Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[LittleLambofJesus]

See, this is what I mean! Reading this looks as if any view is correct and there is no absolute truth revealed in Christ's teachings in the Bible. This is relativism and will dangerously lead someone towards secular humanism. Be careful, sun.

We do not believe that there are many acceptable truths, but one. One God, one truthful teaching.

Truth......True........

Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for NKJV
(truth)
occurs 223 times in 210 verses in the NKJV

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G225 matches the Greek ἀλήθεια (alētheia), which occurs 110 times in 99 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Last time used in NT:

Young) 3 John 1:12 to Demetrius testimony hath been given by all, and by the truth itself, and we also--we do testify, and ye have known that our testimony is true.

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G228 matches the Greek ἀληθινός (alēthinos), which occurs 27 times in 25 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Last time used in NT:

Young) Revelation 22:6 And he said to me, `These words [are] stedfast and true,
and the Lord God of the holy prophets did send His messenger to shew to His servants the things that it behoveth to come quickly:

 

[Philothei]

1. I think you are entirely confusing the embraced rule in norming with the issues of hermeneutics and arbitration.


2. From MY studies, the cults are quite united in designating SELF as the sole, infallible/unaccountable, "authoritative" (powerful) interpreter of Scripture - as self alone "sees" it. Compare with The Catholic Catechism # 85, 87 and 113. But again, you seem to be entirely confusing 3 different issues: hermeneutics, arbitration and norming. This thread is about WHAT is embraced as the rule in norming.










1. You seem to be imputing to me the EO, RC, LDS insistence that self be the only permitted interpreter and arbiter. I don't embrace the individualistic and institutional/denominational paradigm.


2. While I don't entirely refute that there IS, in practice, an individual determination (after all, I changed from Catholic to Lutheran - ANY here that have EVER changed their view or their denomination or EVER joined a denomination must admit SOME level of individual arbitration), but saying "this makes sense to ME" is not the same as "This is Truth." Again, I don't embrace your very individualistic and denominational model.









Self looking in the mirror at self to see if self looks like self is not the same as all being acccountable to an objective, knowable, unalterable, reliable Rule OUTSIDE and ABOVE all - as arbitrated not by self alone.









Moot. Man also wrote the US Constitution and yet it may serve as the Rule in those issues (it's called The Rule of Law). You may not regard the center line painted in the road to have been placed there directly by God (and thus be infallible) to determine it's sound to stay on the right hand side of that line while driving (under normal conditions in the USA).

But that point is MOOT here. It is virtually ecumenical that GOD is the Author of His Scriptures - thus is (to say the LEAST) reliable. Certainly sufficient for this purpose.

Read this, especially the sections "Why Scripture?" and "Why the Rule of Scripture is Rejected by Some?" http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/





Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah






.

Do you think that the Bible is a legal Document?
Do you think that through the Bible we know ALL truth about God?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. I think you are entirely confusing the embraced rule in norming with the issues of hermeneutics and arbitration.


2. From MY studies, the cults are quite united in designating SELF as the sole, infallible/unaccountable, "authoritative" (powerful) interpreter of Scripture - as self alone "sees" it. Compare with The Catholic Catechism # 85, 87 and 113. But again, you seem to be entirely confusing 3 different issues: hermeneutics, arbitration and norming. This thread is about WHAT is embraced as the rule in norming.










1. You seem to be imputing to me the EO, RC, LDS insistence that self be the only permitted interpreter and arbiter. I don't embrace the individualistic and institutional/denominational paradigm.


2. While I don't entirely refute that there IS, in practice, an individual determination (after all, I changed from Catholic to Lutheran - ANY here that have EVER changed their view or their denomination or EVER joined a denomination must admit SOME level of individual arbitration), but saying "this makes sense to ME" is not the same as "This is Truth." Again, I don't embrace your very individualistic and denominational model.









Self looking in the mirror at self to see if self looks like self is not the same as all being acccountable to an objective, knowable, unalterable, reliable Rule OUTSIDE and ABOVE all - as arbitrated not by self alone.









Moot. Man also wrote the US Constitution and yet it may serve as the Rule in those issues (it's called The Rule of Law). You may not regard the center line painted in the road to have been placed there directly by God (and thus be infallible) to determine it's sound to stay on the right hand side of that line while driving (under normal conditions in the USA).

But that point is MOOT here. It is virtually ecumenical that GOD is the Author of His Scriptures - thus is (to say the LEAST) reliable. Certainly sufficient for this purpose.

Read this, especially the sections "Why Scripture?" and "Why the Rule of Scripture is Rejected by Some?" http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/





Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah

Do you think that the Bible is a legal Document?

No.

Do you reject the Rule of Law because the law in such is written? Do you ignore the center line when driving because it's painted on the road (probably errantly)?

Do you think that through the Bible we know ALL truth about God?

No. But I do think that the written words are a better Rule in the norming of disputed dogmas than a sunset on the North Shore of Oahu.


Read this, especially the sections "Why Scripture?" and "Why the Rule of Scripture is Rejected by Some?" http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hello CJ.
Could I respectfully request you use less spacing in yer posts? Thanks

 

[Standing Up]

So, you do not know what the ECF's disagreed on? You just have read that they did. Is this what you're saying by not answering Thekla?

