But Jesus gave the Great Commission...ends in, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you. That's the making of the NT. And, Peter refers to Paul's letters as Scripture.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But Jesus gave the Great Commission...ends in, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you. That's the making of the NT. And, Peter refers to Paul's letters as Scripture.Let's suppose that "thoroughly equipped for every good work" signifies the sufficiency of Scripture. The problem I have with such a view is that when Paul is here talking about "the Holy Scriptures," he is referring to the Old Testament. If this verse refers to the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is therefore the object of sufficiency, then what are we do to with the New Testament addition? If this really does indicate the sufficiency of the Old Testament, then this means that the New Testament is unnecessary (for if X is sufficient then what is not-X is not necessary).
Thank you for your input. It brings to the surface something I may be attempting to communicate but haven't quite done so yet.Respectfully, if you look at the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East, the development of church tradition makes much more sense, and can be understood holistically. Catholicism vs. Protestantism is a false dichotomy, and also Sola Scriptura as proposed by Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer is a different doctrine than the Nuda Scriptura doctrine people tend to confuse it with, for Luther and Cranmer and even Calvin did not altogether reject tradition.
It means that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. That's what this thread is about, not whether we should throw words out of the Bible, or disobey Christ, or neglect to read Scripture, etc.
The eastern churches believe in the charism of infallibility of the Church. And they would define the beliefs that apply, denying beliefs that conflict. The Church must have that gift or we have little way to discern truth. Private interpretation of Scripture, which begins taking place anytime a human picks up the Bible and reads it, is insufficient to fully know the truth.Yes, they do. Do you agree with everything Rome says? I'm no prophet but I don't see Rome being the end of denominations.
Correct.
I did acknowledge this. It's called the Body of Christ of which every true Christian is a member. At this time IMO Christians are interspersed throughout many, many denominations. From what I recall, you agree with this, or at least did.
I think we know there is a foundational belief we all must share and there are a lot of traditions that have little true bearing. Once again, I simply do not think that the Jewish Paul was instructing to stick with his traditions, and they look like Rome. As you know, only Rome believes in the charism of Rome. I doubt the bulk of the 1+billion know or care what that means, and I've little doubt there is much darnel in all denominations. I sure hope I'm misreading you and you're not suggesting the infallibility of Rome.
Yet it is human beings within the Body of Christ who make up Christ's Ekklesia and the way I see it He is capable of providing by His Spirit knowledge of His Word to anyone of us apart from only giving it to those within one organization some decide for whatever reasons to call the [only] Church.The eastern churches believe in the charism of infallibility of the Church. And they would define the beliefs that apply, denying beliefs that conflict. The Church must have that gift or we have little way to discern truth. Private interpretation of Scripture, which begins taking place anytime a human picks up the Bible and reads it, is insufficient to fully know the truth.
See post #2 and the link provided there:Jesus said that man should live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, which was a quote from Moses...
- "The Other Paul": Deuteronomy 8:3 proves Sola Scriptura. (Original Debate) {Attacking P3}
- Jimmy Akin: I agree that man lives by the word of God, but this includes God's word as passed down in writing and in oral tradition. Even in the Old Testament itself the word of God was passed on authoritatively by oral tradition.
Yes, this is a good point. The Catholic Church is not the only Church which rejects Sola Scriptura. All of the ancient Churches have an approach which is different from Sola Scriptura. One can abandon Sola Scriptura without becoming a Catholic.Respectfully, if you look at the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East, the development of church tradition makes much more sense, and can be understood holistically. Catholicism vs. Protestantism is a false dichotomy, and also Sola Scriptura as proposed by Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer is a different doctrine than the Nuda Scriptura doctrine people tend to confuse it with, for Luther and Cranmer and even Calvin did not altogether reject tradition.
But...but...truth is not about majority vote. Even within Catholicism people may believe all kinds of things but the gospel truth is the treasure of the church while individual Christians can and do bring quite a smorgasbord of beliefs to the table, more so yet with the advent of Sola Scriptura.Yet it is human beings within the Body of Christ who make up Christ's Ekklesia and the way I see it He is capable of providing by His Spirit knowledge of His Word to anyone of us apart from only giving it to those within one organization some decide for whatever reasons to call the [only] Church.
