Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[yedida]

What don't you like about Paul?
The things he said ?

I don't have a problem with everything he said, but he is the only one who teaches a salvation by grace through faith alone only. If you read the Gospels and the letters to the churches in Rev. Jesus teaches one is saved by what they believe and what they do - a faith that produces obedience and good deeds. I don't see that in Paul's writings.

Here's just one example of a people on the verge of losing their salvation:
Rev 3:1 "To the angel of the Messianic Community in Sardis, write: 'Here is the message from the one who has the sevenfold Spirit of God and the seven stars: "I know what you are doing — you have a reputation for being alive, but in fact you are dead!
Rev 3:2 Wake up, and strengthen what remains, before it dies too! For I have found what you are doing incomplete in the sight of my God.
Rev 3:3 So remember what you received and heard, and obey it, and turn from your sin! For if you don't wake up, I will come like a thief; and you don't know at what moment I will come upon you.
Rev 3:4 Nevertheless, you do have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes; and they will walk with me, clothed in white, because they are worthy.
Rev 3:5 He who wins the victory will, like them, be dressed in white clothing; and I will not blot his name out of the Book of Life; in fact, I will acknowledge him individually before my Father and before his angels.

 

[Montalban]

Automated the church? lol

No that is not my "theory". My belief is that God decreed His written revelation and maintained it. The church merely discovered what had already been decreed.

How did they discover it? Is there a book saying "This REALLY is real"?

BTW- God uses even the apostate for His will. See Nebuchadnezzar as an example.

I'm sure you'd have to go back to the OT

ETA- Do you think that God automated the bible writers? How about all the prophets?

I believe God inspired, but not mastered like a puppeteer

 

[Montalban]

I'm a "true sola scripturist" and I've NOT A CLUE what you are talking about...

.

Yes, I've read your responses before

 

[Montalban]

Some early canons included Clement's Epistle.

Was God not working with the church when that decision was made?

The problem still then remains that if God did work as Hentenza supposes then how do we know on which occasion this was?

Let's look at it like this…

We have one collection of books.

Then we have a different one.

Later another one, and so on.

God works with the church to pick a collection/or forces them to pick a collection.

Which is the one that he did so, if there is still today no canon fixed across all churches?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some early canons included Clement's Epistle.

1. Yes. But since the practice of using Scripture as the rule in norming (Sola Scriptura) does not state what books are and are not, I don't understand the relevance of that point. When Scripture was nothing more than two tablets of stone, using such as the Rule would be Sola Scriptura.

2. Since NO ONE disputes the issue you raised (and have not for many, many centuries), why does it matter to anything? Sola Scriptura is the practice of US - today - embracing Scripture - today - as the rule/canon. I agree, IF in the 90th Century, God adds a book to the NT (and I guess that's theoretically possible) we may have to address that, but that's not an issue today.

Was God not working with the church when that decision was made?

Um, I do tend to believe God was at work in the consensus of God's people in regard to the embrace of what was and was not Scripture. Of course, that has nothing whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura or with the RC denomination or with today.

Let's look at it like this…
We have one collection of books.
Then we have a different one.

Are you Mormon? Yes, I agree - since the LDS embraces MORE books as Scripture - IF they used Scripture as a rule, they would have a larger corpus as that rule than everyone else. Of course, they don't - the LDS stands with the RCC as the passionate objectors of Sola Scriptura - but yes, if they did, they would be embracing a larger corpus. But that doesn't mean the practice is different. Let's say the driving laws in California are more numerous than those in North Dakota (I don't know if the corpus of driving laws in CA is or is not larger than that in ND), then yes - embracing the Rule of Law for driving in CA would involve more laws than embracing the Rule of Law for driving in ND. But embracing the Rule of Law is the same practice in both cases. However moot that is here since you are not Mormon (and Mormons don't embrace the Rule of Scripture in norming anyway)





.

 

[Hentenza]

How did they discover it? Is there a book saying "This REALLY is real"?

I already answered that in the post that you quoted here.

"My belief is that God decreed His written revelation and maintained it."

I'm sure you'd have to go back to the OT

Is the God of the OT different than the God of the NT?

I believe God inspired, but not mastered like a puppeteer

Ding, we agree.

 

[Montalban]

I already answered that in the post that you quoted here.

"My belief is that God decreed His written revelation and maintained it."

That doesn't answer it. It's to say that he did by 'he did'.

So far your responses are to say an unknown/un-nameable group just did something and God just did it.

Is the God of the OT different than the God of the NT?]

No. But if you think he continues to use OT examples, that's up to you to show that.

I expect you don't eat pork and circumcised your newborn sons

Ding, we agree.

Unfortunately that's not how you worded it

 

[Hentenza]

That doesn't answer it. It's to say that he did by 'he did'.

So far your responses are to say an unknown/un-nameable group just did something and God just did it.

Its my answer and I'm sticking to it.

Brother, God uses men for His purposes through the Holy Spirit. You guys are stuck on names but I fail to see the relevance. Historically and from an Eartly perspective the men participating in the council of Laodicea stated the current canon which was later affirmed by both the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Effecting the canon is not the same as determining the canon. God is the author of their decision simply because the scriptures is the word of God not of men.

