Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

Thursday said:

So who are you referring to if not Martin Luther?

Click to expand...

My remarks concerning anathema relate to the Latin Rite, what we call the Roman's Catholic church today, and their formation under Pope Paul III of an ecumenical council known as,the council of Trent.

Albion said:

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.'

Click to expand...

Jesus only started one Church.

1 John 2
19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

chilehed said:

You obviously haven't read the OP.

Click to expand...

I take it that you don't think this thread ("Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura") has anything to do with Sola Scriptura.

VanillaSunflowers said:

My remarks concerning anathema relate to the Latin Rite, what we call the Roman's Catholic church today, and their formation under Pope Paul III of an ecumenical council known as,the council of Trent.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church, which wrote the New Testament, preserves it, and proclaims it throughout the world, believes tha tthe bible is the Word of God.

Thursday said:

The Catholic Church, which wrote the New

Click to expand...

That was the "Catholic" church in the sense of being the whole church. From it, the so-called Undivided Church, came the Roman Catholic Church, the EO, and most of the others.

Wolf_Says said:

Christ acknowledged the OT at the written word of God. The NT was not around yet. So I will ask again, who told you that scripture (including the NT) is the word of God?

How do they follow the same approach? Please give me an example.

Click to expand...

So I will ask again, who told them that OT scripture is the word of God, and under the Roman model for assurance of Truth, how could 1st c. souls be correct in following itinerant preachers who were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation and inheritor of Divine promises?

Albion said:

That was the "Catholic" church in the sense of being the whole church. From it, the so-called Undivided Church, came the Vatican Catholic Church (AKA RCC), the EO, and most of the others.

Click to expand...

There was only one Church at the time. This was before individuals thought that they should lean on their own understanding and leave the Church.

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).

Wolf_Says said:

2) Scripture is the written word of God, NOT the Word of God.
therefore

Click to expand...

This is where you're making the mistake. It's complicated and most Christians never arrive to the understanding. Most Christians say, "The Bible is the infallible word of God!" ... I go with this group, but technically they are false. But to get into the discussion on why exactly this is not true, is too long to get into in most instances so I nod my head and go along with it.

"The Bible is not God's word... The Word is Jesus." ... this is also totally false.

With any writing, you have many parts to it. Is Group 1 saying, that none of those parts are not flawed? They themselves, you will find them teaching on the errors to correct understanding, so even the camp that says it's God's infallible word is teaching how this or that translation was wrong, or the word was passed down wrong or what have you.

Errors I know about in the NT:

- KJV added "men" to John 12:32, many subsequent translations included then "men" but the original language never said that, that's why the KJV author put "men" in italics. The context of that verse is dealing with sin. Jesus draws all sin unto himself. If he drew all men unto himself the whole world would be saved presently, it didn't happen, and it doesn't happen. Some argue, "every knee will one day bow" and that's what it's referring to. But why defend something the KJV added arbitrarily? The context is sin, it's simple.

- "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says." - 1 Corinthians 14:34 ... various proofs have been done and explained rigorously according to hermetical standards. This verse is not an error, really, but it is Paul quoting from the original letter written to him as his epistles outlines he was responding. When read in the correct context that this is a quote, it makes perfect sense. But the Bibles we have are all missing the quotes... this is an error.

- NT Bible was written in Aramaic, not Koine Greek... meaning our best original copies, have already been translated out of Aramaic into Greek

- Matthew 19:24 - In Aramaic, Camel = Rope ... http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

The verse is working off of a Jewish idiom of that era where you thread a rope through the eye of a needle. Has nothing to do with camels.

................. How then, is the Bible God's word (THE WORD)?

First, we have to understand how we can rely on the Bible. If overt language fails in some instances, we cannot believe in the word of God in overt language... because even if you wanted to believe the overt language was 100% the word of God, you have the huge problem that you're already reading a translation from that original language if you read English.

So how is it the Word?

It's God's word in meaning, not overt language. Almost always, the overt language is correct if given to full understanding, but that understanding need not rely on specific sentences of overt language.

In information systems of the 20th and 21st century, we implement error correcting mechanisms into "scripture" (memory in computers). The main mechanism is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checksum These same mechanisms were implemented and discussed in the Bible:

This will be my third visit to you. "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." - 2 Corinthians 13:1

Which was Paul quoting Deuteronomy 17:6 which is the OT Law and applying it to the NT church. Furthermore, we see Deut 17:6 violated at the trial of Jesus Christ, where his witnesses could not agree on a testimony to condemn him. Mark 14:56

As we see this principle played out in the Bible, which is a teaching about using multiple data points to verify something as true, we see that the teaching itself was verified using this method of multiple data points (witnesses).

