Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 3, 2016

samir said:
Protestants have some strange "logic" which is why I don't trust Protestants to interpret anything.

samir said:
I'm not. All I'm doing is refuting bad arguments and I do not show favoritism.

You made a blanket slander against Protestants and then claim to not show favoritism.

Does this reflect on your posts being perceived as truthful?

Constantine the Sinner · Sep 3, 2016

AnticipateHisComing said:
Fail. Go back and read the OP. Don't insult the truth and authority of scripture in an attempt to equalize it to your precious church's teaching. Scripture is true because Jesus said it is true. Scripture records this. Does not mean scripture gets authority from itself.

Jesus said it is true according to Scripture, so Scripture isn't an authority for Scripture? At least from a Reformed position? You are a priori assuming Scripture is an authoritative source for God's words, including Christ's words.

sculleywr · Sep 3, 2016

AnticipateHisComing said:
Fail. Go back and read the OP. Don't insult the truth and authority of scripture in an attempt to equalize it to your precious church's teaching. Scripture is true because Jesus said it is true. Scripture records this. Does not mean scripture gets authority from itself.

You forgot a few things:

1. While Jesus said Scripture was true, He did not say WHICH books constitute the true Scripture. So even with the statement that Scripture is true, you're still left with the question of "which Scripture is true?"
2. The only reason you know Jesus said that Scripture is true is because the Church defined the Canon. There are MANY books that claim to be Scripture, but are not, and several books which do not claim to be Scripture, but are.
3. Since it is Scripture that tells you that Jesus said Scripture is true, it is circular reasoning. The Scripture is somehow authenticating itself, because if you removed everything that could be known from Scripture, then you would be left without the claim of Christ that Scripture is true.

Like it or not, without an outside source that is equal to or greater than Scripture, you can't know what Scripture even is. And if you don't know what Scripture is, then you cannot make any statements about the veracity of Scripture. And since Scripture gives a much higher praise to the Church, being that while the Scripture is true, the foundation of Truth is the Church, you run into the problem that it is not us who equalize oral Tradition with the written Tradition. The written Tradition does that for us. IT places the Church as the foundation of the Truth (or bastion or pillar, but that's merely semantics). Without a foundation, a building will crumble to dust and ruin. So you can have good luck trying to build your house on the sand of personal interpretation, but in the end, the foundation is personal interpretation, not Scripture. Just think of how many denominations, true divisions, animosity, and rivalries came about from trying to use Scripture as a foundation. If Scripture was really a stable foundation for truth, there wouldn't be thousands of denominations all using Scripture as a foundation. Denominations wouldn't be tenable if the Scripture were so clear and self-interpreting.

The problem you have is that you deny that you place a manmade tradition at a point higher than Scripture. Sola Scriptura, and all of the other solas? They are all manmade traditions. Scripture says very clearly that justification is impossible without works AND faith. But Sola Fide says James is a liar. Scripture very clearly places spoken word at equal level to the written epistle, but most Protestants do not believe that either.

Scripture is useful until it directly contradicts your personal interpretations of other parts of Scripture. At that point, you would rather burn the passage than obey its commands. So don't try to tell me that you don't place your traditions higher than Scripture. Every single Christian that has ever set a single cell of his body on the surface of this planet places some tradition of some kind at equal levels with Scripture. It's not an accusation. It is an observation. It is reality. If you can't live with that reality, then you need a new faith. It is completely impossible to not have a tradition. The question is not whether you have it. The question is whether you will use the Tradition of the Apostles or one of the traditions of the modernists. Those are your choices. There is no such thing as a person who uses Scripture without any amount of interpreting. That person is a myth.

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 3, 2016

Constantine the Sinner said:
Jesus said it is true according to Scripture, so Scripture isn't an authority for Scripture? At least from a Reformed position? You are a priori assuming Scripture is an authoritative source for God's words, including Christ's words.

Why do you test God's word to try and prove a point?
Do you deny 1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true?
Do you deny 2) Scripture is God's Word?
Somehow it is important to you, how the Bible came to be recognized.

