Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[PeaceByJesus]

Christ was Crucified by the men who wrote down Scripture? I don't think so.

Well, He was crucified by the men who wrote down Scripture in the same sense as the Catholic church gave us the Bible and therefore we are to submit to her magisterium today. For Israel gave us the OT Scriptures and those who sat in the seat of Moses were over them, and like the NT church gave us the NT Scriptures, and Catholics, Eastern Orthodix "Catholics" or Roman, imagine that their leadership sit in the seat of the apostles, though the Roman version is far more pronounced.

But even sitting in the seat of Moses as the magisterial stewards of Divine revelation, and having such magisterial authority that made dissent a capital offense (Dt. 17:8-13) did not require of mean that such possesses ensured infallibility of office, though with the EOs how this works is not so technical as with Rome.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

It is. Scripture never directly says that Scripture is God's Word. In point of fact, the only Logos directly called the Logos is Christ, not the Bible.

Scripture never directly says that it is God's Word? How direct do you want it:

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken... (John 10:35)

Or is this another type of "Jesus never said "I am God" argument?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

... even the RCatholic Church considered some of the books to be questionable for over a thousand years...Yet many Catholics think that it was set in stone during the 300s AD and never touched or questioned until Martin Luther.

How dare you deny a prevalent piece of Cath propaganda.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That's what the bible teaches:...

Then why did you ignore the second question which refutes it?

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.

As for your proof texts, these are so much wishful thinking, as none of them teach what your assert, directly or by implication. 1 John 4:6 contextually says nothing of magisterial authority, and instead refers to personal discernment.

Matt 18:17 refers to resolving personal conflicts, and which flows from the OT magisterium which did the same. But even though dissent from the latter as a capital offense, and even though this office was the magisterial stewards of Divine revelation, and (unlike Roman authority) was affirmed to sit in the seat of Moses, yet none of this required or translated into ensure infallibility of office.

As for 1 Tim 3:15, this is another example of Catholic eisegesis. I dare you to show me from the Greek how this translates into ensure infallibility of office.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Your post is gibberish to me. Perhaps you can translate to English.

Only because it utterly nukes your argument.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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

As did the OT magisterium. (Dt. 17:8-13) But again, this did not require or infer ensured infallibility iof office.

And SS is not contrary to magisterial authority :

Westminster teaches that "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith," etc., yet "All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both." (Westminster, XXXI)

 

[samir]

Scripture never directly says that it is God's Word? How direct do you want it:

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken... (John 10:35)

Huh? Where does that verse say scripture is God's Word?

 

[Winken]

Here is a long answer to 436 comments at this point, some short, some long, some wearisome:

http://www.cwrc-rz.org/whybiblealone.html

I propose all commenters meet for a picnic in an agreed-upon location. Oops.....that would require 436 more comments..........

 

[samir]

That's probably because we aren't really "guaranteed of knowing" what the canon of Scripture is.

The decision was made by several ordinary church councils, not Ecumenical Councils, and more or less accepted. I say more or less because there are a dozen different canons in use among the Christian churches of the world and even the RCatholic Church considered some of the books to be questionable for over a thousand years and then did actually alter the canon during the Counter-Reformation. Yet many Catholics think that it was set in stone during the 300s AD and never touched or questioned until Martin Luther.

I read the canon of those church councils and their 73 book canon was exactly the same as the canon the Catholic Church uses today which means the Catholic canon has remained unchanged and unaltered since the 4th century.

 

[samir]

How dare you deny a prevalent piece of Cath propaganda.

You are bearing false witness. The Catholic canon has remained unchanged since the 4th century. It contains exactly the same 73 books now as it did in the 4th century.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Well, He was crucified by the men who wrote down Scripture in the same sense as the Catholic church gave us the Bible and therefore we are to submit to her magisterium today. For Israel gave us the OT Scriptures and those who sat in the seat of Moses were over them, and like the NT church gave us the NT Scriptures, and Catholics, Eastern Orthodix "Catholics" or Roman, imagine that their leadership sit in the seat of the apostles, though the Roman version is far more pronounced.

But even sitting in the seat of Moses as the magisterial stewards of Divine revelation, and having such magisterial authority that made dissent a capital offense (Dt. 17:8-13) did not require of mean that such possesses ensured infallibility of office, though with the EOs how this works is not so technical as with Rome.

Bishops should be given extreme respect, but they can not only error, they can also be wicked. For a model, consider how David regarded Saul: Saul was appointed by God to rule, and David respected that all the way until Saul committed suicide (and David put the one who assisted him to death). God was extremely displeased with Saul, but David knew it wasn't his place to badmouth Saul or pass judgement, this was even when Saul was seeking to murder David. There are limits: bishops can be deposed for many reasons, such as teaching things contrary to Christ, or moral issues (the stuff Borgia did, no Orthodox bishop could ever get away with); but generally speaking, David's attitude is the model.

 

[PapaZoom]

The Oriental Orthodox (of whom the Ethiopian are part of) and Eastern Orthodox are de facto one, even if de jure not, since we frequently partake of Communion with each other.

No, the RCC isn't the the Church Christ established.

So those that attend RCC are not saved then?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

So those that attend RCC are not saved then?

The Orthodox mindset is to see everyone else as innocent, and oneself as the only sinner. Whether they, or anyone else, is saved, is not something the Orthodox Church is arrogant enough to presume. You are not to preempt God's judgement, and if you do, it will count against you when it is your turn to be judged. The less you judge or presume, the more leniency will be granted in your own judgement.

 

[PapaZoom]

The Orthodox mindset is to see everyone else as innocent, and oneself as the only sinner. Whether they, or anyone else, is saved, is not something the Orthodox Church is arrogant enough to presume. You are not to preempt God's judgement, and if you do, it will count against you when it is your turn to be judged. The less you judge or presume, the more leniency will be granted in your own judgement.

Okay. Then can a person be saved outside of the Orthodox church then? For example, those that profess faith in Christ but go to a protestant church.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Okay. Then can a person be saved outside of the Orthodox church then? For example, those that profess faith in Christ but go to a protestant church.

We don't know.

 

[PapaZoom]

We don't know.

Perhaps the RCC believes that. I heard it from somewhere I'm sure. Is this position true of all Orthodox faiths? (I think there are three but I'm not sure. Eastern, Greek, and one other?)

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Perhaps the RCC believes that. I heard it from somewhere I'm sure. Is this position true of all Orthodox faiths? (I think there are three but I'm not sure. Eastern, Greek, and one other?)

The other one is Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopian, and so on). They are alike with Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian, and so on) in all things save one: Oriental Orthodox say Christ is of one nature, human and divine; Eastern Orthodox say Christ is of two natures, human and divine.

 

[Rick Otto]

In other words, you can't answer these two questions:

Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?

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

He didn't, in terms of what they represent.
Peter's primacy is his place in the narrative, not hierarchical.
The same power of the keys is seen given to all discpiles present in chapter 18.

 

[Rick Otto]

The Old Catholic Church is a protestant denomination that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church built by Jesus.

That's one way to look at it.

 

[Rick Otto]

You just don't want to accept the truth because you prefer lies.

Obviously, I have hurt your feelings.
I apologize.

What possible reason did the early Christian Leaders, many of whom were killed for their faith, have for fabricating anything?

I have already provoked you enough for one day.
Forgive me for not answering that question.