Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Montalban]

Question. Was it the EO or RCC that compiled it?

Yes. We were the one church then

 

[Standing Up]

Several people argue that God's word is inspired. No one denies that.

What you need to show is that this word says that only the written word is God's inspired word

Ahh, the crux of the problem, well spoken and clear. The peal of the bell is heard round the world.

Inspired writings are found NOT ONLY is scripture, but perhaps in tomorrow's menu.

What you need to show is that Justin Martyr or Irenaeus or Pope Leo wrote equal to Peter, Paul, and James. Against you and your kind is already the testimony against Clement of Rome's letter.

And why again aren't you RC or OO?

 

[Standing Up]

Great irony in spelling dysfunctional as you did

Scoring points again are you?

 

[Standing Up]

At the risk of being reported I agree and Amen your statement. This is not meant to goad or flame anyone especially the colorful poster.

bugkiller

You folks are not so much commenting on scripture as on yourselves.

 

[Montalban]

I already been down that road. Read my post 412. Maybe you will reply to it this time.

Sorry, but most of what you offered then was a series of 'just-so' statements based on circular logic – of self-authorisation. I'm sorry that I didn't address you specifically, but I've gone over the same points with Standing Up

But let's have a look….

Most canonized books where never in doubt. The bible itself canonizes a good portion of itself (over half). For example, Peter considered Paul's writings as authoritative (13 books)

Misses the point. How do you know that particular book of Paul's is the one that Peter considers an authority – and missing the point of how you know Peter's work is genuine either

and Paul considered Luke's writings the same (2 books).

What evidence?

The gospels were never in question (4 books).

Another just-so. But it again misses the point that books could be questioned and the books themselves are known to be genuine to the church.

Neither were most of the others. The NT books that received the most controversy were Hebrew, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. Books like the didache which were written in the 2nd century can not be scripture because they were not written by an apostle or a companion of one. The authorship of 1 Clement has been in question for centuries.

Clement was used in some canons. The Didache can be dated to before all the books in the Bible were written. It doesn’t go into why they were not considered eventually for the canon we have and it also again misses the point that it's the church (you yourself imply) that was the one questioning their legitimacy

God left us the bible

Is there a smilie for 'snort'

and guided the councils to accept what had already been accepted as canonical since the 1st century.

Who accepted a 1st century canon?

Why did God guide a council to accept what was already accepted?

Traditions, on the other hand, is (sic. [are]) spurious at best since it is quite subjective. No 'new" oral apostolic teaching is possible once the last apostle died because no one else can be an eyewitness of Christ which is a requirement for an apostle, therefore, all ECF writings are fallible and can not be used in matters of doctrine. Scripture, on the other hand, is the inspired and infallible word of God and is the sole authority in matters of doctrine. All else is man made.

Paul wasn't a witness. Luke wasn't a witness to events at the time of Jesus' birth.

Who's talking about 'new' teaching anyway – strawman argument

All denominations have traditions in one form or another. There is nothing wrong with them but they are not co-authoritative with scripture and consequently, subject to scripture.

Where's scripture say it is the ultimate authority?

I hope I didn't miss anything

 

[Montalban]

Scoring points again are you?

Let me know when you wish to continue the discussion

 

[Montalban]

What you need to show is that Justin Martyr or Irenaeus or Pope Leo wrote equal to Peter, Paul, and James. Against you and your kind is already the testimony against Clement of Rome's letter.

That's so subjective. It's like the hollow Islamic challenge to test the truth of the Koran by finding another book like it. When the 'test' is highly subjective.

We're encouraged to read the church fathers.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Scoring points again are you?

Scoring/Shaving points only counts in Sports, which reminds of this great movie......

YouTube - Blue Chips(Part 8)

 

[Montalban]

At the risk of being reported I agree and Amen your statement. This is not meant to goad or flame anyone especially the colorful poster.

I appreciate the sentiment

 

[Standing Up]

That's so subjective. It's like the hollow Islamic challenge to test the truth of the Koran by finding another book like it. When the 'test' is highly subjective.

We're encouraged to read the church fathers.