Now scripture does say 1 and 2, but scripture is not true simply because it says it is true.

Psalm 119:160 All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Now to address your circular argument. Understand scripture is not one writing. We have broken it into two sections the OT and the NT, but each of those have multiple writers. Circular authority would be if the writer of one book claimed his words were true because he wrote them. Contrast this to how Jesus did things to fulfill prophecy written 1000 years earlier. Further Jesus did not say his words were true because scripture said it. He claimed to be God, as scripture testified to it. But he also had others to testify: God the Father, John the Baptist and his miracles. Understand that the OT firmly established that God's words are only true, so once you are convinced that Jesus is God, then you must profess that his words are true, even without scripture saying such. The basis to the truth being from God, not scripture.

Don't get confused just because scripture records God's words and at times God dispensing of authorities. At times people may simply say scripture gives this authority, but it is not the most accurate wording. Scripture is not an authority and can not dispense authority. Only God can. Of course earthly churches can create their own authorities, but that does not mean they are from God.

So my problem with the 1 Tim 3:15 passage is that some churches claim authority in a text where Jesus is not directly speaking. It was Paul speaking and he did not have that authority to give to the church.

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 3, 2016

sculleywr said:
Since Scripture is part of Tradition, then Tradition alone includes Scripture. The two are inseperable.

Since scripture is part of history, then history alone includes scripture. The two are inseparable.

Is this proof of anything?

Philip_B · Sep 3, 2016

Scripture, that which is written includes many things. The Gospels represent the clarification and stabilisation of an oral tradition of the story of Jesus, his work, purpose and mission, with some theological reflection. Now in societies where much was passed orally there is no doubt that there was a much better consistency that we know today where we rely on what is written, so what is spoken is less significantly taken into mind. I know in PNG we encountered stories amongst the locals, that could easily be dismissed, until we connected them to western historical documents, and suddenly you realise that the oral tradition is good. Quite probably the Pauline Corpus was as written, a different approach, and the Revelation of St John is another document and another genre, as of course is Acts.

The Church ultimately sifted and sorted the NT canon, and I think most of us are happy enough with the 27. That does not suggest that there were not other things in the tradition of the faith community, but this is what we received and hand on.

How do I know if something is within the tradition? We are generally agreed that it should be attested to in scripture.

So for example the argument about Petrine Primacy is attested to (certainly for some) with the Matthew 16:18 verse. The nature and extent of the authority of that primacy might find some guidance in Matthew 20:25 or Acts 15:1-21.

civilwarbuff · Sep 3, 2016

PapaZoom said:
I thought she ended up there due to the census?

Did you skip to the end to see how it all turns out?

JacksBratt · Sep 3, 2016

sculleywr said:
What I said was "whatever has not yet been confessed has not yet been forgiven." What you read, however, is "whatever has not been confessed in the presence of an elder is not yet forgiven."

Incorrect. That is not what I read. I posted what you stated and that is what I read. Don't put words in my mouth. You stated two conflicting statements and it confused me.

The last part of this post has cleared it all up anyway....see below.

sculleywr said:
Furthermore, you assume that the command of God to confess our sins means that Grace cannot abound without one having the opportunity to confess immediately before death. Remember one of the caveats I made about Confession in my list? The one where you can't simply sin away your salvation? Or did you just ignore that and jump right on board the ship without checking for nuance?

I assumed nothing and ignored nothing. That is the problem.... I have not ignored anything. I have seen it all and there are conflicts.

However, like I said above, you have cleared it up with one simple statement...:
"You can't simply sin away your salvation"

This is exactly what I said when I said that:
"every sin, past present and future, is forgiven when we are saved."

This must be true based on the simple fact that at no time in our lives are we going to be at a state of our soul where we are forgiven of all our sins.

Yes, on the rare occasion, right after praying for forgiveness, we will be freshly forgiven. However, this is but a tiny window in any humans life.

Therefore, if I die on the way home from a hectic day at work, die with sin on my heart, unforgiven sin, then I will face my savior with a sinful soul. We know that, to God, one sin or ten thousand sins means nothing.

