Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[redleghunter]

There is no dogmatic canon. "Dogma" meanings "teaching". In ancient Christian thought, it meant what was taught by Christ to the Apostles. Christ never passed on a specific canon of Scripture.

Thank you.

Is the Synod of Jerusalem (1692) binding on all Eastern Orthodox churches save Ethiopian?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Thank you.

Is the Synod of Jerusalem (1692) binding on all Eastern Orthodox churches save Ethiopian?

Councils don't bind so much as affirm, that is they defend Christ's doctrine from being distorted, they express it. The Synod of Jerusalem was primarily convened to combat the heresy of Calvinism, which it did: doesn't matter if the Ethiopians, Copts, Armenians, or the rest of the Oriental Orthodox attended, since they are not Calvinists anyway.

 

[redleghunter]

However Satan in his pride is still trying to prevail by using Sola Scriptura, etc... The proof is in the pudding! The proof is the 33,000 + Christian churchess interpreting the Scripture their way or the highway, it is not the Lords way.

Unfortunately you have competition for the One True Church claim. I'm told here the Eastern Orthodox Church is the One True Church and the Roman Catholic Church is not.

It's interesting how we have various different Protestants and Evangelicals posting here and unified in the understanding of Holy Scriptures as the transcendent standard to test truth claims; while the ancient churches are all making the claim their church is the One True Church.

To the point the Eastern Orthodox won't even share communion with Roman Catholics.

Just an observation.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

2) Scripture is God's Word.

Uh . . . I missed the part where you proved the truth of point number 2.

I also missed the part where you proved the actual content and extent of "scripture".

Is that the way Jesus treated scripture in his day? Further some have posted scripture verses that profess to the truthfulness and it being God's word.

You ask; prove to me that the Bible is scripture. At this point in time, if you are a Christian and doubt this, get a better church.

 

[redleghunter]

Councils don't bind so much as affirm, that is they defend Christ's doctrine from being distorted, they express it. The Synod of Jerusalem was primarily convened to combat the heresy of Calvinism, which it did: doesn't matter if the Ethiopians, Copts, Armenians, or the rest of the Oriental Orthodox attended, since they are not Calvinists anyway.

The Synod did confirm a canon but it is not binding?

 

[redleghunter]

Further, as I have stated multiple times, how one interprets scripture has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of scripture, which only scripture has incontrovertibly. Not all Catholics interpret scripture the same so they must according to you also be driven by Satanic pride. In all the denominatins, I see prophecy being fulfilled, some good, some bad.

Perhaps a good question is how much of the Bible has the Catholic church infallibly interpreted?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The Synod did confirm a canon but it is not binding?

The canon is, well, a "canon". A "canon", in Orthodox terminology, means a Church rule that wasn't taught directly by Christ. Such rules are flexible and sometimes change, their purpose is to manage various issues that pop up. Some stay really strong, others don't last very long, it depends on how well they work. Councils can create canons, but they can only witness doctrine.

Anyway, the point of that canon, was to assert that Calvinism is wrong in saying books beyond their canon should be rejected. Georgian and Greek (both Eastern Orthodox) to this day, have a variation in their canons concerning 3 Ezra, it's not really a big deal.

Syriac Orthodox don't even have the same New Testament canon as everyone else.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm not going to argue about things that will require a lot of depth to address, because that will hijack this thread way off topic. If you want to discuss Petrine supremacy, I would be happy to, but not in this thread. Make another one.

You are correct it is off topic. I shall remember that the next time I see a response invoking the 40,000 Protestant churches.

The OP is about the authority of Holy Spirit Inspired Scriptures. The transcendent standard the Church fathers used to test truth claims and refute heretics.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

You are correct it is off topic. I shall remember that the next time I see a response invoking the 40,000 Protestant churches.

The OP is about the authority of Holy Spirit Inspired Scriptures. The transcendent standard the Church fathers used to test truth claims and refute heretics.

I think we can agree the Bible is the core text of Christian theology, since it is infallible and extensive. What I don't think we can agree on is that you can just interpret it however comes to you and claim the Holy Spirit is guiding you, since that is NOT what the Church Fathers did.

 

[redleghunter]

I think we can agree the Bible is the core text of Christian theology, since it is infallible and extensive. What I don't think we can agree on is that you can just interpret it however comes to you and claim the Holy Spirit is guiding you, since that is NOT what the Church Fathers did.

