How do we know . . . .

[racer]

No, Christ first established Churches with his Apostles where we have Bishops, presbyteres who are the authority in the Church.... The Bible came from a worshiping community ... people/apostle wrote it.. We never advocate that the monastics or the seminaries did...

Um, no. Establishing "the church" is not Christ's first step in His ministries. His ministry served many purposes, one of those purposes was to establish His church. Establishment of the Church was merely part of Jesus ministry and teaching that is recorded in Scripture along with His other missions/teachings.

 

[Thekla]

using your same logic, the writings of Ignatius should have been canonized with the rest. They were not.

Question: do you, or do you not believe that God insprired scripture? I assume you do. Do you not then, think that he is responsible for the inspiration of the CANON of scripture as well?

lastly, you are still demonstrating a lack of understanding as to why someone would use sola scriptura.

It is not that the bible says "use only me" it is that the bible is the only record that a Sola Scripturist will trust as authoritative.

you want us to believe that for 2000 years, the same church has taught the exact same thing about everything, every caveat, piccadilly and iota. If we are honest with ourselves, we'd have to state that man cannot do this.

look at the Pauline epistles. It took less than a few decades for people to begin screwing things up badly. And then you want to tell me that despite all that, 2000 years of perfection have passed?

not buying it.

the canon was (IIRC) limited to first c. writings, though later writings were considered to contain truth as well -- this decision is related to more ancient conceptual understandings of witness/pass over, and does not indicate a lack of value in later writings. Just as Paul saw Christ, and his witness (of and to) Christ is considered valid, so others witness Christ (of and to) in later eras ...

 

[disasm]

Wrong again. We do not say that being in written form is what give the Gospel authority. The authority comes from God--It was authoritative when God thought. It was authoritative when Jesus spoke it and the apostles preached it. If you minister can stand in front of his flock and preach the gospel from memory and needs no Bible in front of him, it is authoritative. That's why I keep telling you you need to brush up on your understanding of the ideology of Sola Scriptura.

Many of the Saints did have Scripture completely memorized, and quoted it constantly, yet you still disregard that what the Saints said wasn't authoritative, however; on the other hand you state that if a Pastor knows Scripture then gives a sermon on that Scripture it is authoritative. Explain that logic to me.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

 

[racer]

the early Christians (Acts) lived in community -- I do not see this taught in the Gospels.

Community=towns. The apostles travelled from town to town establishing Christian communities. Another thing you didn't see them doing was worshipping in Chapels. They taught outside in the streets and in different peoples homes . . . so what's your point?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Many of the Saints did have Scripture completely memorized, and quoted it constantly, yet you still disregard that what the Saints said wasn't authoritative, however; on the other hand you state that if a Pastor knows Scripture then gives a sermon on that Scripture it is authoritative. Explain that logic to me.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

It's the scripture that's authoritative, not the pastor, nor the "saint."

 

[Thekla]

Community=towns. The apostles travelled from town to town establishing Christian communities. Another thing you didn't see them doing was worshipping in Chapels. They taught outside in the streets and in different peoples homes . . . so what's your point?

"in community" - sharing ownership in common (like the Bruderhof presently)

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It's the scripture that's authoritative, not the pastor, nor the "saint."

What gives scripture it's authority?

Forgive me...

 

[Trento]

It's the scripture that's authoritative, not the pastor, nor the "saint."

We all bring our own biases and theology to the Bible. But Bible Christians do this in a very peculiar way. They set up a mental theological sieve and pour the Bible through it. Please don’t think that I’m criticizing Bible Christians; most are good, godly, and sincere people (after all I used to be one, so they can’t be all bad, right?). But as a Bible Christian I simply cannot remember a time when I ever went to the Bible to teach me anything. I brought my own principles and preconceived theology to the Bible and asked it to support me.
it’s hard to debate a Bible that exists only in my friend’s head. Let me give an example: 2 Timothy 3:14–17 was used by my preacher friend to support his claim. My written Bible said this:

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

His mental Bible said this:

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing you learned it from the Holy Spirit and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are solely sufficient to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture that we have today, except for those books that the Catholics added at the Council of Trent, is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work through Scripture alone."

His version of the Bible also had some qualities that mine did not. First, it had this strange way of being impervious to the original Greek language. Second, every verse stood on its own and had no need to be read in context. Third, his Bible had the unique ability to change its wording and sentence structure at will. You can see my dilemma: I was stuck with the plain old Bible that was not near as "living and active" as was his.
To most Bible Christians, history moves forward in leaps and bounds. First there were Jesus and the twelve apostles, and then there was Paul, and then there was Martin Luther (with maybe a brief stop to visit Hus and Wycliff). One thousand five hundred years of history simply vanish without a trace.

