Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

redleghunter · Aug 30, 2016

samir said:
Neither has scripture proven to be true either.

Interesting. What do you mean by this?

redleghunter · Aug 30, 2016

JacksBratt said:
The NT was written after. Just because someone put them in one book later doesn't mean that we didn't have them.

We do have evidence of the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp (sub apostolic period) of the prolific use of the NT we have today.

In Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians there is prolific use of NT passages. This version linked below shows chapter and verse (as we know them now) in the NT and OT Polycarp teaches and exhorts from:

http://www.cogwriter.com/polycarpletter.htm

The above shows quotes and/or allusions to statements in all 27 books of the New Testament in this single letter from Polycarp. And, like Peter (2 Peter 3:16), Polycarp refers to a writing of the Apostle Paul as scripture.

Point being? Long before church leaders decided to catalogue the NT, it existed, was being used throughout the Roman Empire and perhaps beyond. No internet. No national library. Pretty amazing. Of course being less than a generation from the apostles many of these bishops and teachers memorized the words of Jesus Christ, the apostles and have either heard and/or read the epistles and books of the NT. What skeptics like to point out is the Bible is a late 3rd-to 4th century 'event.' When in fact the very NT books we have today were widely used since the death of the Apostles.

Of the earliest work of great length I like to read Irenaeus' Against Heresies. Against Heresies is dated circa mid 2nd Century (140-150 AD.). Take a look around Against Heresies and look at the rich references to the OT and NT.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

redleghunter · Aug 30, 2016

fhansen said:
Words were written according to the need: the eye-witness accounts on the part of the gospels, the ongoing story of the early church in ACTS, the various letters as the apostles were moved to write them as the churches needed guidance, admonishment, instruction, etc. But even as Scripture tells us, not everything was written down. And there never was a reason for us to insist that they should've all been recorded. The NT was simply not intended to be a catechism. Either way the church possessed the message and preserved it and proclaimed it-the Word was in her heart from the beginning.

We would both agree what we have has been recorded. As such, we know what the Apostles experienced and taught. We have a basis to test truth claims. We do not have a list of early church traditions to draw from but we do have the NT. From the NT (and OT) we can test other claims of our practices and traditions.

redleghunter · Aug 30, 2016

Thursday said:
Who told you what books are scripture?

Good question. Of course the answer is not that men decided what was authoritative. Rather recognized the authoritative nature of documents themselves.

A curator may display the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, but the curator is not the artist. The curator 'knows art' when he sees it. Such the same with our early church fathers. For example, the heard the Voice of the Good Shepherd in the Gospel of John but in other works could not find the same Voice.

PanDeVida · Aug 30, 2016

AnticipateHisComing said:
This is not going to be some long winded word game. It is easy.

1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true.
2) Scripture is God's Word.
3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true.

4) Prove another source of incontrovertible truth.
5) No other physical source of incontrovertible truth on earth has been proven.

By default, there is only Sola Scriptura.

Yes, there have been multiple threads on SS. The problem is that all the attacks on SS put the burden to prove there are no other source of incontrovertible truth on the holders to SS. How ridiculous is that? The burden is on those that believe in another source of incontrovertible truth. Despite being asked multiple times in other threads, no proof has been given for incontrovertible truth in any other earthly source.

So if you think anything but SS, I challenge you to prove to me another source of incontrovertible truth.

Anticipate, is it true to say that satan will TRY to prevail by bring division and disaster to Church? It is a Yes or No answer. Jesus Christ Himself answered Yes, to the above question, by stating in Scripture "The gates of hell shall not prevail agains't it". Truth is satan will try to prevail, but our Lord left us a promise that he will Not Prevail.

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.

Matthew 18: 17 and if he will not hear them: tell the CHURCH. And if he will not hear the CHURCH, let him be to thee a heathen and a publican.