Of course as stated earlier Westminster affirms the Biblical teaching and pastoral offices. Most Protestant and Evangelical churches do not throw out tradition ; but that traditions must be tested and derived from the transcendent standard of Holy Scriptures.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Of course as stated earlier Westminster affirms the Biblical teaching and pastoral offices. Most Protestant and Evangelical churches do not throw out tradition ; but that traditions must be tested and derived from the transcendent standard of Holy Scriptures.

The office is completely useless unless it is drawing from the continuous method and tradition of teaching stretching back to the first teachers established by Christ. Being able to interpret the Bible as a teacher is useless unless it's an interpretation which is harmonious with ancient interpretation.

 

[redleghunter]

I think we can agree the Bible is the core text of Christian theology, since it is infallible and extensive. What I don't think we can agree on is that you can just interpret it however comes to you and claim the Holy Spirit is guiding you, since that is NOT what the Church Fathers did.

I have enjoyed and enriched by our dialogue. However until tomorrow as the hour is late here and work tomorrow.

Grace and Peace

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Always

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I mean it is impossible to prove that every word of scripture is true so it is hypocritical to demand that people prove the unwritten tradition is true.

Religions have scripture. The true religion has true scripture. You look for a way out of defending your belief of traditions.

Sacred Scripture is a collection of ancient documents. How do you know which ancient documents are what they claim to be, and which ones truly belong in the collection? For example, how do you know that Paul's letter to the Hebrews was actually written by Paul?

Learn from the Old Testament. God wants us to learn of him and his ways. He from the beginning of "religion", with the Jews, gave books. The people of God followed these books and took them to be true because they were followers of God. The words in them do not have to be proven.

Learn from what Jesus said of the religious leaders of his day and their traditions.

Matthew 15:2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 6 hey are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’​

Now Jesus did not say disregard all the traditions/teachings of their leaders. He said to test them against the word. Now how could they be tested against the word unless it was established what the word was? God has protected his word in the Old Testament and he has protected it in the New Testament. If you doubt the Bible, you doubt God.

As for the hypocritical comment, tell that to Jesus. Jesus said to test "human rules" against the word, for they are human if they are not contained in scripture.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

It is the supporters of SS who claim the written word of God is better than the unwritten word of God.

Not true. God's words are true, written or not. God still reveals his truths to us through the Holy Spirit. Now here is the tricky part. How do you know that when a man speaks, it is a true revelation from God/"unwritten word of God" or as Jesus said, it is "merely human rules"? Matthew 15:3-9 The point of SS is that it is the only source of incontrovertible truth. That means we don't have to question or guess to its authenticity and truth. There may be other truths out there. Traditions may have merits. But, these details must be tested against scripture and are not necessary for salvation.

That is a completely false accusation. I consider God's word the highest authority and don't want anyone to doubt it.

You mince words, playing a game that your traditions are God's word. Prove it. So far none has.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

1. To those who accept the evidence that it is, yes.
2. To those who accept the evidence that it is, yes.
3. To those who accept the evidence that it is, yes.
4. To what end?
5. Um, I think you're going too far here. What do you mean by "incontrovertible," exactly? What sort of truth are you talking about? All truth? Spiritual truth? Would you say 1+1=2 is incontrovertibly true? I would. Does this mean, to your way of thinking, that a mathematics textbook would also be "incontrovertible"?

This is Christian Forums. This is General Theology. Do I have to remind you we are not playing with playdough or debating Plato.

Hmmm...I certainly hold to the idea of Sola Scriptura but I think "There is only Sola Scriptura" is a bit over-the-top.

What is the difference?

Did the Early Church establish the truth of Scripture? Did it confer spiritual authority upon the canon of Scripture? I don't think so. The Early Church (not the RC church) merely recognized the truth and divine origin of Scripture and adopted those texts so recognized as the word of God. The Early Church, however, did not make Scripture true and/or divinely inspired. Those texts constituting the canon of Scripture were authoritative and God-breathed long before the RC Church formally acknowledged that they were.

Yes, the apostles in the early church did establish their truth. Their truth was proved true by being called by Jesus, Old Testament scripture and their great miracles. Their words were true because Jesus said he would speak through them through the Holy Spirit. These proofs testified to the truths spoken. Traditions do not have these.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I mean it is impossible to prove that every word of scripture is true so it is hypocritical to demand that people prove the unwritten tradition is true.