Allowed? God allows evil. We pretty much have free reign down here so not everything that occurs is necessarily according to His will, including scandals within the RCC as an example.I share with you the desire for unity of the mind of Christ on earth, but He allowed splits like the Reformation to take place.
I keep looking for Sola Scriptura in Christian history. I can't find it in the OT or the NT or the Fathers or the Councils. It only appears, finally, with Martin Luther. Where was it all of those years before Martin Luther. If it is THE critical dogma of the faith it should have been obvious through all of Christian history. And it should have been obvious in the actual Bible. That is a gaping historical hole.Yes, this is a good point. The Catholic Church is not the only Church which rejects Sola Scriptura. All of the ancient Churches have an approach which is different from Sola Scriptura. One can abandon Sola Scriptura without becoming a Catholic.
Then we ask, 'What the heck was all this Reformation business about? Was there really any reason to split the church after all?" Luther didn't want to at first aand he, himself, maintained later that justification was the crux of the reason for the Reformation, why it was necesary. And he was wrong.What happens fhansen, if you through reading Rome determine what Salvation is and I and others apart from Rome come to a same or very similar conclusion through working in Scripture in Christ in Spirit?
Originally it did, in the west at least.Rome didn't teach us all.
Not sure where the 500 years comes from. The early teachings were the same and that theology would also be concretized, so to speak, in the sacraments for us simple folk. Later more elaborate amd sophisticated means of explaining and claifying and defining the faith would come, as possible and as needed. And I can show the basic outworkings of that process and dialogue at council which demonstrates the fuller understanding of the church on justification. Either way plenty disagree with Rome, which is why the Reformation took place, obviously. Plenty disagree with God for that matter -which is why the world's in darkness to begin with.What happens if I and others disagree with Rome - we're automatically wrong because we disagree with the Magisterium? When it takes 500 years to work out a doctrine, who is capable of knowing who else on the planet knew the truth before it had some high degree of institutional consensus?
It means particular individuals it was addressed to, the Twelve. Context matters.Since you seemed to object to the word "you" that was used in John 14:26 to mean individuals
You can't universalize something addressed to particular people in a particular group to just everybody. The context of Jn 14 is specific to the Twelve. You could argue it applied to their successors, such as Matthias and those who were the other successors to the Twelve, but it does not generalize to everybody.when Jesus promised the Spirit of Truth to those who obey. His commandments John 14:15-18
The truths the Holy Spirit will guide the Twelve to are shared with all of the Church. I think you apply it to yourself that you are the recipient of the knowledge of all things all by your lonesome.His commandments John 14:15-18 and the Spirit will teach us all things, which is a promise of Jesus for those who are seeking Truth and to those who obey
OK. God's Word is truth. Do you think I disagree with that?Acts 5:32, The Spirit will also convict one of their sins which will hopefully lead one to repentance and a changed heart. This is why it’s so important to have an open heart and allow the Spirit to guide and the Spirit will never guide you away from God's Word. God’s Word is Truth. Psalms 119:160
Because the particular individuals in Jn 14 are the Twelve and not just everybody. So I'm not protesting the Scripture but your interpretation of it, which lacks the context of which individuals it was spoken to. The Holy Spirit guides individuals. The Holy Spirit guides the Church. We can get some guidance from the Holy Spirit directly and some is conveyed through the Church. But you are right that we have different views of the Church, likely forever irreconcilable views. I see you are SDA. That makes us miles apart. You have to believe that the Catholic Church is out to persecute you and force you to worship on Sunday. So you look at the Church as I know it as a horror. As I said, 'miles apart'.So not sure why the objection to the scripture I posted or the word "you" to mean individuals. Of course the Holy Spirit guides individuals and His church. We probably have a different definition of His church though.
Of course not. I am pointing out something of the context of Jn 14 that you have not considered yet.You are not making an argument I am making here.
If you can't accept that we are not to be solo Christians I can't help you. That's a weakness of Sola Scriptura. You can be a solo Christian with just your Bible in a cave. And you can think every verse applies to you. And you don't need the successors of the Twelve because all the knowledge from the Holy Spirit and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit have been given directly to you. But if that were so you could just intuit the Bible and you would not need anything given to the Twelve to write the NT. I live in a world where I need the fruits of the special gifts given specifically to the Twelve because I have not been given all knowledge direct from the Holy Spirit. God gave me the gift of the Bible, indirectly, through the Church. And God gave me knowledge of which books make up the Bible indirectly through the Church. I do not have any gift allowing me to intuit those things by my lonesome in a cave. I receive those things from God through the Church because God provided for some people to have more gifts and more knowledge than others. Specifically in Jn 14 there were gifts spoken of in a superabundance that not everybody got.Where is that in scripture?