Jesus Christ stated above in Matthew 18:17 Tell the Church! Jesus Christ did not say tell or look into Scripture? Therefore the Authority is the Church

Scripture cannot bind or loose anything only the Church can bind or loose anything and there can only be one and it is the Church Founded on Rock, you know the one I am referring to, and if you or any one else reads this post and know which Church I am referring to, then it is by the Holy Spirit, who leads all to the Truth. Amen

Constantine the Sinner · Aug 30, 2016

Wolf_Says said:
Sorry, I forgot to add the rest because I was typing rather quickly. I meant to type John 1:14.

I am not being daft. The capitalization of a word signifies importance. You said Scripture is God's Word, which is incorrect. Scripture is God's word is correct.

Holy Tradition, and the Church that was established by Jesus Christ that has kept His teachings and traditions.

I never stated otherwise to number 3) I just simply said BY THAT LOGIC, that in an incorrect statement. However, Scripture is not that highest nor sole authority we have on earth.
Already pointed it out in my thread if you care to read it.

There were no lowercase letters in the Bible's time, they were all uppercase. The distinction would be between the Logos of God and the Logia of God.

redleghunter · Aug 30, 2016

Thursday said:
Jesus told us to listen to the Church. Not everything Jesus taught is in the bible.

What did Jesus teach here?

Acts 1
3After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God

Very good question. Can you enlighten us as to what Jesus did teach during that timeframe? He spoke many times on the Kingdom of God before his death and Resurrection. I guess we could speculate to the exact nature of His words and teaching. That's the point...we don't know. If you have a list, I would be willing to review it.

Constantine the Sinner · Aug 30, 2016

redleghunter said:
Very good question. Can you enlighten us as to what Jesus did teach during that timeframe? He spoke many times on the Kingdom of God before his death and Resurrection. I guess we could speculate to the exact nature of His words and teaching. That's the point...we don't know. If you have a list, I would be willing to review it.

Jesus taught of lot of things, most beyond simple injunctions. How, for instance, does one cultivate contrition? Jesus certainly taught this, but that's not a mere injunction anymore than kung-fu is.

redleghunter · Aug 30, 2016

civilwarbuff said:
Late 4th century; when did you get the news?
Actually it was a long process:
Edit
For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.

The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.
gotquestions.org

A very good summary. When I reviewed the Polycarp source I provided, it indicated Polycarp quoted or alluded to all 27 books of the NT. That's pretty amazing. Although I should not be amazed.

fhansen · Aug 30, 2016

redleghunter said:
We would both agree what we have has been recorded. As such, we know what the Apostles experienced and taught. We have a basis to test truth claims. We do not have a list of early church traditions to draw from but we do have the NT. From the NT (and OT) we can test other claims of our practices and traditions.

We know from the practices and teachings of the early eastern and western churches that baptism was considered necessary for regeneration, that infants were baptized as far back as anyone knows, that salvation could be forfeited, that Jesus was considered to be really present in the Eucharist. These are some issues that Sola Scriptura adherents may well argue about while there's is no argument within these early churches about these things simply because this is the way it was always and everywhere done. This is what was handed down. This is one way in which Tradition plays it's role.

civilwarbuff · Aug 30, 2016

I liked all the references to NT so early....

redleghunter · Aug 30, 2016

Constantine the Sinner said:
Jesus taught of lot of things, most beyond simple injunctions. How, for instance, does one cultivate contrition? Jesus certainly taught this, but that's not a mere injunction anymore than kung-fu is.

You mean we can only 'see' the words taught but what about the spiritual aspects of contrition? His most compelling answer to your question is in John 3:

John 3: (NKJV)

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (NKJV)

Which given Nicodemus was a teacher of Israel he should have known Jesus Christ was teaching from the Prophets:

Ezekiel 36: (NKJV)

22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord,” says the Lord God, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes.