The ECFs disagreed on a number of things. The day of death of Jesus. The nature of eucharist. The office of bishop/elder. Arianism. Filioque. Lots of examples.

To be sure, some of these things were hammered out correctly, but many weren't.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The ECFs disagreed on a number of things. The day of death of Jesus. The nature of eucharist. The office of bishop/elder. Arianism. Filioque. Lots of examples.

To be sure, some of these things were hammered out correctly, but many weren't.

Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better? - Christian Forums
Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better? [Poll thread]

 

[Standing Up]

It would be great if all teached the same and all agreed. Gnostics claimed that they were teaching the same as the Apostles also.

This is why we trace teachings, like the ECFs. If the tradition does not clearly and unequivocally tie out to an apostle, it should be tossed as schismatic at best.

They also used the same scriptures as the CC, this is why Tertullian got so fed up and basically admitted the futility in only using the scriptures to argue against them.

Do you have the cite?

You are only presenting one side of Tertullians thought on this subject. In reality we are pretty much in the same position considering the differences by different denominations that all claim to be teaching as the apostles yet hold contradictory beliefs on things as foundational as the Eucharist. BTW, im not comparing maintream Protestants to Gnostics as far as what different denoms have in commom but do think this shows the difficulty prospective Christians face today just as they did probably during the 2nd century. Multiple scriptures as well as multiple interpretations all claiming to be apostolic...

In Christ,
JMS

I don't think it all that difficult, but some call me naive. We have to go backwards to trace teachings. When we do this, we find a very different very early Christianity than into what it developed.

For example, even the notion of Apostolic Succession may be shown to have changed within the first 300 years or so from Paul's admonition "teach the same to faithful men" to "valid priest". From that, the "valid priest" may develop doctrine and depart from the faith once delivered; that is, not teach the same.

It's not that difficult IMO, except to those who have the most to lose.

 

[FredVB]

A great many people have been changed with access to what is in the Bible. The true change is in Christ through the work of the Spirit of God, but it is copies of the Bible that Christians need and if they do not have them they would want them, those that have them and use them with praying, studying and meditating are changed. If one approaches the Bible regularly and frequently in faith with prayer and prepared to having the mind changed, over time with that one certainly comes ever closer to truth which is revealed, more than just relying on what a congregating body (or any that does not congregate) would teach them.

 

[Standing Up]

Truth......True........

Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for NKJV
(truth)
occurs 223 times in 210 verses in the NKJV

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G225 matches the Greek ἀλήθεια (alētheia), which occurs 110 times in 99 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Last time used in NT:

Young) 3 John 1:12 to Demetrius testimony hath been given by all, and by the truth itself, and we also--we do testify, and ye have known that our testimony is true.

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G228 matches the Greek ἀληθινός (alēthinos), which occurs 27 times in 25 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Last time used in NT:

Young) Revelation 22:6 And he said to me, `These words [are] stedfast and true,
and the Lord God of the holy prophets did send His messenger to shew to His servants the things that it behoveth to come quickly:

Yes, another example that the truth was spoke and written down (Irenaeus). There is simply zero reason to believe it had to be "developed", except by those who wanted to gain something.

 

[Thekla]

The ECFs disagreed on a number of things. The day of death of Jesus. The nature of eucharist. The office of bishop/elder. Arianism. Filioque. Lots of examples.

To be sure, some of these things were hammered out correctly, but many weren't.

Some of these "disagreements" that you claim rely on a narrowed reading of the text - and, as has been described here repeatedly, we evaluate the content of the individual texts per the phronema and ithos in accord with the phronema and ithos demonstrated in the Holy Scriptures and the life of the Church from the beginning - Pentecost and back to the Garden.

The Holy Scriptures are not a legal text, nor are the writings of the ECFs.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Last time used in NT:
Young) Revelation 22:6 And he said to me, `These words [are] stedfast and true,
and the Lord God of the holy prophets did send His messenger to shew to His servants the things that it behoveth to come quickly:

Yes, another example that the truth was spoke and written down (Irenaeus). There is simply zero reason to believe it had to be "developed", except by those who wanted to gain something.

What I find interesting in that verse of Reve, is that it is also repeated in Reve 1:1.

Revelation 1:1 An un-covering of Jesus Christ, which gives to him, the God, to show to His bond-servants which-things is binding to be becoming in swiftness.
And He signifies commissioning thru the messenger of Him, to the bondservants of Him, John
en <1722> tacei <5034>

Revelation 22:6 And said to me "these the words faithful and true. And Lord, the God of the spirits of the holy Prophets, commissions the Messenger of Him to show to the bond-servants of Him which-things is binding to be becoming in swiftness.
en <1722> tacei <5034>

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G5034 matches the Greek &#964;&#8049;&#967;&#959;&#962; (tachos), which occurs 7 times in 7 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

5034. tachos takh'-os from the same as 5036; a brief space (of time), i.e. (with 1722 prefixed) in haste:--+ quickly, + shortly, + speedily.
5036. tachus takh-oos' of uncertain affinity; fleet, i.e. (figuratively) prompt or ready:--swift.

