Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Standing Up]

That would exclude then Luke and Paul right?

Doesn't Tradition teach that Paul saw the risen Lord?

PS Just talking about the office of apostle.

 

[Montalban]

Doesn't Tradition teach that Paul saw the risen Lord?

PS Just talking about the office of apostle.

So just seeing Jesus confers Apostleship?

That would have made 1,000's of Apostles

 

[Montalban]

How did the Fathers "allowed scripture to interpret scripture" if they collectively made descisions on their own exegesis on doctrinal questions? if you are alone interpreting the Bible are you bias free from one's own eisegesis?

I'm waiting for the return of the "Sure we can't prove it from SS but you can't prove traditions don't lead to divisions" interjection.

 

[Philothei]

To what Tradition did they point to prove Arius wrong?

To the traditions of the Apostolic confession on the Divinity of Christ plus they used secular philosophy to prove that if Christ is not God we cannot be saved:

If Christ was not God also God's salvific plan was null.
Mostly the Fathers worked through their premise towads scripture and with guiding each other...in their writings esp. in times of heresy..

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm

He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God. He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men that we might inherit immortality. He Himself was unhurt by this, for He is impassable and incorruptible; but by His own impassability He kept and healed the suffering men on whose account He thus endured. In short, such and so many are the Savior's achievements that follow from His Incarnation, that to try to number them is like gazing at the open sea and trying to count the waves. One cannot see all the waves with one's eyes, for when one tries to do so those that are following on baffle one's senses. Even so, when one wants to take in all the achievements of Christ in the body, one cannot do so, even by reckoning them up, for the things that transcend one's thought are always more than those one thinks that one has grasped.

So if Athanasius beleive that SS was enough in defending the faith the enumeration of just plain verses would have done the trick ...but instead there was writings after writings and council to determine that ..Philosophy was used as a method esp Platonic method called the "peripatitic" in the West

the Socratian method asking questions to get to the answer pretty much the same method Paul is using in the Bible

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Apostle had to be, amongst other things, an eyewitness of the risen Christ.

Timothy, Silas, and others don't fit the definition.

The office of apostle (as defined) is over. Again, Jesus commented about the prophets from Abel to John the Baptist, and NT from James to John the Revelator.

Hmm I see. Well, apparently they don't seem to fit your definition of what an apostle is, but they certainly do fit Paul's definition:

1 Thess. (Chapt. 1)
"1Paul, Silasa and Timothy,
To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace to you.b
...
(Chapt. 2)
"1You know, brothers, that our visit to you was not a failure. 2We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition. 3For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. 4On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. 5You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed—God is our witness. 6We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else.
As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you, 7but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children. 8We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us. 9Surely you remember, brothers, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you.
10You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed. 11For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, 12encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory. "

And it certainly seems from this letter that Paul considers Silas and Timothy to be equal to him in authority over their flock, does it not?

Now we turn to Acts:

"11When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” 12Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
14But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15“Men, why are you doing this?"

Here you see both Paul and Barnabas being recognized as apostles by Luke (apostoloi, the same greek word used for apostles such as Peter and the others in the gospels, along with the 1 Thess. ref. above).

So it looks like according to scriptures at least, Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy were all apostles, and again from Paul's letters, it seemed that he considered them to have equal authority as himself. So who do you think ordained these 3 as apostles if not Christ himself? Well, Paul did of course, and Timothy went on to serve as bishop of Ephesus around the year 65, where he served faithfully for 15 years according to Church tradition.

Without further ado ladies and gentlemen...I present you the Holy and Venerable Apostles Silas, Barnabas, and Timothy!



St. Silas

St. Barnabas

and St. Timothy

 

[Montalban]

To what Tradition did they point to prove Arius wrong?

This is one I've answered many times before

homoousios is not to be found in the Bible

When they met at council they voted on what the church had always taught.

 

[Philothei]

[/quote]

11When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” 12Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
14But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15“Men, why are you doing this?

Here you see both Paul and Barnabas being recognized as apostles by Luke (apostoloi, the same greek word used for apostles such as Peter and the others in the gospels, along with the 1 Thess. ref. above).

So it looks like according to scriptures at least, Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy were all apostles, and again from Pauls letter's, it seemed that he considered them to have equal authority as himself. So who do you think ordained these 3 as apostles if not Christ himself? Well, Paul did of course, and Timothy went on to be serve as bishop of Ephesus around the year 65, where he served for 15 years according to Church tradition.

Without further ado ladies and gentlemen...I present you the Holy and Venerable Apostles Silas, Barnabas, and Timothy!