Yes, this is a good point. The Catholic Church is not the only Church which rejects Sola Scriptura. All of the ancient Churches have an approach which is different from Sola Scriptura. One can abandon Sola Scriptura without becoming a Catholic.
Yes, I agree with this. Jimmy Akin also argues that Sola Scriptura is really a product of the printing press, and could not have been plausibly proposed prior to the printing press. I think this is a strong argument.I keep looking for Sola Scriptura in Christian history. I can't find it in the OT or the NT or the Fathers or the Councils. It only appears, finally, with Martin Luther. Where was it all of those years before Martin Luther. If it is THE critical dogma of the faith it should have been obvious through all of Christian history. And it should have been obvious in the actual Bible. That is a gaping historical hole.
My argument here is not one from Tradition, but from history. A true teaching of the faith that laid invisible for 1500 years is quite a thing. If it's true, it shouldn't have remained invisible 1500 years. Also, if it is a true teaching of the faith the practitioners of it should have less disagreement over what it actually means. Disagreement among the practitioners of it seems to actually be increasing.
You are just claiming things, with zero argument or justification.P1 may or may not be always true. Saying P1 is true is setting up a premise that might not be true, thus anything further that depends on P1 or builds on it would be a broken crutch to lean on.
P2 is true sometimes at least. Some people or many people , for or against it, call it a doctrine. It might not in reality be a doctrine.
C1 is claimed by so many people, that something they believe is derivable from Scripture, it is not a reliable claim .
P3 seems to be directly false.
C2 Thus, in view of a foundation of quiksand, is not sustainable nor true from this step by step.
But of course. Everybody has to have their own Bible. But that simply was impossible before the printing press. It would take a skilled copyist a third of a year per Bible before that so very very few would have Bibles. Most couldn't read anyhow. Sola Scriptura was thus impossible. So Martin Luther invents the idea but then gets really mad when the peasants decide that they too can decide from Scripture alone what the Bible means AND they don't agree with Luther.Yes, I agree with this. Jimmy Akin also argues that Sola Scriptura is really a product of the printing press, and could not have been plausibly proposed prior to the printing press. I think this is a strong argument.
It's a meta-dogma that few people can actually bring themselves to question. It's about like thinking cats and dogs could get along. Unthinkable.In general, Sola Scriptura seems to be one of those ideas that a lot of people take for granted, but once it is questioned it crumbles to bits.
I agree that it wasn't very good. The Protestant guy sounded OK in the introduction but after that it was on his part a two hour heart attack. Jimmy Akin was gracious but smoked him (in a kind and polite way).You asked what you think. You admitted your watched attached video wasn't very good.
You claim the argument is succinct and incisive. Not authoritative nor true. Not "very good"....
I know it's possible. You have experienced it. But for many it would be unthinkable. Unthinkable like it would be unthinkable that there are holes in Sola Scriptura/My cats and dogs, full grown, and puppies and kittens, all along
have gotten along very well.
I believe the Holy Spirit is enough to help one understand the scriptures, which is what Jesus taught. I personally think its dangerous to rely only on your church to interpret scriptures for you, because we will not be judged based on what our denomination has taught and we will not be judged as a church- we each stand before Jesus as individuals come judgement day 2 Corinthians 5:10 so if your church got it wrong, it will be leading a lot of people down the wrong path. It’s important for individuals to study the scriptures and while I do not believe we should be at this solo, we have an individual responsibility to ensure what is being taught in church reconciles with God’s Word. We are warned the devil deceives the whole world- his deception will be in the church- so if your pastor or priest is not teaching from scripture- we are warned there is no light- meaning they are not being led by God’s Spirit. God’s Word is the lamp to our feet Psalms 119:105 and His Spirit of Truth will teach us all things, Jesus said it, I believe it and have personal experience with the Holy Spirit teaching me scriptures. I would personally be a little leery of a church who teaches that you can’t understand God’s Word without them and that you cannot receive God’s Spirit with a church. To me this says the power is in the church when the real power is Jesus Christ, that we can go directly to.It means particular individuals it was addressed to, the Twelve. Context matters.
