The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

[Hentenza]

How God decided how many books?

He inspired and breathed them. He knows.

 

[fhansen]

Human error is not overridden by God, as became flatly clear when Apostolic Successionist groups began excommunicating each other over minor issues or practice in 180 AD, and of course even later on with the Great Schism in the 1000's.

Scripture's inspiration and inerrancy accomplishes everything God intends. It does so despite our disagreement about what God intends, because God intends what God intends. Human error has not thwarted the omnipotent God.

Human error has caused all kinds of heresy. And schism is significantly different from that, BTW. Which is why more mature minds, further enlightened and changed by the light of revelation, have the opportunity and duty to make amends.

 

[Hentenza]

Which is why we need to look for another place where the buck stops-otherwise we're hopelessly mired in a state of partial ignorance.

And that would be?

 

[heymikey80]

Councils determined which books will be included in the canon not what was written in the books they approved. BUT determining which books they are included or not was indeed an act of the Holy Spirit as that was in itself a counciliar and had to be not through consensus but "uniformed agreement". Determining the books of the Bible was NOT an act of one person but MANY and in the way that the first council took place (it is in Acts) in Jerusalem. So the Apostolic Tradition was and indeed is active in our times through our counciliar ecclesiology. That is actually the inate factor that kept the Ancient Church going in determining heresy NOT the scripture as no where in the history you will find that.

If a minority knew for a fact that the decision of the majority was wrong, the decision of the majority would still have been wrong. God is a majority of One.

Remnant theology: gotta love it. And hey, it's in Scripture. So cool. So the councils thwarted the basis in the majority.

Again, Scripture establishes its own precedent once admitted that the councils are simply witnesses to the truth.

Even the Council at Jerusalem was to understand what Jesus intended -- right? More witnessing.

So the credibility of councils lies in the veracity of what they are witnessing to, not the authority they wield beyond what God gives them.

 

[heymikey80]

Human error has caused all kinds of heresy. And schism is significantly different from that, BTW. Which is why more mature minds, further enlightened and changed by the light of revelation, have the opportunity and duty to make amends.

You guys exchanged bulls of excommunication.

At councils.

So y'all were wrong?

 

[fhansen]

And that would be?

Yes, you know where I'm going. But the point is that God must be able to ensure we have correct doctrine somehow-and it's not been ensured by scripture alone. At this point I couldn't be Christian if that were my only source of authority.

 

[Thekla]

Actually JW's believe that the scriptures are corrupted so they have rewritten many passages to meet and support JW theology in their NWT translation. A good example is John 1:1. They do not follow the same bible that the rest of Christianity follows.

Also, there is quite a bit disagreement on the meaning of "T"raditions so if we follow your logic then nothing should be authoritative since people disagree on the meaning of both scripture and "T"raditions.

As I stated before the argument of interpretation is inherently human while the scriptures are inherently divine. The problem is not with the scriptures but in the natural human nature to err. This inherent quality permeates not just individuals but synods and councils since they are inherently composed of errant humans. Only scripture is inherently divine. Nothing else can make that claim.

Are all the variant texts of Scripture 100% divine, or just some of them, or one of them

(How can a text be 100% divine ? Wouldn't it also be 100% text, too ?)

The EO believe that Jesus Christ was 100% God and 100% man.

The term "divine" includes in its definition 'being God'.

 

[Hentenza]

Yes, you know where I'm going. But the point is that God must be able to ensure we have correct doctrine somehow-and it's not been ensured by scripture alone.

Neither has it been ensured by scripture plus "T"radition.

At this point I couldn't be Christian if that were my only source of authority.

I find this comment quite curious. What exactly appears in the scriptures alone that would preclude you from believing in the works of Christ as your Lord and Savior?

 

[Thekla]

Neither has it been ensured by scripture plus "T"radition.

What is the evidence for this assertion ?

 

[Hentenza]

Are all the variant texts of Scripture 100% divine, or just some of them, or one of them

(How can a text be 100% divine ? Wouldn't it also be 100% text, too ?)

The divinity of a text is attributed as an natural attribute not as a physical one. The books of scripture were written by men but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They are God breathed and inspired. Since God can not err then neither can the scriptures err. Paul chose the words "all scripture" instead of a variant that would specify exactly which ones. This choosing is deliberate since Paul wrote 2 Timothy at the very end of his life and after he had written all of his books and probably had read all others that had been written.