Last I checked Clement of Rome wasn't part of scripture for Christians. But feel free to think Clement, Justin, oh and your Pope Leo and Pope Victor (you agree EO and RC were one back then) is equal to Peter, Paul, Luke, Matthew, John, James, and the others.

So, what will be on the menu tomorrow? And why again aren't you still part of that one group?

 

[Montalban]

Last I checked Clement of Rome wasn't part of scripture for Christians.

Depends what you mean as 'scripture'.

But feel free to think Clement, Justin, oh and your Pope Leo and Pope Victor (you agree EO and RC were one back then) is equal to Peter, Paul, Luke, Matthew, John, James, and the others.

Just because the Pope now has power doesn't mean he was 'my pope'.

So, what will be on the menu tomorrow?

You're welcome to present evidence for sola scriptura

But it looks like the menu will be evidence-lite again

And why again aren't you still part of that one group?

 

[MamaZ]

Several people argue that God's word is inspired. No one denies that.

What you need to show is that this word says that only the written word is God's inspired word

You've not done that. I'm not sure what the problem is as you are not alone in offering 'evidence' for a point not contested.

Well since we no longer have the Apostles with us all we have is the written because as we all know word handed down seems to change as it goes through man after man.. So this is why we have the written that we can check daily to see if what is being taught or said is actually true. This is what sola scriptura is all about. We have the solid teaching of the Apostles and the Prophets and the Law that is solid ground. We can daily go to the scriptures and be fed Gods truth. Tradition on the other hand is different in the existance of it from one assembly to the next.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well since we no longer have the Apostles with us all we have is the written because as we all know word handed down seems to change as it goes through man after man.. So this is why we have the written that we can check daily to see if what is being taught or said is actually true. This is what sola scriptura is all about. We have the solid teaching of the Apostles and the Prophets and the Law that is solid ground. We can daily go to the scriptures and be fed Gods truth. Tradition on the other hand is different in the existance of it from one assembly to the next.

This point does not consider the fact that in 2,000 years the language chanes and nor does it consider the translations from one language to another. It also fails to recognize where scripture cannot interpret itself because something can be quite different if it is read literally or metaphorically. These are the obvious problems with scripture being the sole source.

The very first time Sola Scriptura was effectively declared by a man as being so was Martin Luther. Look what happened with Luther and Calvin. "Is it the real presense or the symbolic presense?" Yes, from the beginning of Sola Scriptura it has been the wedge that has caused divisions.

Ironically, Martin Luther used Apostolic Tradition even though he claimed Sola Scriptura. I guess that is why we are now seeing attempts at this new term of "Solo Scriptura."

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=JacktheCatholic;For the RCC and EOC and OOC I think they are unanimous in a Teaching that is more than Scripture Alone, which is based on Apostolic Tradition to include Scripture.

Sola Scriptura isn't about teaching from scripture alone,
It is scripture alone as the standard, not the only source.

Even Martin Luther used Tradition and not just Scripture even though Sola Scriptura originated there.

Sola Scriptura "originated" on Mt Sinai.

As to Anglican or what started out as the Church of England, they still use tradition as well. As to many Sola Scriptura type Protestant churches I am finding that many are studying the writings from the ECFs as well to better understand and so it seems they are becomeing less Sola Scriptura.

Study whatever ya want, but search the scrioptures daily to see if these things are so.

BUT...SOLO Scriptura, I am at a loss. I know you explained the difference once before with Sola and Solo but the explanation eludes me. Anyhow... logic to a RCC and EOC and OOC can be different than a logi of a SS. * I suppose

It doesn't have to be. I think the difference is in exactly what I just pointed out. "Solo" does advocate scripture as the only source, "Sola" means scripture is the only standard, not the only source.

 

[Rick Otto]

Several people argue that God's word is inspired. No one denies that.
What you need to show is that this word says that only the written word is God's inspired word

Ahh, the crux of the problem, well spoken and clear. The peal of the bell is heard round the world.

Inspired writings are found NOT ONLY is scripture, but perhaps in tomorrow's menu.

What you need to show is that Justin Martyr or Irenaeus or Pope Leo wrote equal to Peter, Paul, and James. Against you and your kind is already the testimony against Clement of Rome's letter.