 

[Dorothea]

The ECFs disagreed on a number of things. The day of death of Jesus. The nature of eucharist. The office of bishop/elder. Arianism. Filioque. Lots of examples.

To be sure, some of these things were hammered out correctly, but many weren't.

Thank you, SU, but I wasn't asking you. Thekla was asking sun, and she wouldn't answer, and she was asked more than once. So, I asked her if this meant she didn't know what the CF's disagreed upon since she couldn't answer the question. Simple really. And we could come to that conclusion probably pretty easily considering that sun does tell us all the time that she doesn't read writings that are outside of the Bible.

 

[Philothei]

The ECFs disagreed on a number of things. The day of death of Jesus. The nature of eucharist. The office of bishop/elder. Arianism. Filioque. Lots of examples.

To be sure, some of these things were hammered out correctly, but many weren't.

First ECFs have to be Easter Christian Fathers to be clear on that and examples would be of great value here

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

First ECFs have to be Easter Christian Fathers to be clear on that and examples would be of great value here

Hello Philothei....which of the ECFs first coined the word "easter"? Just curious

Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for KJV
(easter)
occurs 1 time in 1 verse in the KJV

http://www.christianforums.com/t7549658/
Easter is around the corner!!! What do you do special for this time of the year?!!

 

[Philothei]

No.

Do you reject the Rule of Law because the law in such is written? Do you ignore the center line when driving because it's painted on the road (probably errantly)?
No. But I do think that the written words are a better Rule in the norming of disputed dogmas than a sunset on the North Shore of Oahu.


Read this, especially the sections "Why Scripture?" and "Why the Rule of Scripture is Rejected by Some?" http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

Thanks but this is not what I asked. Bringing in a straw man like the US law is not an answer. And yeah I read that OP many times and I find its standards that is phrased again as such: you arbitrarily set the "norm" of discussion by posting the guidelines so either yes or no both are resulting to the same hypothesis you are setting up. That is again another strawman. If you want we can discuss....Do you think the bible is a book about laws? or is it of spiritual nature? Is God a set of Rules we as Humans can communicate with in an xyz forumla?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Do you think the bible is a book about laws?

No. It contains law and Gospel...

But is your point that it is ergo an unsound rule if Scripture is written - and thus objectively knowable? Would the laws of the USA be a better rule if they were unwritten, unknowable? Do you reject the Rule of Law because it's law - written down?

Is God a set of Rules we as Humans can communicate with in an xyz forumla?

No. But I'm lost what that has to do with ANYTHING remotely related to what is most sound as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines among us? Or does it not matter to you whether doctrines are true or false?


Read this, especially the sections "Why Scripture?" and "Why the Rule of Scripture is Rejected by Some?" http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ I'm confident it will help you understand the topic here.






.

 

[Philothei]

No. It contains law and Gospel...

But is your point that it is ergo an unsound rule if Scripture is written - and thus objectively knowable? Would the laws of the USA be a better rule if they were unwritten, unknowable? Do you reject the Rule of Law because it's law - written down?






No. But I'm lost what that has to do with ANYTHING remotely related to what is most sound as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines among us? Or does it not matter to you whether doctrines are true or false?


Read this, especially the sections "Why Scripture?" and "Why the Rule of Scripture is Rejected by Some?" http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ I'm confident it will help you understand the topic here.

.

What is law and what is Gospel? what is the difference for you?
Can you give me some examples?

I reject to see the Bible as the US law. Period !

There is nothing like the Bible in the whole universe as it is God's truth (not all ) manifested in it. It cannot compare to anything of human value IMHO less we reduce it to that...when you start to "reduce" somehting of "transcended" into somehting mandane and profane you lose the idea of that 'transcendance". God cannot be reduced to the truth that is in the Bible thus cannot be reduced to any example of a law or litereature or history book ...Cause that does injustice to the TRUTH of God that has been revealed and to God that has not.

 

[Standing Up]

Thank you, SU, but I wasn't asking you. Thekla was asking sun, and she wouldn't answer, and she was asked more than once. So, I asked her if this meant she didn't know what the CF's disagreed upon since she couldn't answer the question. Simple really. And we could come to that conclusion probably pretty easily considering that sun does tell us all the time that she doesn't read writings that are outside of the Bible.

She mentioned she does read other things. She doesn't give them the same authority others do. Simple really.

 

[Standing Up]

First ECFs have to be Easter Christian Fathers to be clear on that and examples would be of great value here

Surely you don't think the ECFs agreed on all subjects?

Chrysostom---

Homily III, iii, 1
When I have this to say against them, what argument of theirs will seem clever? They ask: "Did you not observe this fast before?" It is not your place to say this to me, but I would be justified in telling you that we, too, fasted at this time in earlier days, but still we put more importance on peace than on the observance of dates.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html

See? Antioch fasted one way in earlier times, but changed to align with Rome's formed custom.

 

[Kristos]

Surely you don't think the ECFs agreed on all subjects?

Like Universalism? LOL!