 

[Hentenza]

What is the evidence for this assertion ?

The schism of 1054. The schism of the Church of England from the RC. The disparity in beliefs between self proclaimed apostolic churches today. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

[Thekla]

The divinity of a text is attributed as an natural attribute not as a physical one. The books of scripture were written by men but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They are God breathed and inspired. Since God can not err then neither can the scriptures err. Paul chose the words "all scripture" instead of a variant that would specify exactly which ones. This choosing is deliberate since Paul wrote 2 Timothy at the very end of his life and after he had written all of his books and probably had read all others that had been written.

So the Holy Spirit only guides humans
when they write particular texts ?

And again, there are many versions of the texts of Scripture - which one is "divine" ?

 

[Thekla]

The schism of 1054. The schism of the Church of England from the RC. The disparity in beliefs between self proclaimed apostolic churches today. Etc. Etc. Etc.

There was schism and 'excommunication' in the apostle's time too.

In your example, all you've demonstrated is that something happened, but this does not prove that no-one remained true.

 

[heymikey80]

There was schism and 'excommunication' in the apostle's time too.

In your example, all you've demonstrated is that something happened, but this does not prove that no-one remained true.

Yeah, when you guys come to a concilliar agreement on that, all having claimed to keep the "T"radition, lemme know. I won't be holding my breath for that answer.

And by the waaaay, what about all those Arian councils and such? Were they authoritative, having come from Apostolic-Successionist churches as well?

 

[Hentenza]

So the Holy Spirit only guides humans
when they write particular texts ?

Nope. There are many stories in both the OT and NT that reveal HS guidance without any writings. However, these are specified directly in scripture. I am not contending that God can not inspire anyone now or that he has not inspired anyone in the past. My contention is that self professed guidance by the Holy Spirit has been the basis of many errors in the past. One only has to just look at the make up of cults to understand the danger involved.

And again, there are many versions of the texts of Scripture - which one is "divine" ?

Oh boy, last time we got into that discussion it went on for weeks. lol

 

[Hentenza]

There was schism and 'excommunication' in the apostle's time too.

In your example, all you've demonstrated is that something happened, but this does not prove that no-one remained true.

Actually I have. The disparity of doctrine and beliefs among the apostolic churches now proves the point.

 

[fhansen]

Actually I have. The disparity of doctrine and beliefs among the apostolic churches now proves the point.

There's always been disparity-Arianism, for example, was a major one which swept the Christian world and lasted for many years-centuries, actually

 

[Thekla]

Nope. There are many stories in both the OT and NT that reveal HS guidance without any writings. However, these are specified directly in scripture. I am not contending that God can not inspire anyone now or that he has not inspired anyone in the past. My contention is that self professed guidance by the Holy Spirit has been the basis of many errors in the past. One only has to just look at the make up of cults to understand the danger involved.

Of course, but everyone claims to be aware of this - in fact, Paul figured it out without recourse to the New Testament.

But, the use of Sola Scriptura does not address this problem at all - it just claims that one or some of the many variant texts absent interpretation are "divine" or "the norm". So what ? If the Scripture isn't used, isn't lived, it's dead - or does it save ?

Oh boy, last time we got into that discussion it went on for weeks. lol

And essential to answer - after all, if Scripture is divine in itself (and I still think that smacks of a challenge to the person of Christ), those that vary from the one must be not divine.

Is Sola Scriptura based on the right text, or one of the wrong texts ?

 

[Thekla]

Actually I have. The disparity of doctrine and beliefs among the apostolic churches now proves the point.

There is a disparity in Scripture texts, thus per your argument all Scripture texts are wrong (none of them is "divine").

 

[Hentenza]

There's always been disparity-Arianism, for example, was a major one which swept the Christian world and lasted for many years.

You know that type of heresy is not what I am talking about. None of today's apostolic churches that I am aware of believe that Jesus was just a man with no divine nature. Today's apostolic churches holding to both scripture plus "T"radition are not in communion with each other simply because they disagree in matters of doctrine so having both as coauthoritative does not guarantee "proper" doctrine.

BTW- That Arian heresy still alive and well now. The JWs that we were discussing earlier are a perfect example.