Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[ivebeenshown]

Here is the way your side's argument goes. No two SS denominations agree on scripture interpretation, therefore, SS can not be true.

Not at all. It's more like "none of the SS denominations have valid or authorized bishops, therefore none of them are the true Church."

So I will posit ro you that the ONLY common denomination accepted by ALL mainstream Christian churches is the 66 books of scripture, therefore,

This is an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy. "The majority accepts X, therefore X is true." The majority of humankind accepts that the Holy Trinity is not God, but the Holy Trinity is God, so that kind of argument is fallacious.

 

[Hentenza]

This universal acceptance of the 66 books is not entirely true; for one the ACOE only accepts 22 NT books as authoritative, and they are apostolic in origin. There may be another denomination who doesn't accept the entire NT, but I don't remember...

I wrote "all mainstream churches" not "all churches". There are always oddballs out there. lol

 

[Philothei]

But even the basic nicene creed can be a measure for orthodoxy and I know there are ministers that are well diversed in the Greek So I agree that basic theological concepts can be safeguarded

Nice to talk to you Henry Got to go and do dishes now hehehe....

 

[Ortho_Cat]

The councils, ECFs, etc. are not infallible since they contradict themselves quite often. The scriptures, on the other hand, are indeed infallible and do not contradict themselves. The authority standard seems quite obvious to me.

Yes, scripture is the most important authority among these that I listed, obviously. I'm not aware of direct contradictions in the 7 ecumenical councils, I will have to check into that further. The ECF's are important sources because they lived very close to the apostolic era (and perhaps sometimes on the edge of it). So their witness is very valuable. They are not infallible, no, but their testimony can give us very useful insight and proper understanding and interpretation of scriptures and how the Christian faith was lived after the time of the apostles by the faithful who were entrusted with the apostolic deposit.

So I agree that scripture is the most important authority, yet not the only authority for the Christian. Imo we need the 'supporting materials', if you will, to get the whole picture of the Christian faith.

 

[Hentenza]

Not at all. It's more like "none of the SS denominations have valid or authorized bishops, therefore none of them are the true Church."

There is not a single teaching in scripture that backs up your premise. All NT churches were autonomous and governed by a plurality of elders not hierarchical. The bishop supremacy progressively crept in the church where we start seeing a widespread office of Bishop around the middle of the second century.

Secondly, since your denomination has no authority on all Christians but only on itself then your assertion is mere opinion and in no way affects my denomination's beliefs or authority.

This is an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy. "The majority accepts X, therefore X is true." The majority of humankind accepts that the Holy Trinity is not God, but the Holy Trinity is God, so that kind of argument is fallacious.

But then that is not my argument.

 

[razeontherock]

All NT churches were autonomous and governed by a plurality of elders not hierarchical. The bishop supremacy progressively crept in the church

Tis fact. Kinda sad how many things that are so revered today by so many, are not Apostolic in origin.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I wrote "all mainstream churches" not "all churches". There are always oddballs out there. lol

Lol...poor ACOE Honestly though, I think they are pretty (o)rthodox in doctrine. They have unfortunately been under much persecution throughout their history, but they still are among us after 2000 years (400k). Hey who knows, maybe they are the 'one true'...

Assyrian Church of the East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ivebeenshown]

There is not a single teaching in scripture that backs up your premise.

Sure there is.

All NT churches were autonomous and governed by a plurality of elders not hierarchical.

There is not a single teaching in scripture that backs up your premise. (See? I can do that too. 'Sola Scriptura!')

But then that is not my argument.

But you said: "So I will posit to you that the ONLY common denomination accepted by ALL mainstream Christian churches is the 66 books of scripture, therefore, since God is perfectly capable of maintaining His special revelation, then this must be the standard. The rest is just fallible man's interpretation and irrelevant to God's absolute truth."

Anyways, the RCC is the largest mainstream Christian church so that also renders your argument invalid.

 

[Hentenza]

Yes, scripture is the most important authority among these that I listed, obviously. I'm not aware of direct contradictions in the 7 ecumenical councils, I will have to check into that further. The ECF's are important sources because they lived very close to the apostolic era (and perhaps sometimes on the edge of it). So their witness is very valuable. They are not infallible, no, but their testimony can give us very useful insight and proper understanding and interpretation of scriptures and how the Christian faith was lived after the time of the apostles by the faithful who were entrusted with the apostolic deposit.

The ECFs and councils are indeed important but again they are not inspired nor inerrant therefore neither can have authority over what is known to be infallible and inspired. As a guide, sure, after all we all use extrabiblical materials to help us with our bible reading and study.

So I agree that scripture is the most important authority, yet not the only authority for the Christian. Imo we need the 'supporting materials', if you will, to get the whole picture of the Christian faith.

There is error in the "supporting materials" so one has to have a standard. The standard is the scriptures.

 

[Hentenza]

Sure there is.

Nope.

But you said: "So I will posit to you that the ONLY common denomination accepted by ALL mainstream Christian churches is the 66 books of scripture, therefore, since God is perfectly capable of maintaining His special revelation, then this must be the standard. The rest is just fallible man's interpretation and irrelevant to God's absolute truth."

The ad populum fallacy relates to what the majority believes proves that it is true. My argument merely states that since all mainstream churches agree on the 66 books of scripture then it should be the standard versus "T"raditions that are not accepted but by only the denomination that teaches them. See the difference.

Anyways, the RCC is the largest mainstream Christian church so that also renders your argument invalid.

That would be a fallacy.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Nope.

O contrare

The ad populum fallacy relates to what the majority believes proves that it is true. My argument merely states that since all mainstream churches agree on the 66 books of scripture then it should be the standard versus "T"raditions that are not accepted but by only the denomination that teaches them. See the difference.