Based on your statement and mine, we know that we will not lose our salvation due to these unforgiven sins.

Thus, our sins are forgiven due to our accepting salvation from Christ. Our future sins were forgiven as they were in the future at the time we last asked for forgiveness.

Now, having said that, I will add that we will be judged, and we will be found lacking. All humans, Christians or not, will come up short of the glory of God. God will be right and just in condemning us. However, Christ will stand up for us and present us a pardon.

That will show His mercy... not giving us something we deserve, which is damnation, and His Grace, which is giving us something we don't deserve, which is eternal life.

He does this because......we did one thing and one thing only Had Faith and believed in Him.

That is the only thing that we must do to acquire salvation.

At this time we will be washed in the blood of Christ and be made whole. At this time Cleansed by the fire and covered by His death and Resurrection. At this time, for all time, be made wholly righteous and worthy of eternity.

At any time before this we will be as filthy rags, a sinner and unclean.

Alonso_Castillo · Sep 3, 2016

redleghunter said:
Is the above your opinion or can you point me to the infallible teachings?

Let meput it this way:

Revelation 3:20-22

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

These three verses are the epilogue of the message of Jesus to the seven Churches, ¿What then? ¿All the other particular churches are excluded from this promise?

And about the fact that the Individual local churches were part of the whole Church there is no doubt, for in those times there were many judaising "churches" which Christ don't even mention as "churches" and in fact He calls one Group which pretended to be a church Outside of the Church not by regarding them as a Church but as a party the Nicolaitans. Sort of like Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Mormons, Rusellites, etc. they are named according to the leader who they follow.

Alonso_Castillo · Sep 3, 2016

PeaceByJesus said:
You evidently fail to understand the facts and argument i presented. You claimed the Catholic wrote the Bible, not even just the NT, and thus you know the Bible is true. And by implication means that we need to look to Rome and her magisterium to know what is of God.

Which logically means that to be consistent, since Israel wrote, discerned and preserved the OT writings which the NT church validated its claims by, then 1st century souls should have submitted to their magisterium to know what is of God and what is not. Which effectively nukes the church.

Irrelevant. I am referring to how the NT church in Scripture established its Truth claims, not the progressive deformation of Catholicism.
Wrong again for nothing you said refutes the fact that the church actually began in dissent from 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)

And who rejected the itinerant preachers called the Nazarenes and their Leader, but who overcome this rejection upon scriptural substantiation.

Moreover, the OT was not simply announcing the NT, but it provided the doctrinal and prophetic foundation for it. And thus the NT had to conflate and complement the OT, and thus apostolic preaching was subject to testing by the OT, which is said to be used for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Of course the Old covenant was betrayed by a majority of the Jews, like as the New Covenant has by a majority of those called Christian, esp. the Catholic and liberal Prot kind.

But the point is that the Scribes and Pharisees yet sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and to whom the Lord enjoined conditional obedience to. (Mt. 23:3; Acts 4:19) And thus the itinerant preachers they rejected had to show that these magisterial stewards were not to be followed in all things, which they did upon Scriptural substantiation, not the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

There would have been no NT church unless they and established their Truth claims thereby, as the Church and Christ were no more than rejected itinerant preachers by those who sat in the seat of Moses.

That is not contrary to what I said, and upon what basis did he establish his Truth claims to the stewards of Scripture?

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)
Indeed, and which includes OT saints, and all of the people of God, which do not all belong to one visible church, as cults believe.

Once again, how does this relate to what i said? And your statement is mere propaganda in the light of Scripture. Peter is nowhere mentioned as even being in Rome, and is not even named among the over 30 people Paul salutes or mentions in the letter to the church at Rome!

Your prolix propaganda provides no reason to support Rome, but is an argument against here.

From all this I ony see that you are eithe an Adventist or a some sort of judaizing christian, but, I will have to tell this as a point to end your pretentions of the Old Testament being more important than the New Testament, go and read Hebrews 8 where Paul explains how the Old covenant Ended.

