Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I don't think anyone suggested that the Bible fails at any point. Christ founded a Church, He wrote no book. That Church safeguards the books which convey Christ's teaching - as He said it would.

peace,

Anglian

Which translates to honour (grace) bestowed upon the bride.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't think anyone suggested that the Bible fails at any point. Christ founded a Church, He wrote no book. That Church safeguards the books which convey Christ's teaching - as He said it would.

peace,

Anglian

Greetings again bro....there also appears to be differences on what the Church is today.
For example, the RCC and EO Church differ on even on what constitutes the first and True Church....that also led to the Great Schism between those 2 Churches

http://www.christianforums.com/t6790703/
Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology

 

[chestertonrules]

Greetings again bro....there also appears to be differences on what the Church is today.
For example, the RCC and EO Church differ on even on what constitutes the first and True Church....that also led to the Great Schism between those 2 Churches

http://www.christianforums.com/t6790703/
Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology

That's not entirely accurate.

There is agreement on what the first Church was, but there is disagreement about how this Church was organized. Catholics believe that the primacy of Peter carried on as a primacy of the Bishop of Rome. EO Christians have a different understanding but they accept the Bishop of Rome as the legitimate successor of Peter nevertheless. The EO and Catholics agree about what constituted the original Church.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That's not entirely accurate.

There is agreement on what the first Church was, but there is disagreement about how this Church was organized. Catholics believe that the primacy of Peter carried on as a primacy of the Bishop of Rome. EO Christians have a different understanding but they accept the Bishop of Rome as the legitimate successor of Peter nevertheless. The EO and Catholics agree about what constituted the original Church.

hmm and Jesus is all forgotten about . if Jesus came back in any time period . He'd have a religious authority that would oppose Him . any time . any age . so turning this sentence around . what can be done to be different from this pattern?

 

[chestertonrules]

hmm and Jesus is all forgotten about .

Care to explain ?

Does this have any meaning to you:

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Sure,

Jesus walked in the fields and served the people and gave everything he had even to the day he died .

but the church hides in buildings and may reach out from time to time but always takes on the likeness of an earthly organization . and as such ..

i guess just misses the mark .

i think when Christianity became a state religion it lost its flavour .

and it will be really hard to really know . really really know . what the original church . really was like . when looking through the same scope .

 

[laconicstudent]

hmm and Jesus is all forgotten about.

lol.

You should really try actually attending an Orthodox Liturgy or Vespers sometime. This really is not the case at all, to the point where it is borderline funny.

Why do you put spaces between periods and the end of your sentence?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

lol.

You should really try actually attending an Orthodox Liturgy or Vespers sometime. This really is not the case at all, to the point where it is borderline funny.

Why do you put spaces between periods and the end of your sentence?

i might just do that .

oh my punctuation . thanks for asking .

i used to have a more profound reason . that i cannot really remember anymore .

it just looks more relaxing i suppose .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Oh yeah . now i remember . giving more space . is so grace .

i think that's the essence of it . anyway .

 

[Dorothea]

I don't think anyone suggested that the Bible fails at any point. Christ founded a Church, He wrote no book. That Church safeguards the books which convey Christ's teaching - as He said it would.

peace,

Anglian

Well, maybe the Solo Scriptura folks like the Cliff Notes version of Christianity.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Well, maybe the Solo Scriptura folks like the Cliff Notes version of Christianity.

I/m not sure what that means?

 

[Anglian]

Greetings again bro....there also appears to be differences on what the Church is today.
For example, the RCC and EO Church differ on even on what constitutes the first and True Church....that also led to the Great Schism between those 2 Churches

http://www.christianforums.com/t6790703/
Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology

That's not entirely accurate.

There is agreement on what the first Church was, but there is disagreement about how this Church was organized. Catholics believe that the primacy of Peter carried on as a primacy of the Bishop of Rome. EO Christians have a different understanding but they accept the Bishop of Rome as the legitimate successor of Peter nevertheless. The EO and Catholics agree about what constituted the original Church.

There is a great deal in both these posts to attract our attention.

Our dear brother LLOJ speaks (as he so often does) for many in our society in what he says, and there is no doubting that the divisions between bodies claiming to be THE Church is a cause of stumbling. And those of us who post of GT know, only too well the sometimes rush to exonerate one's own Church.

Our dear brother Chesterton avoids this. He notes instead what is so, which is that there is a great deal with the RCC and OCs have in common, and I sometimes wonder whether a thread on this might not be of interest? We write and speak often of what divides us, so much so that perhaps we over-emphasise these things? How very infrequently do we discuss what unites us. Indeed, were we to begin to discuss these things, I wonder whether we might not also surprise ourselves by finding what we have in common with our Protestant friends?

peace,

Anglian

 

[racer]

Dear LLOJ,

Indeed, now we have the Good News it should be with everyone

My point is a simple one. The reason we need to know how that Bible came into existence is that without it we can't know how these books, and these alone, came to be known to be the inspired word of God. That means that the Bible is part of the tradition of the Church, and if we want to know it in its fullness we read it in that tradition.