And why again aren't you RC or OO?

Don't expect an answer, it will be ducked.
We can see that he still thinks Sola Scriptura means "only source" when it has been explained to him hundreds of times that it instead means "only standard" by which to judge other sources.

It's a little sad & a little funny, but by now thoroughly predictable and his methods totaly dissected & labeled. All we have to do now is watch him toggle thru his limited menu of obfuscation & contentious denials.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Montalban;Sorry, but most of what you offered then was a series of 'just-so' statements based on circular logic – of self-authorisation. I'm sorry that I didn't address you specifically, but I've gone over the same points with Standing Up

The usual logic-lite responses.
Self authorization bother you? Who authorizes God?

Another just-so. But it again misses the point that books could be questioned and the books themselves are known to be genuine to the church.

The books are questioned by you when we present them as evidence based on their self-authorizing content. Now you want to present them as church autrhorized, but you have nothing to offer to prove the church infallable or inerrant in it's authorization of its own founding documents.

...and you take yourself seriously!
Fool me once...

Clement was used in some canons. The Didache can be dated to before all the books in the Bible were written. It doesn’t go into why they were not considered eventually for the canon we have and it also again misses the point that it's the church (you yourself imply) that was the one questioning their legitimacy

Scripture gives us the Bereans as an example of how to verify legitimacy.

Is there a smilie for 'snort'

Fin and wear it.d one for 'smug self satisfaction'

Who accepted a 1st century canon?

There WAS one?!?!?!

Why did God guide a council to accept what was already accepted?

Who says they followed Him? How? Why?

Paul wasn't a witness. Luke wasn't a witness to events at the time of Jesus' birth.

Did anyone witness Him using the bathroom? How do we know He needed to? Is there a tradition that confirms it?

Who's talking about 'new' teaching anyway – strawman argument

You're the only strawman here. Stay on the yellow bricks.

Where's scripture say it is the ultimate authority?

Where does scripture say there is more authority?

I hope I didn't miss anything

Most of everything except the chance to impress yourself.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Good morning Rick.

I do not know if you recall a thread from a couple of years ago about Sola Scriptura that was very long. It asked "what is Sola Scriptura" and a couple of things I got out of that thread were; 1. that Sola Scriptura has many different answers as to what it is and 2. I learned of Solo Scriptura.

I think I understand your definition of Sola Scriptura but there are many who disagree with you. I have a good friend who is Pentecostal and he will adhemently deny that anything else is used except scripture. We have many discussions and he always rejects anything that is not scripture. If you said that what he believes is Solo Scripture he would think you were making it up. He is adhemently Sola Scriptura.

 

[Hentenza]

Sorry, but most of what you offered then was a series of 'just-so' statements based on circular logic – of self-authorisation. I'm sorry that I didn't address you specifically, but I've gone over the same points with Standing Up

Internal evidence is not circular logic and neither is external evidence.

Misses the point. How do you know that particular book of Paul's is the one that Peter considers an authority – and missing the point of how you know Peter's work is genuine either

Here is what Peter said of Paul's writings.

2 Peter 3
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter refers to Paul as writing with the wisdom given to Him by God (1 Cor. 3:10, Eph. 3:3. The writings are that of "all" of his epistles. All of Paul's epistles in scripture are Paul's (based on both internal and external evidence).

There is no evidence to suggest that 1 & 2 Peter are not genuine. You are reaching here.

What evidence?

1 Tim. 5:8 and 1 Cor. 9:14 quote Luke 10:7. Luke was a companion and teacher of Paul. Most likely most of what Luke knew about the detail inner workings of the temple came from the teachings of Paul.

Another just-so. But it again misses the point that books could be questioned and the books themselves are known to be genuine to the church.

You are again reaching. The early ECFs often quoted from them and they were not in question including inclusions by Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the much earlier Muratorian canon.

Clement was used in some canons.

The authorship of Clement has been in question since the early church. No internal evidence exists that he actually wrote them.

The Didache can be dated to before all the books in the Bible were written.