In fact you can read How Paul reprends thos christians who wanted to "follow the Law"

Galatians 3:22-25
Galatians 5:4-5

You reveal yourselve as an Adventist by endorsing The argument of Paul going to the Sinagogues in Saturday.... Quite typical of any Adventist.

Matthew 12:1-6
John 5:16

That Peter was in Rome, Yes he was, and Rome is Called in code Babylon, 1 Peter 5:13
That Paul didn't Mention Peter in his letter, Of course not, Paul wouldn't tell the Roman empire that the leader of the Church was in the very capital of the Empire. that is why also Peter salutes from Rome using Babylon as coding word, since Romans wouldn't understand the meaning, and would go looking to arrest Peter to Mesopotamia not to Italy.

PeaceByJesus · Sep 3, 2016

samir said:
I notice you make lots of claims but never provide any evidence to support them. I wonder why.

Because it already was? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Old_Testament

PeaceByJesus · Sep 3, 2016

samir said:
You are correct that Catholics believe what the catechism teaches and consider scripture the highest authority.

Where is this officially taught in Catholicism? I though that church teaching was the supreme law according to papal teaching, or do you reject that, or make oral tradition as explained by the Catholic church to be wholly inspired?

PeaceByJesus · Sep 3, 2016

samir said:
The distinction is necessary because some Protestants told me they think Jesus is a book. That's why I felt it necessary to say the bible is not the Word meaning it's not Jesus Christ.

Well if you had stated that was your basis for denying that Scripture does not say it was the word of God, but agreed that Scripture does say it is the word of God as being wholly inspired of Him, but not the Word of God in the form of a person, then it would have saved me some typing.

the Lord quotes Scripture as authorative that one is to live by every word of God to contrast to obeying the counsel of the devil, yet you have Him teaching that the very command to live by every word of God is not the word of God!

Protestants have some strange "logic" which is why I don't trust Protestants to interpret anything.

I thought you did not diss Protestants, while the problem is in your illogical universe. In Mt. 4:4, the Lord is being tempted to do something contrary to the word of God, and tyhe Lord counters this by quoting scripture as teaching what the word of God requires, that man is to live by every word of God, yet you denied that Mt. 4:4 says scripture is the word of God! Which responds is what is illogical.

You mean i wrongly presumed that you believed that Scripture was wholly inspired of God, and thus quoting it as the word of God was not simply referring to it containing the word of God, but as being the word of God.

Incorrect. More bizarre logic again. Not sure how to respond to that.

Not more, but otherwise here you are correct, as i meant to say, "You mean that i was wrong to not presume that you believed that Scripture was wholly inspired of God, and thus quoting it as the word of God was not simply referring to it containing the word of God, but as being the word of God," for you had arguing contrary to this.

You had responded to my response to sculleywr, had asserted that "Scripture never directly says that Scripture is God's Word," by contendeding against John 10:35 and Mt. 4:4 as referring to Scripture as being the word of God (arguing the the former only recorded the word of God that was spoken orally), which placed you in the same camp as sculleywr ( whom I never noticed a response from), only to later affirm that 2Tim. 3:16 "actually says scripture is God breathed which is equivalent to saying it is the word of God."

PeaceByJesus · Sep 3, 2016

samir said:
I rely on the church because Jesus promised the gates of hell won't prevail against it. I recognize false doctrine by comparing it to the ancient Christian faith. If it's an innovation that conflicts with what Christians have always believed because the church taught it from the beginning then I know it is false.

But this means that your conclusion relies on your interpretation of what the church taught from the beginning, or it relies upon what your church says it did.

If the former, then in principal you are doing what a faithful evangelical is to do, which is to examine the veracity of Truth claims according to the evidence, above all the only substantive wholly inspired body of Truth, the Scriptures.

And "from the beginning" must begin with the NT, in which, among other things, the NT church manifestly did not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, nor did it have a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" or distinctively titled "priests ," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which is to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.

Nor is it otherwise Scripturally manifest in the life of the church as being the sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."

Nor is the NT church manifest as looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), and praying to created beings in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things.