24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. (NKJV)

civilwarbuff · Aug 30, 2016

Albion · Aug 30, 2016

fhansen said:
We know from the practices and teachings of the early eastern and western churches that baptism was considered necessary for regeneration, that infants were baptized as far back as anyone knows, that salvation could be forfeited, that Jesus was considered to be really present in the Eucharist. These are some issues that Sola Scriptura adherents may well argue about while there's is no argument within these early churches about these things simply because this is the way it was always and everywhere done. This is what was handed down. This is one way in which Tradition plays it's role.

Since all of those things are supported by Scripture and believed by Christians for that reason, Holy Tradition doesn't play a role in any of it.

FireDragon76 · Aug 30, 2016

fhansen said:
. The point is that you cannot prove anything on your list, to, say, a humanist, to support your claim of them being incontrovertible.

This is a good point. If you go watch apologists like William Lane Craig, who is otherwise a conservative Baptist, you will never find him arguing the case for Christianity from "sola scriptura". Because no humanist would take it seriously.

redleghunter · Aug 30, 2016

fhansen said:
We know from the practices and teachings of the early eastern and western churches that baptism was considered necessary for regeneration, that infants were baptized as far back as anyone knows, that salvation could be forfeited, that Jesus was considered to be really present in the Eucharist. These are some issues that Sola Scriptura adherents may well argue about while there's is no argument within these early churches about these things simply because this is the way it was always and everywhere done. This is what was handed down. This is one way in which Tradition plays it's role.

And all very important traditions to discuss and which there was not consensus among even the early church fathers. But such is a digression from the OP. I think we can both agree 'dueling church father quotes' (which there are many) would not be productive outside of the OP.

Unfortunately, the OP is about the authority of Holy Scriptures---Sacred Scriptures. In which:

2 Timothy 3: (NKJV)

14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NKJV)

The above is Apostolic teaching is it not? And if the claim is the Church did not yet decide on the NT canon when Paul penned the above, then we are to conclude we can find Jesus Christ and become wise for salvation by even the TaNaKh (OT).

Albion · Aug 30, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
This is a good point. If you go watch apologists like William Lane Craig, who is otherwise a conservative Baptist, you will never find him arguing the case for Christianity from "sola scriptura". Because no humanist would take it seriously.

I find Craig to be a man who prefers straight talk to theological jargon, and that is probably the reason you don't find him arguing for Sola Scriptura. Similarly, I don't find him arguing for Sola fide although he says he's a believer in it.

redleghunter · Aug 30, 2016

Wolf_Says said:
The books of the NT were not declared to be divinely inspired until the late 4th century.

Who declared the Mona Lisa was art? A museum curator?

Also, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Irenaeus disagree with you. Unless we are to believe they taught from non-declared inspired writings.

Paul of Eugene OR · Aug 30, 2016

AnticipateHisComing said:
This is not going to be some long winded word game. It is easy.

1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true.
2) Scripture is God's Word.
3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true.

4) Prove another source of incontrovertible truth.
5) No other physical source of incontrovertible truth on earth has been proven.

By default, there is only Sola Scriptura.

Yes, there have been multiple threads on SS. The problem is that all the attacks on SS put the burden to prove there are no other source of incontrovertible truth on the holders to SS. How ridiculous is that? The burden is on those that believe in another source of incontrovertible truth. Despite being asked multiple times in other threads, no proof has been given for incontrovertible truth in any other earthly source.

So if you think anything but SS, I challenge you to prove to me another source of incontrovertible truth.

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".

And as for points 4 and 5, I submit the direct handiwork of God uninterrupted by man, namely the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

It is incontrovertibly true as it is directly from God without man messing it up.

Constantine the Sinner · Aug 30, 2016

redleghunter said:
You mean we can only 'see' the words taught but what about the spiritual aspects of contrition? His most compelling answer to your question is in John 3:

John 3: (NKJV)

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (NKJV)

Which given Nicodemus was a teacher of Israel he should have known Jesus Christ was teaching from the Prophets:

Ezekiel 36: (NKJV)

22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord,” says the Lord God, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes.

24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. (NKJV)

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.

Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Facilitator

Thank You Jesus!

Finally Old Enough

Well-Known Member

Similar threads