You can't universalize something addressed to particular people in a particular group to just everybody. The context of Jn 14 is specific to the Twelve. You could argue it applied to their successors, such as Matthias and those who were the other successors to the Twelve, but it does not generalize to everybody.
The truths the Holy Spirit will guide the Twelve to are shared with all of the Church. I think you apply it to yourself that you are the recipient of the knowledge of all things all by your lonesome.
OK. God's Word is truth. Do you think I disagree with that?
Because the particular individuals in Jn 14 are the Twelve and not just everybody. So I'm not protesting the Scripture but your interpretation of it, which lacks the context of which individuals it was spoken to. The Holy Spirit guides individuals. The Holy Spirit guides the Church. We can get some guidance from the Holy Spirit directly and some is conveyed through the Church. But you are right that we have different views of the Church, likely forever irreconcilable views. I see you are SDA. That makes us miles apart. You have to believe that the Catholic Church is out to persecute you and force you to worship on Sunday. So you look at the Church as I know it as a horror. As I said, 'miles apart'.
Of course not. I am pointing out something of the context of Jn 14 that you have not considered yet.
If you can't accept that we are not to be solo Christians I can't help you. That's a weakness of Sola Scriptura. You can be a solo Christian with just your Bible in a cave. And you can think every verse applies to you. And you don't need the successors of the Twelve because all the knowledge from the Holy Spirit and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit have been given directly to you. But if that were so you could just intuit the Bible and you would not need anything given to the Twelve to write the NT. I live in a world where I need the fruits of the special gifts given specifically to the Twelve because I have not been given all knowledge direct from the Holy Spirit. God gave me the gift of the Bible, indirectly, through the Church. And God gave me knowledge of which books make up the Bible indirectly through the Church. I do not have any gift allowing me to intuit those things by my lonesome in a cave. I receive those things from God through the Church because God provided for some people to have more gifts and more knowledge than others. Specifically in Jn 14 there were gifts spoken of in a superabundance that not everybody got.
Wonderful. BUT if this were true as simply as you stated it there would be far far less disagreement on what Scripture means. Unless you can claim the Holy Spirit is enough to help you alone to understand Scripture but the Holy Spirit is insufficient to help all of those other people who disagree with you.I believe the Holy Spirit is enough to help one understand the scriptures, which is what Jesus taught.
This 'wrong path' seems very easy to get onto by people who follow Sola Scriptura. Just sayin'.I personally think its dangerous to rely only on your church to interpret scriptures for you, because we will not be judged based on what our denomination has taught and we will not be judged as a church- we each stand before Jesus as individuals come judgement day 2 Corinthians 5:10 so if your church got it wrong, it will be leading a lot of people down the wrong path.
If only we all did this. So many Protestant traditions remain unexamined by people who think they follow no traditions. So by all means take responsibility to ensure that what is taught by your group reconciles with God's Word. Be absolutely sure of it. It IS a responsibility after all.It’s important for individuals to study the scriptures and while I do not believe we should be at this solo, we have an individual responsibility to ensure what is being taught in church reconciles with God’s Word.
I think you are saying here that you are infallible, that you have been taught all things, that you are more complete in your understanding than maybe your own pastor.We are warned the devil deceives the whole world- his deception will be in the church- so if your pastor or priest is not teaching from scripture- we are warned there is no light- meaning they are not being led by God’s Spirit. God’s Word is the lamp to our feet Psalms 119:105 and His Spirit of Truth will teach us all things, Jesus said it, I believe it and have personal experience with the Holy Spirit teaching me scriptures.
I would be leery of exactly the same thing. But who says you cannot receive the Holy Spirit? Not the Catholics. Not the Orthodox. Nobody I know of. And yet we do need some office of the Church who can step in and say that you or I have the wrong interpretation. Because you and I, at least I, am not infallible. I can make mistakes. I may need to be corrected. I have people for that. You claim the Holy Spirit will show you. But then that other guy will also claim the Holy Spirit will show them. And yet you disagree with each other on serious matters of faith and morals. SO who can step in and decide between the two of you? I have an authoritative Church to take care of that.I would personally be a little leery of a church who teaches that you can’t understand God’s Word without them and that you cannot receive God’s Spirit with a church. To me this says the power is in the church when the real power is Jesus Christ, that we can go directly to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?