Therefore, we do not have to question the teaching, because it is God's word. And likewise, we apply this teaching to all of God's word, and those parts where it fails this test, we cannot substantiate it as the word of God.

The Word doesn't contradict itself because the word believes in true vs. false, good vs. evil. When Jesus said he is truth, Jesus was making a statement about truth vs. deception, that both exist, and he is truth.

If Jesus told the truth, then when his aspect of truth, the statement in 2 Corinthians 13:1 is believed to be a valid and true statement, sourced out of Christ himself, we understand then that anything which contradicts this truth is not God's word, even should we find it in scripture.

The Bible even teaches that parts of scripture are not God's word in the sense they are not of the substance of truth, but elaborate on a falsehood to reveal truth.

Jesus is truth, Jesus is the word, but scripture contains parts that are not truth and yet elaborate on truth.

You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. - Job 42:3

Are Job's statements parts and elements of God's word, the same word who is Jesus Christ? No. They can't be. Job himself, and God himself excluded some of those statements from being truth incarnate.

Yet the Bible is God's word, Jesus Christ, if we reference the underlying understanding available in God's word the Bible. If you go for the literal overt meaning, available in a given sentence, then you are deceived and looking at the wrong contextual level for the word of God.

Then to summarize the point, the Bible is God's word on the level of correct contextual understanding. Overt language? No. Jesus is not comprised of false statements (like we see in Job), Jesus is comprised of the underlying logos and its meaning, which scripture itself reveals, and this is the whole reason scripture laid claim to being God's word in the first place.

Not that I'm minimizing overt language, it steers you right in many instances... but the overt language was always meant to be filtered through the understanding which the author (God) was providing.

Thursday said:

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.

Click to expand...

What is your understanding of the church? As described in the scriptures?

Do you think there to be a conflict in that scripture alone is declared to be an anathema by a council convened under authority of a Pope? While arguing that support for an infallible church is essential for ascertaining what is of God is found in anathema? The Bible scriptures themselves.

Wolf_Says said:

If authority is given to scripture, where did the authority come from? .

Click to expand...

Exactly what those who sat in the seat of Moses asked a certain itinerant Preacher, who in response invoked the authority of another itinerant officially-rejected preacher, one who lived in the desert eating insects:

And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? (Mark 11:27-28)

And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. (Mark 11:29-30)

And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. (Mark 11:31-32)

"It obviously came from God. "

Click to expand...

Yes, that of John did, but here you have a case in which "the common people heard him [John] gladly," (Mk. 12:37) rightly ascertaining that he was "a prophet indeed," even though those who sat in authority rejected him.

Under the RC model, then the people are to follow the historical magisterium, versus veracity being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power as the NT church was.

But Jesus started a Church, not a Bible, and it was through this Church that the Bible came to be known to the world.

Click to expand...

Meaning, the Lord Jesus started a Church based upon Scripture, that being the doctrinal and prophet basis for it. Thus it was not oral traditions that the Lord rebuked the devil (Mt. 4) and religious leaders (Mt. 22) by and validated His mission by, and opened the minds of the disciples to, but Scripture. And which apostolic preaching was subject to testing by, not vice versa.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)

He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, (Matthew 22:43)

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)

And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. (Acts 28:23)

And the Gentiles believed based upon the immediate basis of Scriptural miracles, but the validity of which are subject to Scripture.

So logically, the flow of authority would then have to go God ---> Jesus' Church ---> Bible since authority moves down. Therefore, it is the Church that Jesus started that has the authority to interpret scripture

Click to expand...

So logically, the flow of authority would then have to go Gods' wholly inspired word---> Jesus' Church ---> Bible since authority moves down. Under your model in which the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation are the supreme authority, then then 1st c. souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p>

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

God's certainly is not restricted to writing for His wholly inspired word, but even if we allow for souls speaking as wholly inspired of God today, then it still would be subject to testing by the established word of God, as that of apostles was.

Yet the latter could include new revelation, and even Rome does not claim to provide such today, nor speak as wholly inspired of God today, as Scripture is.

VanillaSunflowers said:

What is your understanding of the church? As described in the scriptures?

Do you think there to be a conflict in that scripture alone is declared to be an anathema by a council convened under authority of a Pope?

Click to expand...

Scripture alone is unbiblical. It is a device used to divide Christians into factions and is contrary to the goals and teachings of Jesus who wanted us to be one as he and the father are one.