The Didache is dated to early to middle 2nd century which is decades most of the canonical books were written. No authorship is established.

It doesn’t go into why they were not considered eventually for the canon we have and it also again misses the point that it's the church (you yourself imply) that was the one questioning their legitimacy

Yes it does. Look at the requirements for canonicity.

Is there a smilie for 'snort'

No. Are you denying the omniscience of God? Do you deny that God is perfectly capable of preserving His word?

Who accepted a 1st century canon?

Where do you think the canonical books where in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. centuries?

Why did God guide a council to accept what was already accepted?

Ask Him when you see Him.

Paul wasn't a witness.

Paul was a witness of Jesus evidenced by Acts 9.

Luke wasn't a witness to events at the time of Jesus' birth.

By that logic, neither were any of the 12 apostles.

Who's talking about 'new' teaching anyway – strawman argument

Your church along with the RC have developed doctrines not found in scriptures. These doctrines are of later origin, hence, "new".

Where's scripture say it is the ultimate authority?

2 Tim 3, Matt. 22:43, 1 Cor. 2:13, Romans 3:2, the multiple use of the phrase "thus says the Lord" (and variations), what the bible says God says (comparison of OT quotes in the NT), etc. etc.

 

[Standing Up]

Good morning Rick.

I do not know if you recall a thread from a couple of years ago about Sola Scriptura that was very long. It asked "what is Sola Scriptura" and a couple of things I got out of that thread were; 1. that Sola Scriptura has many different answers as to what it is and 2. I learned of Solo Scriptura.

I think I understand your definition of Sola Scriptura but there are many who disagree with you. I have a good friend who is Pentecostal and he will adhemently deny that anything else is used except scripture. We have many discussions and he always rejects anything that is not scripture. If you said that what he believes is Solo Scripture he would think you were making it up. He is adhemently Sola Scriptura.

I once thought that way too, then a friend asked whether the apostles did such a poor job of transmitting the truth to the next generation. Obviously we have to think that they were able, even as they had written all scripture by John's death and passed it around. And we find that they did, but to be honest we also find very early disputes---the main one being the dispute over Easter/Passover, between Polycarp and Anicetus. We can read that, according to Irenaeus, Polycarp followed apostles and Anicetus followed presbyters. That in itself explains volumes. Or read what Firmillian said, Rome doesn't adhere to apostolic teaching on numerous things (paraphrased).

So, really, Tradition is useful simply to show what is not of God, but of man. Here's a list of Tradition not found in scripture or of apostles, though they are "close" (shown in brackets). I'm sure I've missed a few.

Praying to the deceased saints (held in esteem the martyrs)
All things papal (scripture)
Nearly all things Mary (blessed amongst women)
Bishop, priest, deacon (elder and deacon)
Eucharist as sacrifice, requiring aforesaid priest (eucharist is thanksgiving)
Clergy laity split (priesthood of believers)


Have a good day.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Praying to the deceased saints (held in esteem the martyrs)
All things papal (scripture)
Nearly all things Mary (blessed amongst women)
Bishop, priest, deacon (elder and deacon)
Eucharist as sacrifice, requiring aforesaid priest (eucharist is thanksgiving)
Clergy laity split (priesthood of believers)

All of these have been shown as having their roots from the beginning. There have been numerous threads on these together and seperately. So many that things like Theotokos led to seperate forums being created for those topics. In a thread for Solo Scrptura it would not be fair to even spend a small amount of time on proving the Catholic Church as correct in these things, a simple search will provide tons of information. I am sure your arguments are not knew. The Catholic Church has survived 2,000 years and has smarter people than any of us try to prove her wrong. After 2,000 and with Billions of members there is bound to be those who deny the Church and find ways to dispute the Churche's teachings. Yet after 2,000 years abd many heretical groups and wars the Catholic Church is still here. We can see this continuity with the RCC and EOC and OOC only. If there were any teachings that could not stand the test of time then they would have been disproven before today.

I guess some may argue that the founder of their church was that person. Maybe Luther or Zwingli, or calvin or King Henry VIII or one of the many that have made their Church since these men. But only the RCC and EOC and OOC have a continuos line going back to the Apostles.