Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Montalban]

The problem is no one knows what any of those non-written things are, apart from the obvious traditions of men. But consider this instead.

That's not true at all. When Arius started to preach heresy the church were able to address this based on what was always taught. Same with Nestorianism, etc.

The idea of the Trinity is based on the Bible but the formula for it was defined in council. Those opposing it were also basing their teachings on the Bible

Knowledge of which books were authentic was also handed down - thus the bible you cherish came about from tradition - because the Bible does not authorise itself.

 

[MamaZ]

So the Holy Spirit didn't guide him? Who says he was a non-believer? It just says that he was reading and he didn't understand. He was seeking the truth. Perhaps you think God wasn't at work in this?

He's on his way to Jerusalam to worship.

Act 8:34 And answering the eunuch said to Philip, I ask you, about whom does the prophet say this? About himself, or about some other one?
Act 8:35 And opening his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, Philip announced the gospel to him, Jesus.
Act 8:36 And as they were going along the highway they came on some water. And the eunuch said, Behold, water! What prevents me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If you believe from all the heart, it is lawful. And answering he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Act 8:39 But when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. And the eunuch did not see him any more; for he went his way rejoicing.

 

[MamaZ]

That's not true at all. When Arius started to preach heresy the church were able to address this based on what was always taught. Same with Nestorianism, etc.

The idea of the Trinity is based on the Bible but the formula for it was defined in council. Those opposing it were also basing their teachings on the Bible

Knowledge of which books were authentic was also handed down - thus the bible you cherish came about from tradition - because the Bible does not authorise itself.

God has authorized the bible.
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture did not come into being of its own interpretation;
2Pe 1:21 for prophecy was not at any time borne by the will of man, but being borne along by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke.

 

[Montalban]

Act 8:34 And answering the eunuch said to Philip, I ask you, about whom does the prophet say this? About himself, or about some other one?
Act 8:35 And opening his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, Philip announced the gospel to him, Jesus.
Act 8:36 And as they were going along the highway they came on some water. And the eunuch said, Behold, water! What prevents me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If you believe from all the heart, it is lawful. And answering he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Act 8:39 But when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. And the eunuch did not see him any more; for he went his way rejoicing.

And? What's your point?

 

[Montalban]

God has authorized the bible.
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture did not come into being of its own interpretation;
2Pe 1:21 for prophecy was not at any time borne by the will of man, but being borne along by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke.

Missing the point!

Before the Bible came into existence they were just many several books. How did they know which of the hundreds of books that existed at the time were scripture and which weren't.

 

[Fireinfolding]

So the Holy Spirit didn't guide him? Who says he was a non-believer? It just says that he was reading and he didn't understand. He was seeking the truth. Perhaps you think God wasn't at work in this?

He's on his way to Jerusalam to worship.

Learned and unlearned alike is spoken of as it pertains to the vision of all.

Isaiah 29:11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

Isaiah 29:12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

Whereas its written,

Psalm 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

Whereas He opened their understanding to the scripture

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Whereas they testfied of Him (reasoning out of the scripture)


Acts 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee,of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus

The vision of all pertaining to knowing the scipture and the power of God= Jesus Christ

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

[Montalban]

The two of you post scripture as if it just proves some point - but I don't know what it is you think it supports

 

[simonthezealot]

OP ANSWER:YES
6Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed (J)what is written, so that no one of you will (K)become arrogant (L)in behalf of one against the other.



“If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37)

 

[Standing Up]

That's not true at all. When Arius started to preach heresy the church were able to address this based on what was always taught. Same with Nestorianism, etc.

Not at all. Here's an example of a reply to Arius. They used the written word. After all, many still it consider it the authoritative word of God.

"Arius, then, says: “There was a time when the Son of God existed not,” but Scripture saith: “He was,” not that “He was not.” Furthermore, St. John has written: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”18771877 S. John i. 1–3. Observe how often the verb “was” appears, whereas “was not” is nowhere found. Whom, then, are we to believe?—St. John, who lay on Christ’s bosom, or Arius, wallowing amid the outgush of his very bowels?—so wallowing that we might understand how Arius in his teaching showed himself like unto Judas, being visited with like punishment."
NPNF2-10. Ambrose: Selected Works and Letters | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The idea of the Trinity is based on the Bible but the formula for it was defined in council. Those opposing it were also basing their teachings on the Bible

Nuff said by you.

Knowledge of which books were authentic was also handed down - thus the bible you cherish came about from tradition - because the Bible does not authorise itself.

Sure it does as many attest. Peter declares it. Paul declares it. Jesus declares it.

Have you any non-written tradition that was handed down? None so far. But feel free to try again.

 

[Montalban]

Not at all. Here's an example of a reply to Arius. They used the written word. After all, many still it consider it the authoritative word of God.