No wonder Catholics rely on amorphous "oral tradition," for under the premise of magisterial infallibility all sorts of fables can be chanelled into binding doctrine, even claiming to "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.

In addition, Newman himself confessed that
It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. — John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27.

The dictum of Vincentius Newman mentions is the fantasy that Catholic doctrine was believed always by everyone, everywhere, which research renders unsustainable. Even Catholic researchers provide testimony against the propaganda that the early church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible supreme popes.

The problem of lack of evidence and conflict btwn what Scripture and history testifies to necessitated the art of Development of Doctrine. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] Concerning which even EOs, which have their own contrasts btwn Tradition and Scripture state as concerning Tradition, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to left new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development.

Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs...

On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html .
[/FONT]
Moreover, faced with challenges from Reformers, we have the recourse of no less than Manning:

But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” pp. 227-228.

PeaceByJesus · Sep 3, 2016

Are you saying the Pope is divinely inspired?

samir said:
No.

So if you do not rely on non-inspired men for doctrine, then what inspired men do you look to?
The one basic duty of RC laity (not that you are) is to follow your pastors as docile sheep, and render assent of faith to "infallible" teaching and assent of mind and will to other official church teaching?

On the other hand a faithful evangelicals are ascertain the veracity of Truth claims by examining the warrant for them from wholly inspired Scripture. Whether you think they do or not it irrelevant: they question is what inspired men do you look to for doctrine?

PeaceByJesus · Sep 3, 2016

samir said:
I'm aware there were people who questioned the deuterocanonical books prior to Luther but I don't think the RCC ever questioned them or changed their canon. Do you agree the RCC's canon remained unchanged from the 4th century to the present?

No, for there was no set, indisputable canon, only one that was generally accepted, but not universally then nor today.

In the same paragraph, it says, "Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament."

Which is practice, and even Luther placed these in his Bible, but the same article states that Jerome "explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine."

That a few people expressed some hesitation and unfavorable opinions during the 1,000 year period between Carthage and Trent does not support your claim ""the RCatholic Church considered some of the books to be questionable for over a thousand years."
That was Albion, but this was the case in Roman Catholicism, and thus a matter of debate in Trent, esp. as making it anathema to disagree, and it is propaganda that as Albion stated, "Catholics think that it was set in stone during the 300s AD and never touched or questioned until Martin Luther."

When the bishops at Trent voted on the RCC's 73 book canon, the vote was unanimous. Not one person objected to the deuterocanonical books being included in the canon.

"Unanimous" in RC terminology does not literally mean, or necessarily mean 100% agreement, esp. as concerns the so-called unanimous consent of the Fathers, even in Vincentian language,

The cardinals of Pope Paul III (1534-49) - who had made two of his grandsons cardinals at the age of fifteen, are said to have voted unanimously against the plan to call the council which became that of Trent.
while the only vote particular to the canon I have seen referenced was a decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session 1546, to confirm an anathema against dissent from the canon at issue, which passed by vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstaining, a 44% majority.

Concerning the above, Hubert Jedin’s extensive "History of the Council of Trent" reports,

"Two questions were to be debated, namely, should this conciliar decision be simply taken over, without previous discussion of the subject, as the jurists Del Monte and Pacheco opined, or should the arguments recently advanced against the canonicity of certain books of the Sacred Scriptures be examined and refuted by the Council, as the other two legates, with Madruzzo and the Bishop of Fano, desired?

The second question was closely linked with the first, namely should the Council meet the difficulties raised both in former times and more recently, by distinguishing different degrees of authority within the canon?

With regard to the first question the legates themselves were not of one mind...Pacheco, who shared DeI Monte's view, proposed in the general congregation of 15 February to prevent any future discussions whether this or that book was part of the canon by adding an anathema to the decree, that is, by declaring it article of faith. The discussion was so obstinate that there remained no other means to ascertain the opinion of the Council than to put the matter to the vote. The result was that twenty-four prelates were found to be on Del Monte's side, and fifteen (sixteen) on the other. The decision to accept the Florentine canon simpliciter, that is, without further discussion, and as an article of faith, already contained the answer to the second question.” (History of the Council of Trent, pg 55-56, emp. mine)

PapaZoom · Sep 3, 2016

civilwarbuff said:
Did you skip to the end to see how it all turns out?