Great I was thinking Acts too I guess too lazy to search the Scripture... bah...I knew that it is mentioned somewhere though since I have read it myself....lol.. withough eisigesis... from my "tradition" no need it is all there

 

[Hentenza]

Would you consider that Silas and Timothy fit this criteria?

No since neither was chosen by Christ. Both fit the criteria for the gift of apostle (1 Cor. 12:28) not the office of apostle.

 

[ivebeenshown]

No since neither was chosen by Christ. Both fit the criteria for the gift of apostle (1 Cor. 12:28) not the office of apostle.

I don't see the definition you seem to be espousing as existent within Scripture.

 

[Hentenza]

I don't see the definition you seem to be espousing as existent within Scripture.

Then you need to read scripture. See my post 308.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Then you need to read scripture.

I have, and do.

Though I must say, it is odd that you didn't bother to support your definition with scripture. Oh, you just ninja-edited your post. Fancy.

 

[Hentenza]

I have, and do.

Though I must say, it is odd that you didn't bother to support your definition with scripture. Oh, you just ninja-edited your post. Fancy.

I supported the definition with scripture and I didn't ninja-edited my post but simply took me a minute to find the post number.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I supported the definition with scripture and I didn't ninja-edited my post but simply took me a minute to find the post number.

That's called a ninja edit. It's not derogatory or anything.

You have not properly supported your definition with scripture. Paul clearly classifies those other two men as Apostles.

The part of your definition which is in question:

2. They must have been immediately called to that office by Christ. (Luke 6:13, Gal. 1:1).

Objections:

Luke 6:13 states that Christ named the twelve disciples Apostles. It does not state that an Apostle must be named by Christ personally.
Galatians 1:1 states that Paul is an Apostle not by men, but does not state that an Apostle must be named personally by Christ.

 

[Hentenza]

That's called a ninja edit. It's not derogatory or anything.

Are you reaching at ANYTHING to attempt to show me in a bad light? lol

You have not properly supported your definition with scripture. Paul clearly classifies those other two men as Apostles.

Your opinion and your denomination's do not count nor do you nor your denomination have authority. You have not addressed my post 308.

 

[Hentenza]

That's called a ninja edit. It's not derogatory or anything.

You have not properly supported your definition with scripture. Paul clearly classifies those other two men as Apostles.

The part of your definition which is in question:

2. They must have been immediately called to that office by Christ. (Luke 6:13, Gal. 1:1).

Objections:

Luke 6:13 states that Christ named the twelve disciples Apostles. It does not state that an Apostle must be named by Christ personally.
Galatians 1:1 states that Paul is an Apostle not by men, but does not state that an Apostle must be named personally by Christ.

Oh look, a ninja-edit.

Paul was chosen directly by Christ. Try again.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Oh look, a ninja-edit.

Yep!

Paul was chosen directly by Christ. Try again.

"Paul was chosen directly by Christ" does not mean that one must be chosen directly by Christ to be an Apostle. You would have to find a Scripture which states "Apostles must be directly chosen by Christ."

 

[from scratch]

Seriously, I have no idea why the Church fathers spend 450+ years settling church doctrine, formulating canons, condemning heretics, etc. when it was all right there in front of their eyes, plain as day for anyone to see! Think of how much time they could have saved if Luther and Calvin were around back then...

About all that proves is that men are feuding idiots.

 

[Hentenza]

"Paul was chosen directly by Christ" does not mean that one must be chosen directly by Christ to be an Apostle. You would have to find a Scripture which states "Apostles must be directly chosen by Christ."

I've already posted the verses and you have not addressed them. Do you deny that Paul was chosen directly by Christ? Does Paul have to defend his apostleship to you just like he had to do to several of the local churches that he planted?

 

[ivebeenshown]

I've already posted the verses and you have not addressed them.

Uh, yes, I have, here, check your OWN post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544117-34/#post57037496

EDIT: I apologize for that tone, it was unnecessary.

Do you deny that Paul was chosen directly by Christ?

Nope, not at all!

Does Paul have to defend his apostleship to you just like he had to do to several of the local churches that he planted?

Unnecessary -- your preceding question was sufficient.

 

[from scratch]

I wouldn't say that Arianism and Nestorianism were "simply" debunked. Arianism persisted almost 100 years, while Nestorianism (and monophysitism which is related) was very influential and persisted for quite some time as well.

100 years seems like a long time to 'simply' thumb through scripture and point someone to the correct verse.

Debunked and annihilaition are 2 different things. Both of those ideas are alive and taught today.