Now, of course, all we need to do is agree on which tradition. (Anglian takes tin hat and dives for cover )

peace,

Anglian

Here's our argument. Just because some like to point out that a certain group of men worked in unison guided by the Holy Spirity to canonoize what we now hold to be scripture, does not mean that by default those who claim to be of that same group of men have "authority" OVER THE GOOD NEWS.

When there is a group that claims to be the progression that flows from that same group, yet clearly teaches contradictory to or in addition to what is contained in the original text supposedly compiled by this particular group, their credibility becomes suspect. The dilemma is not answered simply by this group asserting that "we compiled it, so we get to define it. It may look like Scripture means *blank* in this verse, but it really means *blank*. And, we should know because that's what the founders of "our' church said it means."

No one who continues to make this claim within the RCC or EOC has to this date directed us to any particular verse that directs us to a source outsideoutside of scripture, nor has anyone directed us to any such source, nor has anyone identified the supposed Holy Oral Traditions.

 

[Anglian]

Here's our argument. Just because some like to point out that a certain group of men worked in unison guided by the Holy Spirity to canonoize what we now hold to be scripture, does not mean that by default those who claim to be of that same group of men have "authority" OVER THE GOOD NEWS.

When there is a group that claims to be the progression that flows from that same group, yet clearly teaches contradictory to or in addition to what is contained in the original text supposedly compiled by this particular group, their credibility becomes suspect. The dilemma is not answered simply by this group asserting that "we compiled it, so we get to define it. It may look like Scripture means *blank* in this verse, but it really means *blank*. And, we should know because that's what the founders of "our' church said it means."

No one who continues to make this claim within the RCC or EOC has to this date directed us to any particular verse that directs us to a source outsideoutside of scripture, nor has anyone directed us to any such source, nor has anyone identified the supposed Holy Oral Traditions.

I quite see this. But by the same token, someone coming along and asserting that x is contrary to what they think the Scriptures ought to mean is doing only that; offering their own view.

Nothing the RCC or OC does is without warrant in Scripture - properly understood. And that, of course, is what will, alas, continue to divide us.
peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I quite see this. But by the same token, someone coming along and asserting that x is contrary to what they think the Scriptures ought to mean is doing only that; offering their own view.

Nothing the RCC or OC does is without warrant in Scripture - properly understood. And that, of course, is what will, alas, continue to divide us.
peace,

Anglian

Yes, that is a shame. Any idea how that can be reconciled [if ever]?

Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better? - Christian Forums

 

[Anglian]

Yes, that is a shame. Any idea how that can be reconciled [if ever]?

Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better? - Christian Forums

Good question

I am atruck by the fact that we have a well-developed language which describes what divides us; it has been honed and sharpened by years of use. I wonder what would happen if we talked as much about what unites us?

What would happen if Protestants were prepared to accept what RCCs and OCs say about how their practices are Biblical? And if the RCCs and OCs were prepared to accept that what Protestant Christians say comes from their experience of the Spirit, and we went on, leaving our differences aside, to discuss what might unite us?

It would be an interesting thread

peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Good question

I am atruck by the fact that we have a well-developed language which describes what divides us; it has been honed and sharpened by years of use. I wonder what would happen if we talked as much about what unites us?

What would happen if Protestants were prepared to accept what RCCs and OCs say about how their practices are Biblical? And if the RCCs and OCs were prepared to accept that what Protestant Christians say comes from their experience of the Spirit, and we went on, leaving our differences aside, to discuss what might unite us?

It would be an interesting thread

peace,

Anglian

I agree!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

An example of "Solo Scriptura"

WHO DOES WHAT
A man and his wife were having an argument about who
should brew the coffee each morning.
The wife said, 'You should do it because you get up first,
and then we don't have to wait as long to get our coffee.
The husband said, 'You are in charge of cooking around here and
you should do it, because that is your job, and I can just wait for my coffee.'
Wife replies, 'No, you should do it, and besides, it is in the Bible that the man should do the coffee.'
Husband replies, 'I can't believe that, show me.'
So she fetched the Bible, and opened the New Testament and showed him at the top of several pages, that it indeed says 'HEBREWS' ​

 

[brinny]

An example of "Solo Scriptura"

WHO DOES WHAT
A man and his wife were having an argument about who
should brew the coffee each morning.
The wife said, 'You should do it because you get up first,
and then we don't have to wait as long to get our coffee.
The husband said, 'You are in charge of cooking around here and
you should do it, because that is your job, and I can just wait for my coffee.'
Wife replies, 'No, you should do it, and besides, it is in the Bible that the man should do the coffee.'
Husband replies, 'I can't believe that, show me.'
So she fetched the Bible, and opened the New Testament and showed him at the top of several pages, that it indeed says 'HEBREWS' ​

ROFL!

brilliant!!!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

ROFL!

brilliant!!!

Coincidentally, I had just put up a post on the NCR board concerning the "Hebrews".....what a koincidencz!

http://www.christianforums.com/t5635831/#post54007913