Which truths do you find unproven?

Samir was just throwing out a red herring, because he's got nothing.

It is impossible to prove EVERY WORD OF SCRIPTURE, so I don't have to prove anything with traditions. Does one really think this is going to end well for followers of such a mindset?

 

[dwhite081705]

Your argument, common among Protestants, that one doesn't need teachers because one simply gets all one needs to directly from the Holy Spirit, is not really convincing. We can judge it by its fruits, it leads to a bunch of people saying contradictory things and claiming to get them from the Spirit like it's "using the Force" or something. It leads to gobblygook, and more vitally, it leads to prelest. Human beings are far from perfect and infallible, but that doesn't mean you can consider yourself above them and think yourself to be a prophet unto yourself. Christ is sending the Spirit to HIS CHURCH, and the Church keeps a uniform understanding. Once your out of it, teachings start to completely contradict and splinter, and that is why the Protestant claim that a cacophony of sects are "one Church" is so ludicrous. If you were one Church, you'd have one voice, one doctrine.

One need not argue no need for teachers, only to refer to the scriptures which evidence such things, by statement and by example. In Jhn 2:27 it tells that they that have received the anointing from him needed not that ay man should teach them. Let it be demonstrated, who taught Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Joseph, Moses, Elijah, Daniel, John Baptist, and others unto whom the Word of the Lord came. It was the Word of the Lord, which Paul wrote was in the heart and mouth by which they might be saved in Rom 10:8-11. Again, to the Hebrews it was written whereas they should be teachers, they had need another should teach them. It is plain, those who are unskillful in the word of righteousness, and have need of their senses to be exercised to discern good an evil may need teachers. This is the cause of the divisions, spirits without discernment; they who have need to be taught think to teach, and they who are teachers from God, are hardly found, Catholic or Protestant. It is plain that so many divisions came up under teachers, and among those who had scriptures. Over those who are the most highly esteemed among men, there can hardly be found an earthly teacher, as those names written above and others. Who taught Samuel, and David? Indeed, we should know by fruit. If the Catholic church, which is the largest and richest church in the world were God's church the world would be filled with righteousness. Catholics would be a sweet smelling savor to God, and a rebuke to the world. But the Catholic church is as the world is, and knows as little about scripture as so great many among the protestant demoninations, and are as sinful as any among the denominations. It was the Catholic church that taught of the scriptures in Latin for some time, keeping people ignorant of the scriptures except by hearsay. It was the Catholic church that was at the helm of some of the persecution and murder during earlier times in Europe, as the journals and memoirs of some will tell. It seems to me that there is as much corruption among the so-called catholic church as there is among the protestants. It is said there are about 1.6 billion catholics, and only 800 million protestants in the world. There being about twice as many catholics as protestants the world ought to be a much better place. There being approximately 2.4 billion between Catholic and Protestant, out of about seven billion people, the world ought to be well salted, but alas it is not.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Brother, I think it is useless to try to prove this truth to those who think they already have it figured out. In another one of these threads, Catholics are arguing against SS because if it is true, it means the Catholic church is not the highest authority. How are you going to get someone to admit that? They have too much at stake, which is why they are desperately trying to prove that SS is not true. Pray for them instead, I would say.

A couple hundred posts and no proof for their traditions. Maybe some of them will at least realize their hypocrisy when asking for proof of SS.

Next step acknowledging scripture is incontrovertibly true.
Next step, wondering how do I know such and such tradition is true.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Sola Scriptura wasn't a teaching of Christ's, I don't think, since he taught a lot that wasn't in Scripture.

How daft. The Sola Scriptura we are discussing is the Old Testament and New Testament. Obviously, this can only happen after the canon is closed; that means the letters of the NT were first written. We are well past that point in time now.

Further, the OT contains law and gospel. The NT contains law and gospel. The greatest part of the new covenant is salvation by faith in the Messiah as your Savior. This saved people in the OT times also as Hebrews 11 teaches. Lastly, the NT as Jesus stated did not eliminate the law. If your really knew scripture, you would not think Jesus' teachings so different than what was in the OT, maybe a little hidden though. After all, God says he does not change. The covenants with us may change though.