No. But if you think he continues to use OT examples, that's up to you to show that.

So God's attributes somehow changed in the OT?

I expect you don't eat pork and circumcised your newborn sons

Neither.

 

[MrPolo]

I'm just at a loss to know what you are talking about

Are you asking for clarification or just letting us know you did not follow?

 

[Montalban]

Its my answer and I'm sticking to it.

As of course is your entitlement.

Brother, God uses men for His purposes through the Holy Spirit. You guys are stuck on names but I fail to see the relevance. Historically and from an Eartly perspective the men participating in the council of Laodicea stated the current canon which was later affirmed by both the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Effecting the canon is not the same as determining the canon. God is the author of their decision simply because the scriptures is the word of God not of men.

The impasse we're at is that you have nothing more to offer than you repeating something you believe in, becuase you believe in it.

So God's attributes somehow changed in the OT?

I see this propensity from Protestants so often. Unable/unwilling to answer questions they prefer instead to ask others.

God didn't change the OT, but clearly the examples of Jesus somewhat differ from the OT ones in that we do eat pork, don't need to be physically circumcised, etc.

Neither.

Then you answered your own questions.

 

[Montalban]

Are you asking for clarification or just letting us know you did not follow?

I should have asked this. I took it to mean the latter, given previous experience with that person

I'm running a pool on how many times I get to read "norming" in a post

 

[OpenDoor]

To OP
Just because an Apostle writes something does not mean it is by default inspired by God.
A writing needs to be "God breathed" to be from God.

Even if we found another epistle from Paul, that does not mean it is automatically inspired by God.

God writes the scriptures not man (even Apostles).

 

[Standing Up]

Let's take an Epistle of Peter.

Peter was granted a great commission from Jesus. Peter himself went around preaching the word, using the OT to show how a new covenant is with us. The OT was not enough however to convey this because it's recorded that Peter performed miracles and his teaching was not wholly within the OT - because we live in the NT, thus we eat pork, worship on a Sunday etc.

Getting back to that Epistle. Peter writes one. The first is said by some to indicate he's in Rome "Babylon". If he is, then his Epistle is not wholly for that community.

The community bears witness to the fact Peter wrote it. When another community wishes a copy it to then bears witness to the fact that they have a copy of the same Epistle that Peter wrote.

As time moved on that Epistle is circulated to many churches.

Each time it is attested to by the church that it is the genuine Epistle of Peter.

It's not the Epistle saying "This is genuine" that holds it true.

After a time other works attesting to Peter's authorship are in circulation.

There's a Gospel of Peter, and an Acts of Peter both claiming in to be of Peter.

If you're a true sola scripturist then what differentiates a claim of one book's authenticity over any other "Petrine" book?

The Gospel of Peter claims to be of Peter...
" But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ..."
The Gospel of Peter, translated by Raymond Brown

What authorises one over the other is the church.

The church's tradition of attesting to one book against the others makes one an authoritative work.

Have you tried reading those letters? What was your sense?

 

[Standing Up]

dup

 

[Hentenza]

The impasse we're at is that you have nothing more to offer than you repeating something you believe in, becuase you believe in it.

I believe in it because it is scriptural versus what you believe in which is not. Mine is written so I can easily check while yours is undefinable. Yes we are and will probably will remain at an impasse.

 

[OpenDoor]

The impasse we're at is that you have nothing more to offer than you repeating something you believe in, because you believe in it.

At some point (even in Orthodox thinking) it will have to come to a matter of faith.

 

[Montalban]

To OP
Just because an Apostle writes something does not mean it is by default inspired by God.
A writing needs to be "God breathed" to be from God.

Even if we found another epistle from Paul, that does not mean it is automatically inspired by God.

God writes the scriptures not man (even Apostles).

Which completely misses the point of how you know a particular work is of Paul, and is God inspired

 

[Montalban]

At some point (even in Orthodox thinking) it will have to come to a matter of faith.

I agree. I have a reason for believing what I believe. When I ask another here he says it is because it just is.

My logic is that if I accept the Bible then I MUST accept the church that compiled it.

 

[Montalban]

I believe in it because it is scriptural versus what you believe in which is not. Mine is written so I can easily check while yours is undefinable. Yes we are and will probably will remain at an impasse.

You've not even been able to show from Scripture any evidence

So yes we'll be at an impasse if you go around saying you believe in it, and it's better but still can't show any evidence for it.

Despite having (as you call it) an undefinable belief, it's not hampered us existing as a church. Funny that. Evidence of a thriving church right there in front of you.

Just like the early church community before any of the Ecumenical Councils - that wasn't a hamper to them either.

 

[Montalban]

Have you tried reading those letters? What was your sense?

Actually a case in point I was once reading the Gospel of Mary (I think it was) and I felt moved by it, and inspired by it. I later found out it wasn't actually his, but erroneously ascribed to her. It could have been an (alleged) Epistle from Ignatius - it was some time ago and I'm getting old.

Fortunately I didn't committ all my beliefs on feeling warm and fuzzy.