I always read the last chapter first to see if Im gonna like the book.

fhansen · Sep 3, 2016

PeaceByJesus said:
Are you saying the Pope is divinely inspired?

So if you do not rely on non-inspired men for doctrine, then what inspired men do you look to?
The one basic duty of RC laity (not that you are) is to follow your pastors as docile sheep, and render assent of faith to "infallible" teaching and assent of mind and will to other official church teaching?

On the other hand a faithful evangelicals are ascertain the veracity of Truth claims by examining the warrant for them from wholly inspired Scripture. Whether you think they do or not it irrelevant: they question is what inspired men do you look to for doctrine?

Either way a Christian is called to follow docilely the will of God regardless of whether or not they believe they've discovered it directly from the bible themselves-or via the teachings of a church. And, truth be known, we're all heavily influenced by the historical teachings of the church along with the witness of believers who've lived before us.

chilehed · Sep 3, 2016

AnticipateHisComing said:
Fault one; My thread or SS is proven by logical argument. You are playing with Playdough with your Plato talk. Your argument was based on a discussion with Albion on the origin of scripture. Notice that my thread is a defense of SS. In such I made no attempt to prove points 1,2 and 3. They are purely statements held by the majority of Christians. Although some quibble and argue the Bible can't be 100% incontrovertibly true, that was another thread.

On to your rambling "proof". Start with your very first statement, "the premise of the thread is that there is no source of incontrovertible truth other than the Bible." I challenge you to quote this anywhere in my OP. It is not there. Statement 5 is close, but there is an important difference if you can read. Further statement 5 is not even a premise. Learn what a premise is. It does not assert that there is no other source of truth. Statement 5 is really the intro to what you might call the conclusion of my argument. I will rewrite it to fit your playdough mind.

Since another source of incontrovertible truth has not been proven, by default there is only Sola Scriptura.

I will make it even simpler so you can follow logic.

A is known true.
B another may or may not be true.
Since no other B has not been proven
Conclusion: Only A is known true.
Do you think you can fit my statements in the OP into this?

You have not disproved A, points 1,2 or 3.
You have not proven B, point 4.
Therefore you have not disproved my conclusion.
The only thing you have proven is that YOU can't prove anything.

You should learn that not all logical arguments have to be disproved with logic concepts. The simplest way to disprove an argument is with an example that clearly contradicts the argument. Even though your "argument" was not a valid argument against my OP, I did respond with a glaringly obvious faulty example to your conclusion.

Let me break down your argument and make it simple so you can follow it.

A true scripture needs to be "established".
B words can only be established by an equal or greater source of truth
C the church established scripture
Conclusion: Since the church established scripture it must have equal or greater truth.

Shall I add some QED's to make it look smart?
QED QED QED QED QED QED

Now read my response to your "argument" and see a clear example of a violation of your conclusion. If you can't understand how the Jews in the OT established OT scripture and were given authority by God to guide his OT church but failed miserably at following God in truth then you are deaf. As in:

Mat 13:14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.

Only once in any of this do you address what I said, other than deny that one of the premises of the OP is that there's no source of incontrovertible truth other than the Bible. If you deny that, then why do you claim that no other source has been proven and challenge us to prove it?

Otherwise this is merely a screed in which you repeatedly insult my intelligence rather than respond rationally to what I originally posted in response to the OP, which I had quoted.

I don't have time to waste dealing with this kind of raving. I'm going for a bike ride.

sculleywr · Sep 3, 2016

AnticipateHisComing said:
Since scripture is part of history, then history alone includes scripture. The two are inseparable.

Is this proof of anything?

You were implying that a person who follows Tradition alone is separating the two, whereas those who follow Tradition do not separate the two. They see the spoken words of the Apostles as equal to the written ones.

Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Newbie

Newbie

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Constitutionalist

Searching for Truth

Newbie

Newbie

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Veteran

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency