Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[JacktheCatholic]

Standing Up,

Your posts are refreshing. They are challenging and use reason and logic that is not common. I like your different views with history and the writings from history. Even how you reject Councils and writings from other respected men. Your reasoning is steadfast on your Theology and you offer references outside of personal scriptural interpreations to back your personal scriptural interprtations.

I have no response right now for your last post.

I believe Montalban will. Montalban is very knowledgable too and does a better job with answering than I do. I will check back later just know I read your post, BUT I do not concede. LOL

As the Terminator would say, "I will be back".

 

[Montalban]

Standing Up,

Your posts are refreshing. They are challenging and use reason and logic that is not common. I like your different views with history and the writings from history. Even how you reject Councils and writings from other respected men. Your reasoning is steadfast on your Theology and you offer references outside of personal scriptural interpreations to back your personal scriptural interprtations.

I have no response right now for your last post.

I believe Montalban will. Montalban is very knowledgable too and does a better job with answering than I do. I will check back later just know I read your post, BUT I do not concede. LOL

As the Terminator would say, "I will be back".

I have no input into this because I don't know what the point is - as I missed the beginning of this particular line to do with Gospel of Thomas. I assume however we're not talking about the so-called Infancy Gospels

 

[Standing Up]

Standing Up,

Your posts are refreshing. They are challenging and use reason and logic that is not common. I like your different views with history and the writings from history. Even how you reject Councils and writings from other respected men. Your reasoning is steadfast on your Theology and you offer references outside of personal scriptural interpreations to back your personal scriptural interprtations.

I have no response right now for your last post.

I believe Montalban will. Montalban is very knowledgable too and does a better job with answering than I do. I will check back later just know I read your post, BUT I do not concede. LOL

As the Terminator would say, "I will be back".

Thanks for the sentiment. I know there's "lots of stuff" packed in our conversation. Basically, it shows that we come to it from different angles, as you believe one thing and I another. Many think that there was no canon until 400ad or 1500ad. Many think that the letters are false, but the church or council says otherwise, so in believing the church or council, they believe that the gospel of Luke was written by Luke. For my part, I believe what the eyewitnesses say. Again, the clearest example is the Thessalonica letter. They received a false one, but Paul quickly clears it up. I believe that's roughly how the whole of NT worked. They were sent out by Christ and God confirmed their words with signs and wonders. They wrote letters and people preserved them. (We could think along the lines of relics---if people kept their bones or handkerchiefs, how much more would they keep and cherish their written words, even knowing that they had been handpicked by the Lord Himself?)

Quite frankly, until folks around GT kept saying a council or church gave us scripture, I had no idea about the token and its import, but it's funny how God works. They had the same questions we do and the answers are there.

PS. I don't necessarily reject tradition, councils, ECF writings. I come at it "backwards" to you. I start at scripture and move outward. You (RC, EO, OO) start from councils, ECFs, Pope/Patriarch and move back to scripture. P generally starts and stops at scripture.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*

PS. I don't necessarily reject tradition, councils, ECF writings. I come at it "backwards" to you. I start at scripture and move outward.

You (RC, EO, OO) start from councils, ECFs, Pope/Patriarch and move back to scripture. P generally starts and stops at scripture.

Well, I for one am glad you and other Protestants here are well versed in the ECFs
One of these day I may actually read thru them

http://www.christianforums.com/t6730673-140/#post42616669
Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

 

[sunlover1]

PS. I don't necessarily reject tradition, councils, ECF writings. I come at it "backwards" to you. I start at scripture and move outward. You (RC, EO, OO) start from councils, ECFs, Pope/Patriarch and move back to scripture. P generally starts and stops at scripture.

I think that's what all of us do.

 

[Rick Otto]

How does anyone verify that tradition is true?

 

[Standing Up]

How does anyone verify that tradition is true?

You could start a thread ...

 

[Montalban]

How does anyone verify that tradition is true?

The church does this by comparing what is taught to what is always taught. Each church, being fully catholic is a trustee of this. And at Ecumenical Councils they come together to meet in brotherhood and confirm that truth.

Thus if a church say in Aleppo started saying something about Jesus being fully man and adopted by God neighbouring churches would be able to say "That's not the truth we hold and have always held"

 

[Montalban]

PS. I don't necessarily reject tradition, councils, ECF writings. I come at it "backwards" to you. I start at scripture and move outward. You (RC, EO, OO) start from councils, ECFs, Pope/Patriarch and move back to scripture. P generally starts and stops at scripture.

False. I don't start at the councils. I start with 'the church' in communion with Jesus.

 

[Rick Otto]

You could start a thread ...

Good Idea, thanks.

 

[Montalban]

You could start a thread ...

Or answer questions

 

[Rick Otto]

The church does this by comparing what is taught to what is always taught. Each church, being fully catholic is a trustee of this. And at Ecumenical Councils they come together to meet in brotherhood and confirm that truth.

Thus if a church say in Aleppo started saying something about Jesus being fully man and adopted by God neighbouring churches would be able to say "That's not the truth we hold and have always held"

"Because I've said so." is somehow unsatisfyng as an answer, and is not commonly considered evidence. A mistake could've started, a 'tare' could have been planted right along with the wheat, in the very beginning.

 

[Montalban]

"Because I've said so." is somehow unsatisfyng as an answer, and is not commonly considered evidence.

Fortunately I didn't make that argument. Perhaps you're thinking of your own arguments?

A mistake could've started, a 'tare' could have been planted right along with the wheat, in the very beginning.

Then it would have had to have erupted in all churches at the same time.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Montalban;Fortunately I didn't make that argument

LOL.

The church does this by comparing what is taught to what is always taught.

Wh asks the fox to count their hens?

Perhaps you're thinking of your own arguments?

I am thinking. Not just reacting, not lashing out, & not denying my own words,

I couldn't ask for a better example of the unreliability of oral tradition.


Then it would have had to have erupted in all churches at the same time.[/quote]
That is an oversimplifying assumption, & shifting from 'the church' to 'all churches' to suit bias is just semantics.

 

[Montalban]

LOL.
you jumped the shark;

I'm not the Fonz. I've absolutely no idea what this tv-related idiom has to do with this thread.

Do you ask the fox to count your hens?

That presupposes that the church is the fox. Jumping sharks to foxes and hens. You're certainly trawling through your metaphors.

I am thinking.
Not just reacting, not lashing out, & not denying my own words,
And I'll bet you can say the same!

Attempting the moral high ground is not a discussion

I couldn't ask for a better example of the unreliability of oral tradition.

Based on what? You saying so?

That is an oversimplifying assumption, & shifting from 'the church' to 'all churches' to suit bias is just semanticaly shifty.

Not at all. You offer nothing but innuendo that 'something' might have occurred and I mentioned how that the churches each and everyone of them were fully catholic. For a 'rupture' to occur, it must have been seen by neighbouring churches and acted upon.

It probably would help if you move to something like a more concrete example rather than just musings. If you had anything particular in mind, I might be able to address it. It's difficult to retort against nothing in particular.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Montalban; You're certainly trawling through your metaphors.

What are you implying?

Attempting the moral high ground is not a discussion

If it was, it'd be on par for what you bring to the discussion.

Based on what? You saying so?

Thay's all you ever have to offer as an "argument" for tradition's authority.
What's fair for the goose... oops sorry, I keep forgetting you have a problem with metaphor.

Not at all. You offer nothing but innuendo that 'something' might have occurred and I mentioned how that the churches each and everyone of them were fully catholic.

Your mentionings may carry weight somewhere, but they don't prove anything. It's all he said she said.

For a 'rupture' to occur, it must have been seen by neighbouring churches and acted upon.

