Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[chilehed]

How'd you get that out of my post?

One of the premises of the thread is that there is no source of incontravertible truth other than the bible, and I assume you agree with that premise. I asked how we know what books really belong in the bible, and you said we really don't but we need to trust the judgement of the body of Christ (not your exact words, but I think a fair paraphrase).

If we have to rely on the judgement of the body of Christ (which is the church) to determine what is scripture, but that judgement is not incontravertible because it's outside of scripture, then we don't really know what the true canon is.

On the other hand, if we really do know that the canon established by the church is truly incontrovertible, then we have a source of incontrovertable truth other than the bible. Q.E.D.

 

[Thursday]

* "for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood" = the Father in their hearts revealing the identity of the Son.

* "on this rock I will build my church" = the Father in the heart of the believer bearing witness to the identity of the Son.

* Peter wasn't the rock, faith/trust in the Father is the rock.

* The church is fallible, albeit Jesus has fostered it as the best exponent of his life's work.

In your opinion, why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?

Why did Jesus give Simon alone the keys to the Kingdom?

Jesus promised the leaders of his Church that they would be led in ALL truth. Do you believe this?

 

[Albion]

Well, to say that Scripture is crystal clear on all matters, is, again, an exercise in wishful thinking IMO.

Who here has said that?

that's the point though; it's not arrived at by majority vote, best-guess, or by who has the most superior exegetical methodology.

Frankly, I don't know anyone who advocates the first two of those methods, and every church, including the ones that say they follow "Holy Tradition" think that they have the answers correct, or else there wouldn't be much reason to belong to those churches.

In any case, this is certainly not part of the idea we call Sola Scriptura.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

No, not unless you're presuming God's words don't exist outside of Scripture, which Christ did not believe (or else he'd be a Sadducee, and in fact wouldn't even talk or teach as a divine authority outside of Scripture).

The word is God.
However, declaring his word is anathema is quite a bit of bold judgment on the part of a council of mortal men.Don't you think?

 

[Albion]

Exactly!! You are a good example of the irrational thinking of authoritarians.

Now look at who's misrepresenting what the other person has written.

 

[Thursday]

The word is God.
However, declaring his word is anathema is quite a bit of bold judgment on the part of a council of mortal men.Don't you think?

Are you referring to Martin Luther?

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).

 

[Albion]

One of the premises of the thread is that there is no source of incontravertible truth other than the bible

I don't think so! The topic here is Sola Scriptura and it does not make that assertion.

If we have to rely on the judgement of the body of Christ (which is the church) to determine what is scripture, but that judgement is not incontravertible because it's outside of scripture, then we don't really know what the true canon is.

Hold it. The church recognized and authorized scripture. To believe what the scriptures say is hardly to go "outside of scripture."

 

[Albion]

Are you referring to Martin Luther?

I don't believe she was...or else she would have said so.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You said Scripture is God's Word, which is incorrect....

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

And what is the basis for your assurance got the above sentence?

Scripture is not that highest nor sole authority we have on earth.

You mean it is not the supreme source as the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth? And that as written, Scripture did not become the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God? As is <a href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial ">abundantly evidenced? </a>

Upon substantiation of which the oral preaching of the gospel and the NT was not established?

Show me the constant appeal to oral tradition in the NT that did not look to what was written as the supreme transcendent authority, and let us compare that with what the NT actually shows.

And show me where oral tradition was God's chosen means of preserving His express revelation, and let us compare that with what Scripture actually shows.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I ask you, who told you that scripture was the written word of God? Jesus certainly did establish a Church...Jesus was fulfilling the OT.

And so your argument is that an infallible church is essential for ascertaining what is of God? Which i presume is based upon the premise that being the stewards of Scripture and inheritor of Divine promises means they are that infallible authority.

Then please tell us how OT souls were able to ascertain both men and writings as being of God, and thus the NT church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses.

 

[Colter]

In your opinion, why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?

Why did Jesus give Simon alone the keys to the Kingdom?

Jesus promised the leaders of his Church that they would be led in ALL truth. Do you believe this?

I'm not sure why Jesus chose that nickname, perhaps it was prophetic because Peter did in fact become the founder of the physical church.

Jesus gave them the keys of the kingdom because they were his chosen ambassadors.

No, Jesus promised all of his true disciples that we would be lead into all truth.

The Catholic church has naturally exploited these things to substantiate it's authority.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

I personally think it important to understand the impact of anyone saying scripture itself is "anathema".
That's why I thought to post the definition from dictionary.com here so that we may better know the full import of what we're discussing.

noun, plural anathemas.
1.
a person or thing detested or loathed:
That subject is anathema to him.
2.
a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3.
a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4.
any imprecation of divine punishment.
5.
a curse; execration.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anathema

 

[Colter]

Now look at who's misrepresenting what the other person has written.

It was you who concluded this "And the basis for your theory of "Believe whatever you want" would be...what, exactly?"

Maybe you should own your own error.

 

[Thursday]

And so your argument is that an infallible church is essential for ascertaining what is of God?

That's what the bible teaches:

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

1 Tim 3:15
so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[Albion]

It was you who concluded this "And the basis for your theory of "Believe whatever you want" would be...what, exactly?"

Maybe you should own your own error.

Are you owning yours?

 

[Thursday]

I personally think it important to understand the impact of anyone saying scripture itself is "anathema".
That's why I thought to post the definition from dictionary.com here so that we may better know the full import of what we're discussing.

noun, plural anathemas.
1.
a person or thing detested or loathed:
That subject is anathema to him.
2.
a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3.
a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4.
any imprecation of divine punishment.
5.
a curse; execration.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anathema

So who are you referring to if not Martin Luther?

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

I like Jewish Encyclopidia of 1908, it's a great window into Jewish thought life.

I find it fascinating as a groundwork in understanding how the fulfillment of the Messiah prophecies came to pass. And from the religious cultural identity he assimilated as God incarnate to do so.

 

[chilehed]

I don't think so! The topic here is Sola Scriptura and it does not make that assertion.

You obviously haven't read the OP.

Hold it. The church recognized and authorized scripture. To believe what the scriptures say is hardly to go "outside of scripture."

So how did the church know what documents were scripture? Does any document of scripture contain a list of the canon? If so, how did the church know that that document was itself canonical?

 

[Albion]

That's what the bible teaches:

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

1 Tim 3:15
so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

None of these refer to a particular denomination but instead to the church in the higher sense as is obvious by the use of the description, 'the household of God.'

 

[Thursday]

I'm not sure why Jesus chose that nickname, perhaps it was prophetic because Peter did in fact become the founder of the physical church.

Jesus gave them the keys of the kingdom because they were his chosen ambassadors.

No, Jesus promised all of his true disciples that we would be lead into all truth.

The Catholic church has naturally exploited these things to substantiate it's authority.

Jesus gave Simon alone the keys to the Kingdom.

You are confusing promises made to the leaders of the Church with promises made to all believers.

We each have different roles in the Church. We don't all have the same authority to teach and make rules.

That's what you get from protestantism, which is why there are thousands of denominations teaching contradictory doctrines.