Jesus built the Church and he gave it his authority to teach, make rules, and to forgive sins.

JacksBratt said:

Can you show me where the scripture is the gives the Pope this title of "prime minister for Jesus".
Can't seem to find that.

Click to expand...

It does not state that, but in fact and in concept it is so. Surely, you must know that there are correlations in the Old Testament with respect to the New Testament. On thing is for sure, God is consistent and the main themes of the Bible do correlate.

The Arc was a means of salvation as the Virgin Mary was. Mary was a vessel for Jesus until His birth and thus, again the world was saved. The old testament deals with temporal circumstances and the New Testament deals with spiritual circumstances. Abraham, with loving obedience to God, was willing to sacrifice his deeply loved. God, the Father sacrificed His only beloved and obedient Son. Mankind was saved by the Arc. Mankind was saved by the Arc.The Israelite were saved when they crossed from the old life in Egypt to new life as the people of God. The temporal Kingdom of David was on earth. The everlasting kingdom of Jesus is forever, for God is not limited by His own creations as space and time. Bathsheba was the queen mother (Queen of King David and mother of King Solomon)interceded for her son and for others to King Solomon (her son) and Mary, the Queen Mother, intercedes (through Jesus) for us if we ask her to.

You must understand that the early Christian Church was a continuation of Judaism, was started by Jews and did not cut off the Old Testament. Jews were taught by oral tradition and the Scriptures and knew about their past and heritage. There are a lot of Biblical references that Protestants won't accept. Here is one among others:
Mathew 16:18-19

Root of Jesse said:

There's two kinds of tradition. Sacred Tradition is God's word. 't'radition is man made. Paul told his followers to abide by the traditions he taught them, did he not?

Click to expand...

Indeed, and a SS preacher can as well, presuming such preaching was Scriptural, subject to testing by the only substantive body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God.

Yet as said in my above post, apostolic preaching could include new revelation, and by spoken as wholly inspired of God, neither of which (even) Rome claims to do.

AnticipateHisComing said:

What is the difference?

Click to expand...

See my last post. There are other truths besides those we find in the Bible. What then of Sola Scriptura?

AnticipateHisComing said:

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.

Click to expand...

You didn't quite understand my comments. And you're arguing with me when I support Sola Scriptura. What the apostles wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wasn't true until a ratification of it by the Early Church; it was true even before the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write what they did. The apostles' position as apostles, their association with Jesus, and the miracles they performed certified that they could legitimately speak with apostolic authority and could be trusted to communicate God's truth to the Early Church. But what they communicated was true, if it was inspired by God, long before it entered their minds. It didn't become true only once the Early Church accepted what the apostles were teaching. This is an important distinction to make, I think, if you don't want to fall into the trap of believing the Church defines and establishes God's truth.

Selah.

Thursday said:

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.

Click to expand...

Maybe familiarize yourself with Isaiah 28:16 first. And then read 1 Peter 2:6.

Thursday said:

The Catholic Church, which wrote the New Testament, preserves it, and proclaims it throughout the world, believes tha tthe bible is the Word of God.

Click to expand...

You believe the Latin Rite church is the author of the new testament?

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.

Click to expand...

If you claim a book written by human hands is the only authority of God, then your authority ended as the last book of the Bible was written. God has communicated with many since then, and they have testified that God communicated with them. Accomplished Biblical scholars have found contradictions in the Bible. You may Google "contradictions in the Bible," if in your ignorance you do not believe. God does not lie or contradict himself.

While I believe one may find God's way in the Bible, one cannot be guaranteed salvation by reading the Bible alone. Many read the Bible, few will be saved.

Thursday said:

Scripture alone is unbiblical. It is a device used to divide Christians into factions and is contrary to the goals and teachings of Jesus who wanted us to be one as he and the father are one.

Jesus built the Church and he gave it his authority to teach, make rules, and to forgive sins.

Click to expand...

Yes well, I'll not delve into authority of the Latin Rite church with a member of it. You've been taught to believe.

VanillaSunflowers said:

You believe the Latin Rite church is the author of the new testament?

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church, which includes the Latin Right. There are actually 23 Rites that are in communion with the Pope that comprise the Catholic Church.

VanillaSunflowers said:

Yes well, I'll not delve into authority of the Latin Rite church with a member of it. You've been taught to believe.

Click to expand...

I'm a convert to Catholicism. I was once ignorant of Christian history, but I've learned much more.

Much of what I was taught about the Catholic Church when I was a Methodist turned out to be wrong.