Or not, depending on what of more immediate importance God put in front of them. Your method didn't preserve the apostolic tradition of Easter & that happened right in the beginning, so 'always taught' becomes as arguable as the rest of the he said she said it's just so assertions like characterizing what might be simply a reasonable disagreement as a "rupture", & that it "must have been seen & acted upon". A lot of guesswork, but no homework. Doesn't make for enough interest to rise to the level of "discussion" from my perspective.

It probably would help if you move to something like a more concrete
example rather than just musings.

Well, perhaps you might temper your expectations to reflect the fact that you consider hearsay concrete, I prefer to "muse" on writing in stone.

If you had anything particular in mind, I might be able to address it.

Probably not. It hasn't worked that way before. What I'm used to is redefinition, redirection & allusions.

It's difficult to retort against nothing in particular.

I'm neither looking for simple retort, nor am I seeking to have my many specific examples & iterations reduced to "nothing in particular".
I plainly ask simple questions & never get a straight answer.

 

[Montalban]

What are you implying?

You use all these metaphors for no apparent reason. Like jumping the shark. There's no context. I ask what the context is and no response. It seems all you do is throw these into a conversation. When I ask you for a reason you simply project this back on me as if it's a problem I have, and thus you've conveniently not offered any explanation again.

This isn't the first time. For a while you insisted that I couldn't understand what 'everyone else' was trying to say. Rather than explain you thought to continue to tell me I didn't understand. Aside from making you feel great, this doesn't add to conversation. For argument's sake, say I have a problem with metaphor, why not attempt to explain it's context? Rather than just saying "You have a problem" over and over and over again.

Take the Bereans. I'm still waiting for you to explain why their 'example' is one for us to follow, and the prodigal son is not? Both were 'praised'. You can of course keep saying I don't get it.

I'm sorry if asking for an explanation seems such a chore

If it was, it'd be on par for what you bring to the discussion.
Thay's all you ever have to offer as an "argument" for tradition's authority.
What's fair for the goose... oops sorry, I keep forgetting you have a problem with metaphor.Your mentionings may carry weight somewhere, but they don't prove anything. It's all he said she said.

Okay, half way through your post and there's not a single thing that actually addresses my previous post. Another bunch of innuendos at 'something' said somewhere else doesn't make a discussion

Let me know when you have a point you wish to discuss

I asked for specific errors and you haven't got any to discuss. Most of your post is just generalisations, and most of these are aimed at me personally.

 

[Montalban]

Rick Otto has stated that the Bereans are an example that we should follow. Why? Because they are. They're 'praised'.

The Bereans consulted scripture. I have no problem with consulting scripture. Where does it say in sripture that we should only use scripture? It doesn't. At best so far we have this singular example. The assumptions surrounding this are as yet unresolved. If praising of a behaviour means we should follow it then we should all squander our wealth, live with harlots and then return to our parents and expect to be taken back, because the prodigal son did just that and he too was praised.

He did the right thing, in the end. So why shouldn't we?

The only response to this in several days was that "You're just being childish". Why? How? Who knows. It just is so. It's been pronounced, end of discussion.

When Paul encourages people to follow the teachings of God through word and scripture apparently this is not an example.

When in Acts 15 the Apostles decide on a point based on the word of Peter, Paul, and the written word of the prophets, this is not an example, apparently either. Why? Who knows.

Apparently also some 'problems' might get into tradition through ruptures of wrong teaching. Which? Who knows.

It seems the best argument for sola scriptura is to be based on unquestionable assumptions.

That's where this thread is up to.

 

[Standing Up]

False. I don't start at the councils. I start with 'the church' in communion with Jesus.

Right. You and Chrysostom I forgot about.

 

[Standing Up]

The church does this by comparing what is taught to what is always taught.

Except Irenaeus and Firmillian and Chyrsostom and Leo, to name a few, left a written record saying otherwise.