church built on his message was of believers, not a bureaucratic religious organization. Peter was a rock for believers, not a source of perpetual apostles with his same authority.

Further Matthew 19:28-30 clearly distinguishes the apostles to be 12 in number. Your proof of apostolic succession is lacking. And, your proof of apostolic inerrancy is proven wrong with scripture clearly pointing out Peter's false teaching on circumcision.

If you accept Peter's primacy, and you accept that Peter, with the other apostles, named Matthias to succeed Judas (thus showing apostolic succession), you understand, supposedly, that the apostles had the authority of Christ to do so, and did so when they passed on to their eternal reward in heaven. The fact that Peter was head of the Church (which is what Primacy is-see Isaiah 22 for the authority given- in the infant Church (the acorn) and those after him had the authority over the sapling Church, and that the responsibilities grew along with the growth of the Church (more sheep, more responsibility). But again, you're associating what the Papacy became after Constantine left Rome to be run by the Pope with what the responsibility of a pope is. Augustine put it this way:
You have often learned that all our hope is in Christ and that he is our true glory and our salvation. You are members of the flock of the Good Shepherd, who watches over Israel and nourishes his people. Yet there are shepherds who want to have the title of shepherd without wanting to fulfil a pastor’s duties; let us then recall what God says to his shepherds through the prophet. You must listen attentively; I must listen with fear and trembling.

The word of the Lord came to me and said: Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel and speak to the shepherds of Israel. We just heard this reading a moment ago, my brothers, and I have decided to speak to you on this passage. The Lord will help me to speak the truth if I do not speak on my own authority. For if I speak on my own authority, I will be a shepherd nourishing myself and not the sheep. However, if my words are the Lord’s, then he is nourishing you no matter who speaks. Thus says the Lord God: Shepherds of Israel, who have been nourishing only themselves! Should not the shepherds nourish the sheep? In other words, true shepherds take care of their sheep, not themselves. This is the principle reason why God condemns those shepherds: they took care of themselves rather than their sheep. Who are they who nourish themselves? They are the shepherds the Apostle described when he said: They all seek what is theirs and not what is Christ’s.

If you are going to quote Ezekiel 34 you should learn what it teaches. Firstly you should learn that the "seat of Moses" that you lay claim to some special authority with you apostolic succession from Peter was not inerrant. God came through the Holy Spirit to Ezekiel and many other prophets that were mostly from outside the tribe of Levi, the "official" line that preached God's truth. The "church" and shepherds of it were so thoroughly corrupted that it took an outsider to condemn it and teach them the error of their ways. Did they recognize the message as from God, repent and turn to God? No. I am sure they said stuff like; "We have authority from God to truth, how dare you tell us what is true."

Further look to Ezekiel 34:23 to learn that Jesus is the one shepherd of his church. We all share in our part to be in the body that he heads.

23 I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. 24 I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the Lord have spoken.​

Learn from scripture, OT and NT that while God will always have those that follow the truth, not all the shepherds of his church will always throughout time be followers of the truth. There is no promise of never ending truth in the religious leaders in any church. Please head the warning of apostasy in the church in the end-times.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

So now rather than being a matter of objective fact, the divine inspiration of a writing is a matter of democratic consensus???

That is how your church determined the canon in their councils.

 

[Berean777]

I agree Peter was important in the new church, but understand what Jesus said. Don't read anything more than what is actually stated. Peter is the rock that Jesus builds "HIS" church on. It does not say Peter is the head of the RCC. Jesus did give Peter authority to judge people in the church and forgive or punish their sins. This was not unique to Peter.

Jesus did not create a new "priesthood" that perpetuated through apostolic succession. The example of the apostle Judas being replaced with Matthias certainly does not teach what you hold. First Matthias did not succeed Judas. Judas did not lay his hands on Matthias before dying to succeed him. Matthias replaced Judas according to what was written in Psalm 109. Is there an OT scripture that says Peter is the start of a new perpetual priesthood that should be succeeded? No.