Still fallacious. Ad Populum is not only applicable to 'majority' but also to 'the many'. You appeal to 'the many' when you say 'all mainstream churches' (which is wrong anyways because the RCC is mainstream.)

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I wrote "all mainstream churches" not "all churches". There are always oddballs out there. lol

Also Henry, I could also say that after the 7 ecumenical councils were laid down, they were accepted by all mainstream churches as well; they were considered to be universally binding and agreed upon across the east and west.

Surely God wouldn't allow for all (or pretty much all except for a few outliers) of the Church to fall into such grave error? It is also interesting to note that the few organized church bodies which existed that didn't participate in all the councils often informally accepted the 'spirit' of the councils, just not the letter (Oriental Orthodox, for example).

 

[Standing Up]

There is not a single teaching in scripture that backs up your premise. All NT churches were autonomous and governed by a plurality of elders not hierarchical. The bishop supremacy progressively crept in the church where we start seeing a widespread office of Bishop around the middle of the second century.

Not exactly. It was more the dividing of bishop/elder as interchangeable terms/office into bishop and priest separated. This corresponds to the redefinition of eucharist is thanksgiving to sacrifice. (A priest needs a sacrifice). In turn apostolic succession itself was redefined from "faithful men who will teach the same" to "valid bishop" or "genuine minister" who supposedly can trace his physical lineage backward, but teach contradictions to each other.

Clear?

 

[Standing Up]

Also Henry, I could also say that after the 7 ecumenical councils were laid down, they were accepted by all mainstream churches as well; they were considered to be universally binding and agreed upon across the east and west.

Surely God wouldn't allow for all (or pretty much all except for a few outliers) of the Church to fall into such grave error? It is also interesting to note that the few organized church bodies which existed that didn't participate in all the councils often informally accepted the 'spirit' of the councils, just not the letter (Oriental Orthodox, for example).

The Nicene Creed itself was reworked within 300 years re: Spirit "from the Father" to "from the Father and the Son" and that then finally expolded in 1054. Plus the authority of Constantinople caused consternation as they changed the order of the Sees (supposedly this contributed to OO saying byebye c455ad).

 

[Standing Up]

Not at all. It's more like "none of the SS denominations have valid or authorized bishops, therefore none of them are the true Church."

Perfect example of what I say. We have valid bishops who teach contradiction; that's better than invalid bishops who teach truth.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

The Nicene Creed itself was reworked within 300 years re: Spirit "from the Father" to "from the Father and the Son" and that then finally expolded in 1054. Plus the authority of Constantinople caused consternation as they changed the order of the Sees (supposedly this contributed to OO saying byebye c455ad).

Most Catholics would argue that the filioque is semantics, and that they essentially have the same view regarding the relationship of the Trinity that the Orthodox do.

Still, As I mentioned before, OO doctrine is extremely close to that of the EO and RC during the first 1000 years of Christianity, and i think that a difference of semantics could very well be argued in this case as well.

What I'm saying is, how could the Holy Spirit basically allow the entire Church to stray so far off and fall into heresy across the board? I thought Jesus said he would be his church until the end of the age? If we take a snapshot of Christianity, say, during the council years, 4th century to 9th, surely the truth had to be taught somewhere during this period of time, no?

 

[Standing Up]

Most Catholics would argue that the filioque is semantics, and that they essentially have the same view regarding the relationship of the Trinity that the Orthodox do.

Still, As I mentioned before, OO doctrine is extremely close to that of the EO and RC during the first 1000 years of Christianity, and i think that a difference of semantics could very well be argued in this case as well.

What I'm saying is, how could the Holy Spirit basically allow the entire Church to stray so far off and fall into heresy across the board? I thought Jesus said he would be his church until the end of the age? If we take a snapshot of Christianity, say, during the council years, 4th century to 9th, surely the truth had to be taught somewhere during this period of time, no?

The filioque wasn't semantics from 325 to 1054, though they may want to say so now.

We come at this differently. Paul said, teach the same. To me, this means here it is. Over the next 2000 years we know things are not the same. We know it. And all any group can say who does not teach the same is we have the apostolic authority to 'develop doctrine'. To that, I'll let Irenaeus answer, beware those who think they can improve upon the apostles.

 

[Dorothea]

The ECFs and councils are indeed important but again they are not inspired nor inerrant therefore neither can have authority over what is known to be infallible and inspired. As a guide, sure, after all we all use extrabiblical materials to help us with our bible reading and study.





There is error in the "supporting materials" so one has to have a standard. The standard is the scriptures.

Again, somebody or group or church has to possess the truth revealed to them by God as to avoid belief in relativism.

Also, IMO, the ECF's interpretation is better than ours. After all, they were much farther along in spiritual wisdom than any of us. Of course, it is our goal to get to that point or at least close to it while still on this earth. But for right now, my spiritual state is one of immaturity, and I look to those more mature in the faith and who knew the Apostles or those who knew the Apostles because they knew a heck of a lot more than I could in the 21st century, surrounded by all the clutter in this mixed up world.

 

[Rick Otto]

Not exactly. It was more the dividing of bishop/elder as interchangeable terms/office into bishop and priest separated. This corresponds to the redefinition of eucharist is thanksgiving to sacrifice. (A priest needs a sacrifice). In turn apostolic succession itself was redefined from "faithful men who will teach the same" to "valid bishop" or "genuine minister" who supposedly can trace his physical lineage backward, but teach contradictions to each other.

Clear?

We should heap some stones.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Again, somebody or group or church has to possess the truth revealed to them by God as to avoid belief in relativism.

Or alternatively, one could assert that no one knows who is right; that is, the true teaching be out there somewhere, but no one can know for sure. A distinction, but one which I think still leads down the same path towards relativism that you mentioned.