 

[racer]

Many of the Saints did have Scripture completely memorized, and quoted it constantly, yet you still disregard that what the Saints said wasn't authoritative, however; on the other hand you state that if a Pastor knows Scripture then gives a sermon on that Scripture it is authoritative. Explain that logic to me.

Where have I done this? Where have I disregarded a saint as teaching wrong? However, if a saint misstates or misquotes Scripture, or if his memory slips just a bit, I won’t agree simply because he is a saint. I quoted this from Augustine before, but I’ll do so again:

St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book I

Chapter 39 - He who is mature in faith hope and love, needs Scripture no longer And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces. So that in their case, I think, the saying is already fulfilled: "Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." Yet by means of these instruments (as they may be called), so great an edifice of faith and love has been built up in them, that, holding to what is perfect, they do not seek for what is only in part perfect- of course, I mean, so far as is possible in this life; for, in comparison with the future life, the life of no just and holy man is perfect here. Therefore the apostle says: "Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity:" because, when a man shall have reached the eternal world, while the other two graces will fail, love will remain greater and more assured.

Now, if a man is living in solitude, not only would he not have access to Scripture, he would not have access to a “church” either would he?

 

[racer]

"in community" - sharing ownership in common (like the Bruderhof presently)

And, of course, you would have the "Christian" community within a town . . . .

 

[Philothei]

using your same logic, the writings of Ignatius should have been canonized with the rest. They were not.

Question: do you, or do you not believe that God insprired scripture? I assume you do. Do you not then, think that he is responsible for the inspiration of the CANON of scripture as well?
yes I do so what? I also believe that God inspired the Fathers and the councils... The canon was put together by these inspired people or not?? You are the one denying it.. You agree they are inspired but you reject the people? How so?

The apostles were inspired and wrote the gospel... their follwoers and their succersors were not inspired?
lastly, you are still demonstrating a lack of understanding as to why someone would use sola scriptura.
??? Yeah why I wonder to get more confused and interpet the gospel on his own and fall into wrong teaching??
It is not that the bible says "use only me" it is that the bible is the only record that a Sola Scripturist will trust as authoritative.
And interpet the Bible according to his own teaching we already said that...
you want us to believe that for 2000 years, the same church has taught the exact same thing about everything, every caveat, piccadilly and iota. If we are honest with ourselves, we'd have to state that man cannot do this.
If history and historical evidence is not enough for you to understand or not willing it is not my fault. If 2,000 years of ecclesiastical tradition is not enough and trust the tradition of Sola scriptura which is in reality "sola (individual) scriptura" then I say okay you win!!
look at the Pauline epistles. It took less than a few decades for people to begin screwing things up badly. And then you want to tell me that despite all that, 2000 years of perfection have passed?
not buying it.

You do not have to do that "to buy" ... But do not try to attribute "problems" of faith and shortcomings of people on the "tradition" where the same problems exist (sometimes worse) among the sola scripturists....

The reason St. Ignatious writings they were not cannonized does not mean they were heretical or unimportant...

 

[Hentenza]

What gives scripture it's authority?

Forgive me...

Well, God does, of course.

 

[Philothei]

It's the scripture that's authoritative, not the pastor, nor the "saint."

wrong ...No where in the bible says that the bible is the authority.. proof??

 

[Trento]

Well, God does, of course.

"I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel me." (Ibid., p. 320 St. Augustine AD 420

 

[Asinner]

Now, if a man is living in solitude, not only would he not have access to Scripture, he would not have access to a “church” either would he?

Those who fled to the desert when the persecution of Christians ceased, come to mind. Most had the Sciptures in their heart, already memorized, as was the Church, for the Kingdom of God is within us.

Love,
Christina

 

[Philothei]

Matt 28.18 authority to baptize... thus to Apostles in extension to Bishops and priests...

 

[Philothei]

Let us not forget that no many could afford to have a copy of the scriptures... excuse me reality (history) check here!

 

[Hentenza]

"I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel me." (Ibid., p. 320 St. Augustine AD 420

Yep!! That does it for me.

If Augustine said it then it must be as authorative as God's word.

 

[Thekla]

per non-EO, does the NT citation of the Apocrypha lend authority to just the passage cited, the book, or the whole ?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Well, God does, of course.

I would say "The Church", which of course is given authority by God.

That's why Christ God established the Apostles and the Bishops.

Forgive me...