Next learn what the analogy means, that Peter is a rock that is built on. Understand this to be likened to a foundation. Understand foundations are not built on foundations. Buildings are built on foundations. Understand that the early church grew out of the strength of Peter and the message he preached. He enlarged the church as Acts clearly states. Acts 2:41. Understand the church built on his message was of believers, not a bureaucratic religious organization. Peter was a rock for believers, not a source of perpetual apostles with his same authority.

Further Matthew 19:28-30 clearly distinguishes the apostles to be 12 in number. Your proof of apostolic succession is lacking. And, your proof of apostolic inerrancy is proven wrong with scripture clearly pointing out Peter's false teaching on circumcision.


If you are going to quote Ezekiel 34 you should learn what it teaches. Firstly you should learn that the "seat of Moses" that you lay claim to some special authority with you apostolic succession from Peter was not inerrant. God came through the Holy Spirit to Ezekiel and many other prophets that were mostly from outside the tribe of Levi, the "official" line that preached God's truth. The "church" and shepherds of it were so thoroughly corrupted that it took an outsider to condemn it and teach them the error of their ways. Did they recognize the message as from God, repent and turn to God? No. I am sure they said stuff like; "We have authority from God to truth, how dare you tell us what is true."

Further look to Ezekiel 34:23 to learn that Jesus is the one shepherd of his church. We all share in our part to be in the body that he heads.

23 I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. 24 I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the Lord have spoken.​

Learn from scripture, OT and NT that while God will always have those that follow the truth, not all the shepherds of his church will always throughout time be followers of the truth. There is no promise of never ending truth in the religious leaders in any church. Please head the warning of apostasy in the church in the end-times.

I truly like what you have written.

Especially is......

There is no promise of never ending truth in the religious leaders in any church. Please head the warning of apostasy in the church in the end-times.

Jesus didn't only establish his church on himself as the rock the one and only cornerstone, but he separated himself from the church that was modelled after the dying priesthood.

You see the priesthood had been changed where Jesus became our high priest interceding on our behalves in the Holy of Holies, but with it the religious institutional hierarchy has also been changed. Jesus would say the greatest amongst you is your servant.

We see that Jesus didn't come to re-establish the same pharisical religious institution with its hierarchy, for he came and fired it. Jesus left them and said look now, your house is left onto you desolate.

So I agree Peter wasn't going to be a religious head of any sort let alone boss around John. When Peter asked about John where he stood, Jesus told him to mind his own business and to follow him.

So from an instructional point of view Peter was the small rock who would follow the instruction of his chief priest Christ Jesus and by so doing his work would be instrumental in passing the teaching that is all.

 

[Berean777]

That is how your church determined the canon in their councils.

Let me add that it was done without the conscent and neither the approval or involvement of the entire body. The body were just spectators.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The protestant movement grew from opposition to ideologies like purgatory introduced by bishops who would then ask people to pay penance to shorten their time and their departed loved ones time in purgatory.

Golly, there's so much confusion there it's difficult to know where to start.

First, Purgatory is scriptural. 1 Corinthians 3 refers to the purpose of Purgatory (eg, testing one's works and burning the useless things). St. Matthew 5:24-26 is said to allude to Purgatory as well ("until the last penny has been paid").

Second, one's time in/experiencing Purgatory might be off-set by any number of things, including indulgences.

Third, indulgences are not sold and have not been for a long time.

Fourth, Purgatory is a place/means of purification. Many ancient jews believed in a final purification of some kind (and even a lot of modern day ones still do). 2 Maccabees 12 makes reference to something that sounds an awful lot like Purgatory. You are welcome to dismiss the inspiration of that text, if you like, but it's not really open to debate that it is a reliable historical text. Rejecting the canonicity of it is one thing; rejecting the historicity of it, however, is off the table.

Speaking of history, there are writings from the 2nd century which speak to an intermediate state after death before Heaven and of offering prayers for the dead as though that affects their disposition:

And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: 'Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous'.
- Acts of Paul and Thecla (A.D. 160)

The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste Shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed: Truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius.
- Epitaph of Abercius (A.D. 190)

A woman, after the death of her husband... prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice.
- Monogamy 10:1–2 (A.D. 216)

Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out.
- St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 (A.D. 350)

Some (obviously not all) of those texts were written during the Church's third generation. Those beliefs came from somewhere. And considering the allergy the Church Fathers had to any form of heresy, it would seem strange that this belief was long tolerated if it was in error.

If this doctrine is an error, it sure swooped in pretty quickly, wouldn't you say?

 

[Berean777]

Golly, there's so much confusion there it's difficult to know where to start.

First, Purgatory is scriptural. 1 Corinthians 3 refers to the purpose of Purgatory (eg, testing one's works and burning the useless things). St. Matthew 5:24-26 is said to allude to Purgatory as well ("until the last penny has been paid").

Second, one's time in/experiencing Purgatory might be off-set by any number of things, including indulgences.

Third, indulgences are not sold and have not been for a long time.

Fourth, Purgatory is a place/means of purification. Many ancient jews believed in a final purification of some kind (and even a lot of modern day ones still do). 2 Maccabees 12 makes reference to something that sounds an awful lot like Purgatory. You are welcome to dismiss the inspiration of that text, if you like, but it's not really open to debate that it is a reliable historical text. Rejecting the canonicity of it is one thing; rejecting the historicity of it, however, is off the table.

Speaking of history, there are writings from the 2nd century which speak to an intermediate state after death before Heaven and of offering prayers for the dead as though that affects their disposition:

And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: 'Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous'.
- Acts of Paul and Thecla (A.D. 160)

The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste Shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed: Truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius.
- Epitaph of Abercius (A.D. 190)

A woman, after the death of her husband... prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice.
- Monogamy 10:1–2 (A.D. 216)

Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out.
- St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 (A.D. 350)

Some (obviously not all) of those texts were written during the Church's third generation. Those beliefs came from somewhere. And considering the allergy the Church Fathers had to any form of heresy, it would seem strange that this belief was long tolerated if it was in error.

If this doctrine is an error, it sure swooped in pretty quickly, wouldn't you say?

Thankyou for your excerpt that you wrote, but all I'm saying is that the whole body did not get involved in coming up with this practice and this was one of the main objections of ther protestant movement. The entire body did not endorse this idea of purgatory and it was established by the bishops and not the entire body.

Why not hold a referendum and see how many people of the body of Christ will agree with this ideology.

 

[Berean777]

If purgatory is so important because countless Christians will go there, then why didn't Jesus teach it?

 

[Berean777]

Right, individuals cannot omit or modify the scriptures. Only the people collectively can do that when they all agree. I assume this applies to the canon, right? One person doesn't have the right to change the existing canon for everybody, right?

Firstly no one can change the first eye witness account that is the Biblios we have, the constitution that constitutes the Christain faith. However the body of Christ collectively can add to it, as long as it does not contradict it or add things that cannot be found in what is taught in the scriptures. Collectively we can all get involved in Christainity and not allow only a hand full of people to make policies for everyone else.

Jesus did not establish a hierarchy of elected men to legislate and to pass bills as they please, without the conscent and involvement of the entire body and their approval.

We all must be involved in the faith, for this is Christianity my friend.

 

[Bible2+]

sculleywr said in post 1388:

Question: If Jesus is the Chief Member of the Church, the Head thereof, how could the Church become apostate?

If you mean the whole church, note that it hasn't been said that the whole church will ever become apostate. What has been said is that even apostles in the church can become apostate.

For example, even though the apostle Judas was chosen/elect/saved/empowered just like the other apostles (Luke 6:13-16, Mark 6:7-13, Matthew 19:28), he still subsequently became a devil (John 6:70-71) who would ultimately become unsaved (Mark 14:21), because he wrongly employed his free will to begin to love money more than Jesus (John 12:3-6, Mark 14:3-11; cf. 1 Timothy 6:10, Matthew 6:24).

Also, people in the church can become apostate simply by being deceived:

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Note that here the original Greek doesn't say "if it were possible", in the sense of it not being possible. Instead, it simply says "if possible", meaning that false Christs and false prophets will in our future perform great miracles by the power of Satan (2 Thessalonians 2:9, Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20), as part of Satan's intention to deceive as many of the elect as possible. The Bible nowhere says that it is impossible for any elect person to be deceived. Instead, Jesus had started out in Matthew 24 by specifically warning the elect to "Take heed that no man deceive you" (Matthew 24:4), meaning that it is possible for the elect to be deceived, if they don't take heed to Jesus' warning regarding great-miracle-working false Christs and false prophets, who will appear in our future (Matthew 24:4-5,23-25, Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20).

The elect can also be deceived in other ways, whether before their salvation (Titus 3:3, Romans 7:11) or after their salvation (1 John 3:7; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 15:33, Galatians 6:7, Ephesians 5:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:3). Paul warns the elect: "The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Timothy 4:1). The time will come when some "shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:4). For it is possible for a saved person to commit apostasy, to the ultimate loss of his salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12b).

The fact that a saved person can be deceived into committing apostasy doesn't mean that Satan is stronger than God, or that God would for no reason abandon a saved person, but means that the principle of the "deceivableness of unrighteousness" (2 Thessalonians 2:10, Proverbs 17:4a) applies even to a saved person.

That is, one way that a saved person could be deceived into committing apostasy would be if he finds a particular sin to be very pleasurable, so pleasurable and so fulfilling (in the short term) that he continues in it over time until his heart becomes hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13), to where his love for God grows cold because of the abundance of iniquity (Matthew 24:12), to where he quenches the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19), to where he sears his conscience as with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2), to where he begins to listen to the lies of demons and latch onto them, to the point where he departs from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1). In a wrong desire to continue in their lusts without repentance, saved people can reach the point where they become no longer able to endure the sound doctrine of the Bible, and they instead seek out and latch onto other teachings which will help to support them in their lusts (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Another way that a saved person could be brought to the point where he commits apostasy would be if he has a terror of being tortured and killed during a persecution against Christians, so that during such a persecution he completely renounces his faith in Jesus Christ and the gospel in order to avoid being tortured and killed (Mark 8:35-38; 2 Timothy 2:12). Some Christians will fall away in this sense during the future tribulation (2 Thessalonians 2:3, Matthew 24:9-13, cf. Matthew 13:21, Luke 8:13), when the Antichrist will take power over the earth, make war against Biblical Christians (not in hiding), and physically overcome them in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

There will be no way to repent from committing apostasy (Hebrews 6:4-8) and worshipping the Antichrist and his image and willingly receiving his mark on the forehead or the right hand, even if this is done just to keep from getting killed (Revelation 13:15-18). Whoever does these things, even if they had become initially saved before, will end up suffering punishment in fire and brimstone forever (Revelation 14:9-12). So Christians must be willing to be killed, even by getting beheaded (Revelation 20:4-6), before they would ever do these things (Revelation 14:12-13).

This ties in with the fact that a saved person can in the end have his name blotted out of the book of life if he doesn't overcome to the end (Revelation 3:5, Revelation 2:26). An example of saved people ultimately "overcoming" (Greek: nikao, G3528) or "getting the victory" (nikao) (Revelation 15:2) is found later in the book of Revelation, in Revelation 15:2, which refers to those saved people who will be willing to be killed by the Antichrist instead of worshipping him to save their mortal lives during the future worldwide persecution against Biblical Christians (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13). Christians will be able to spiritually "overcome" the Antichrist and Satan by not loving their lives to the death (Revelation 12:11).

So saved people need to be living righteously now, they need to be obedient now if they want to spiritually endure to the end during the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:13). For only obedient believers will have their spiritual houses on the rock, as it were, so that they will endure the coming storm (Matthew 7:24-25). Disobedient believers will have their spiritual houses on the sand, so that they will fall away during the storm (Matthew 7:26-27). They will become part of the falling away, the apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:3), the departure from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1), which will occur during the future tribulation (Matthew 24:9-13, cf. Isaiah 8:21-22), to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12b).

sculleywr said in post 1388:

And finally, you assert that Sola Scriptura was the method of the Church.

That's right:

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 4:1 ¶I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

sculleywr said in post 1388:

How is this so when the Judaizers were following Sola Scriptura methods at the time of the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts?

The meeting in Acts 15:6-29 was about whether or not believing Gentiles must keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:5-6,24). The church leadership as a whole in Jerusalem wasn't ready at that time to say that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law didn't have to be kept by Jews either -- because it had been abolished, even for Jews (Romans 7:6, Hebrews 7:18-19, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), on the New Covenant Cross of Jesus (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 10). But this truth was known full well by Peter (Acts 15:5,10-11), even though he sometimes didn't act like he knew it, and so he was admonished one time by Paul away from the leaders in Jerusalem, while he was up in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-21). Paul and other apostles who knew the truth got it directly from Jesus, and not from other apostles (Galatians 1:11-12; 2 Peter 1:16). That is why they could fend for themselves in arguing against those Jews who were pressuring believing Gentiles to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:2a).

But when they couldn't convince those Jews to stop their pressuring, they got yet other leaders (Acts 15:2b) (such as James) which those Jews' hopefully would obey (Galatians 2:12), to get them to stop, through a letter which showed believing Gentiles that none of the leaders of the church were commanding them to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:24).

When Peter was away from Jerusalem living among the Gentiles in Antioch he rightly lived "after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews" (Galatians 2:14). It was only when some Jews came to Antioch who were "from James" (Galatians 2:12) that Peter reverted back to their (mistaken) practice. For James, and those who followed him, "zealously" (yet still mistakenly) held that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was still in effect for Jews (Acts 15:21, Acts 21:18-24). Such Old Covenant Mosaic law-zealous Jews griped to James over what Paul was telling Jews (Acts 21:21).

sculleywr said in post 1388:

It was not self-evident which writings of the Apostles were Scripture.

The different books of the New Testament were all written for the early church, which knew and trusted the writers, and so kept their writings, because the writers were eyewitnesses of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19), or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). Also, the early church had received some measure of God's own Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-13), Jesus Christ's own mind (1 Corinthians 2:16), and so the church was able to know whether a teaching of the writers was truly from Jesus or not (John 10:27,4-5), just as Biblical Christians can still know this today for the same reason. Also, Biblical Christians today, just as the early church did, can confirm for themselves that the writers of the New Testament agree with what the Old Testament prophesied (Acts 17:11, Acts 26:22-23, Luke 24:44-48).

sculleywr said in post 1388:

The final problem I will mention is the fact that even if you know what Scripture is, the interpretation you use, which is your tradition, is going to ALWAYS stand in authority over Scripture.

No, for just as Biblical Christians aren't to divide into denominations (1 Corinthians 1:12-13; 1 Corinthians 3:4), so they can't interpret any one Bible verse in a way which contradicts what the Bible as a whole teaches. Also, different interpretations of the Bible don't mean that its doctrines can't be known for certain, but that it doesn't take away the free will of Christians (and those who wrongly claim to be Christians), who can wrongly employ their free will to reject the Bible's sound doctrines to chase after man-made fables instead (2 Timothy 4:2-4). If all Christians would become willing to accept what the Bible teaches when it is taken in its entirety (2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 4:4, Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13), then all Christians could become united in what they believe (1 Corinthians 1:10).

sculleywr said in post 1388:

For instance, when Scripture says "a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" in answer to the thesis question of the passage, "can faith save him?", many Protestants will have some rationalization of the text saying that it is not to be taken literally. In this case, as well as many others, Protestants will put their interpretation of Scripture in authority over Scripture.

Rather, they mistakenly try to place some New Testament scriptures above others, instead of combining them into a coherent whole.

The issue in James 2:14-24 is how believers are to be saved (James 2:14b), how they are to be justified before God (James 2:23-24), just as the issue in Romans 4:1-5 is how believers are to be saved, how they are to be justified before God (cf. Romans 5:9, Romans 1:16). That is why both James 2:23-24 and Romans 4:1-5 employ the same Old Testament verse (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, James 2:23). Romans 4:1-5 refers to initial salvation/justification before God, which is based on faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5), while James 2:23-24 refers to ultimate salvation/justification before God, which is based on both faith and works (Romans 2:6-8, Matthew 7:21, Philippians 2:12b; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9; 2 Peter 1:10-11, Hebrews 6:10-12, Philippians 3:11-14; 1 John 2:17b), as in works of faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6b, Titus 3:8) (not works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law).

For faith is like a body, and works of faith are like the breathing (spirit) of that body (James 2:26). Faith without works of faith will die, just as a body without breathing will die (James 2:26). That is why our ultimate salvation will depend on both our faith and our continued works of faith (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21). If a believer refuses to continue to perform works of faith, without repentance, he will ultimately lose his salvation (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a), just as if someone stops himself from breathing by hanging himself, he will die.

The breathing analogy (James 2:26) doesn't include the automatic aspect of breathing. For believers must be careful to maintain good works (Titus 3:8). The analogies in the Bible don't include every aspect of the analogous thing. For example, believers, born-again people, being like newborn babies (1 Peter 2:2) doesn't mean that believers have no ability to talk, walk, or control their bowels.

 

[Berean777]

To be a Christian and a disciple of Christ Jesus we must be leaders of the faith and not only followers. We are to become fishermen of people and to take a proactive role in the Christian faith.

We are not followers, rather leaders and ambassadors of Christ Jesus, within the great commission. Sola Scripture becomes our constitutional document that allows us the right to preach the truth and to make disciples of the world. Because we have the name of the author of the faith within this document and his 12 foundational witnesses, we are proclaiming his name with document in hand/heart.

The Chief Priest Christ Jesus has equiped us with constitutional documents called the Biblios that empowers us to present our case to the world. Without the faithful and Godly men who were instrumental in collating the Biblios we would follow men and their dictates. So God saw it befitting that he inspire men in the 1600 AD to start drafting the Christian constitution. In fact the wisdom of God is out of this world, whereby as literacy increased, God used the printing press in a timely manner to start printing and dispersing his constitutional documents around the world. Today you will find them everywhere, in law, in hotels, even in the enemies hand that knows not God, figure that one out.

Sola scripture is our constitutional document that overrules any ecclesiastical authority of any religious institution that wants to be dictators and transmission teachers of the faith. Go back to the constitutional document that is the Biblios and stand up to them without having fear, because your have authority in hand/heart.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That is how your church determined the canon in their councils.

Not so. The faithful submitted to the various council' decision. They decided; we obey. It wasn't left up to a popular majority to decide which scriptures God inspired and which he didn't.

 

[Albion]

The protestant movement grew from opposition to ideologies like purgatory introduced by bishops who would then ask people to pay penance to shorten their time and their departed loved ones time in purgatory.

Factcheck--this is true. The Reformation began with a protest against the teaching of Purgatory (which was at the time less than a hundred years old) and the sale of Indulgences.

Let me add that it was done without the conscent and neither the approval or involvement of the entire body. The body were just spectators.

Factcheck--largely true. Ecumenical councils are considered to be infallible, rightly or wrongly. However, the councils that canonized the Scriptures were not Ecumenical councils. Still, church councils have occasionally been rejected because the people would not accept them. That these two councils which canonized the Bible aren't in that category owes mainly to the fact that there wasn't much to oppose, considering that all the books that were put into the canon were already in use in the churches.