I don't deny that they used scriptures. Both sides did. I stated both did. That's the weakness of sola scriptura because you can get thousands of different interpretations But saying "They used scriptures" is not the same as saying "They only used scriptures"

You've not shown your point. You've not shown that 'scriptures' refers only to that written in the Bible, either.

The very fact that they came together at the behest of Constantine to debate this is something not straight from the Bible. Although Acts 15 was a meeting of Apostles (who, if you read it based their decision on Peter, Paul, and the prophets together) this '1st Ecumenical Council' was called by someone who wasn't yet baptised a Christian.

They came up with a term homoousios which isn't in the Bible to describe Jesus in the Trinity (the Trinity is also not a word in the Bible)

 

[Montalban]

OP ANSWER:YES[/SIZE]
6Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed (J)what is written, so that no one of you will (K)become arrogant (L)in behalf of one against the other.



“If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37)

Holy Tradition doesn't conflict with the Bible

 

[Standing Up]

I don't deny that they used scriptures. Both sides did. I stated both did. That's the weakness of sola scriptura because you can get thousands of different interpretations But saying "They used scriptures" is not the same as saying "They only used scriptures"

You've not shown your point. You've not shown that 'scriptures' refers only to that written in the Bible, either.

The very fact that they came together at the behest of Constantine to debate this is something not straight from the Bible. Although Acts 15 was a meeting of Apostles (who, if you read it based their decision on Peter, Paul, and the prophets together) this '1st Ecumenical Council' was called by someone who wasn't yet baptised a Christian.

They came up with a term homoousios which isn't in the Bible to describe Jesus in the Trinity (the Trinity is also not a word in the Bible)

Likewise, no one denies that folks got together and discussed things. But we don't see them quoting Clement of Rome as authority on the issue either. As well, Peter speaks through Leo--they don't say, Constantine speaks through Leo. They use scripture.

Now, if you want to argue that non-christians helped things along, go ahead, but it's beside the point of the authority of scripture on which Christians stood. Even your own comment about Acts 15 is obviously scripture.

Do you have any non-written tradition handed down, besides traditions of men to which you might point? Let me help. Stephen and James were martyred. The apostles had two perfect examples to write about as befits the idea of praying to the deceased Saints. But they didn't. This is a clear, unequivocal example of a tradition of solo man.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The two of you post scripture as if it just proves some point - but I don't know what it is you think it supports

That learned and unlearned alike were in the same boat till Jesus come unto them and expounded to them what God concealed concerning him, the law (Moses) and the prophets (Elijah) even in the vision on the mount stood with him "speaking of His decease" or as Peter says, "they spake beforehand of the sufferings of Christ" (the scriptures testify of me). It can even be regarded as believing what Moses wrote of me, in thats what the disciples said, "we have found him who Moses wrote of" as Jesus said, if you had believed Moses you would have believed me, but if you do not believe what he wrote how will ye believe me?

Jesus being the point, the scriptures testify of him and so likewise did Phillip testfy to the same, reasoning from the scriptures (to the enuch) "Jesus". God who spake in various ways in times past by the prophets but in these last days has spoken to us in His son (God said, hear ye him) even as Moses said, "Hear ye him" as the apostles tell us, abide in the doctrine of Christ, because as Jesus said, my doctrine is not mine, but the Fathers, therefore if you have the Son you have the Father and all point back to whats built upon Him even upon the prophets and apostles, Christ being cheif cornerstone. "The law (Moses) and prophets (Elijah) stood with him and the apostles preach Him (even reason from scripture proving him)

He is the point

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Montalban The two of you post scripture as if it just proves some point - but I don't know what it is you think it supports

I like posting Scriptures

http://www.christianforums.com/t7484467/#post55293896

 

[Fireinfolding]

I like posting Scriptures

[URL="http://www.christianforums.com/t7484467/#post55293896"]http://www.christianforums.com/t7484467/#post55293896[/URL]

I suppose it beats this...

Prov 29:11 A fool uttereth all his mind

 

[Fireinfolding]

I also love thw permission granted to do this...


Prov 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

 

[MamaZ]

And? What's your point?

That how could he have been a believer if He had not heard of Jesus? We see in the scripture that this is What Philip was preaching. He believed and was baptized.

 

[Rick Otto]

I suppose it beats this...

Prov 29:11 A fool uttereth all his mind

Fortunately, the contents therein can be counted on one hand

 

[MamaZ]

Missing the point!

Before the Bible came into existence they were just many several books. How did they know which of the hundreds of books that existed at the time were scripture and which weren't.

Because the OT scriptures were there and God would make sure to get His word out to His people in the written. He is faithful like that.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That how could he have been a believer if He had not heard of Jesus? We see in the scripture that this is What Philip was preaching. He believed and was baptized.

Make that 3001 then

Young) Acts 2:41 then those, indeed, who did gladly receive his word were baptized, and there were added on that day, as it were, three thousand souls,