Sola Scriptura defined....

[Meowzltov]

You are talking about what the Bible teaches and what the RCC teaches.

The Bible says, and Jesus Himself said of the Communion Supper......
"Do this in REMEMBERANCE of Me".

It IS a memorial. It just not ONLY a memorial.

You see, the Bible also says, "My flesh is real food." "Whoever does not eat my flesh does not have life within them." "Those who do not discern the body of Christ eat and drink judgment upon themselves."

 

[PeaceB]

Good day, Peace

I think you are confusing the issue of Cannon with the issue of authority. The question books of the Canon is purely historical in nature.

Nor would I say that historically those that had issues with the book of Hebrews are not true believers:

Eusebius, he describes it as notha, "spurious",

"Among the rejected [νόθοις, nothois, "spurious" "counterfeit"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. [ἀντιλεγομένων antilegomenon]" - Church History, Book III, Ch. 25:4-5

Would you say they are "NOT" Christians?

That was easy, I bet you can do better than that.

In Him,

Bill

Is a Christian bound to believe that the letter to the Hebrews (and the other 27 books of the New Testament) is the inspired word of God?

Your answer is apparently “no” but please correct me if I am wrong.

You would insist that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, but that a Christian is not even bound to believe that the individual books are inspired?

That is downright silly, and would further refute Sola Scriptura for anyone silly enough to hold it. If the books are not inspired they are a rule to no-one.

To answer your question, a person can be a Christian and at the same time refuse to believe that Hebrews is inspired, as he is bound to believe. Such persons are referred to as heretics.

Eusibius is not a heretic, obviously for the reason that at the time he wrote the history the Church had not yet defined the canon.

 

[Meowzltov]

I think you are confusing the issue of Cannon with the issue of authority. The question books of the Canon is purely historical in nature.

If there is no authority that determines canon, then what's to keep Mormons from going to the BoM and considering it inerrant Scripture?

 

[PeaceB]

ALL Scripture is inspired, and Hebrews in found in the New Test. canon but then some how you have determined that it is NOT inspired because it is in the Scriptures.

How do you know that Hebrews is in the New Testament canon? Where does the Bible state that Hebrews is in the New Testament canon? Honestly, the text of the Bible contains no such statement, right?

We know that Hebrews is Scripture, that it is part of the New Testament canon, and that it is the inspired word of God because God inspired the 4th century church to declare it so. But that declaration is found outside of the Bible, not within the text of the Bible itself.

If you hold to the principle that a Christian must find all of his Christian beliefs in the text of the Bible, you must present a Bible verse that states that Hebrews is part of the NT canon, in order to support your belief that Hebrews is part of the NT canon. You cannot produce any such verse, which proves that the principle you hold is false.

The fact of the matter is that you believe that Hebrews is part of the NT canon because the Church (or the Holy Spirit in your heart) told you that it is part of the NT canon. Not all of your beliefs come from the text of the Bible itself, and that is perfectly fine.

But it does refute Sola Scriptura.

 

[BBAS 64]

There has to be a canon, or every person would have a different canon. Some would say only the four gospels are the NT. Some would accept the epistles of Paul but not the rest. Some would add extra books such as 1 Clement, the Didache, or the Book of Mormon.

The real question is, what is the authority that determines the canon?

Good Day,

Seeing that is the God breathed out word, it would be God who determines his canon, based on his authority alone.

In Him,


Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

If there is no authority that determines canon, then what's to keep Mormons from going to the BoM and considering it inerrant Scripture?

Good day, OpenHeart

Again it is not a question of authority. They are able and have developed their own "canon, just as the church of rome has... the question is by which standard do so and is that standard reasonable.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Major1]

How do you know that Hebrews is in the New Testament canon? Where does the Bible state that Hebrews is in the New Testament canon? Honestly, the text of the Bible contains no such statement, right?

We know that Hebrews is Scripture, that it is part of the New Testament canon, and that it is the inspired word of God because God inspired the 4th century church to declare it so. But that declaration is found outside of the Bible, not within the text of the Bible itself.

If you hold to the principle that a Christian must find all of his Christian beliefs in the text of the Bible, you must present a Bible verse that states that Hebrews is part of the NT canon, in order to support your belief that Hebrews is part of the NT canon. You cannot produce any such verse, which proves that the principle you hold is false.

The fact of the matter is that you believe that Hebrews is part of the NT canon because the Church (or the Holy Spirit in your heart) told you that it is part of the NT canon. Not all of your beliefs come from the text of the Bible itself, and that is perfectly fine.

But it does refute Sola Scriptura.

I do not accept your circular reasoning. What you are saying is nothing more than what Catholic web sites have proposed for years. It is NOT new and it is not correct, it is only a deflection rooted in unbelief that the Bible is God's Word.

WHY is that the case one must ask????

Because YOU as a Catholic want to continue to do the Non-Biblical things that you believe in such as....
Purgatory and baby baptism, and the sinlessness of Mary, and the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Rosary and the assumption of Mary and the list goes on and on and on.

To continue on as you want to do you must discredit the Word of God because it convicts YOU of your false doctrinal concepts instigated by the RCC.

 

[BBAS 64]

I do not accept your circular reasoning. What you are saying is nothing more than what Catholic web sites have proposed for years. It is NOT new and it is not correct, it is only a deflection rooted in unbelief that the Bible is God's Word.

WHY is that the case one must ask????

Because YOU as a Catholic want to continue to do the Non-Biblical things that you believe in such as....
Purgatory and baby baptism, and the sinlessness of Mary, and the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Rosary and the assumption of Mary and the list goes on and on and on.

To continue on as you want to do you must discredit the Word of God because it convicts YOU of your false doctrinal concepts instigated by the RCC.

Good day, Major

As a member of the roman church Peace is using the book of Hebrews in this struggle because the church of rome has historically questioned it's status.

Eusebius g
"Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place." (Church History, 3:3:5)

In Him,

Bill

 

[Major1]

Good day, Major

As a member of the roman church Peace is using the book of Hebrews in this struggle because the church of rome has historically questioned it's status.

Eusebius g
"Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place." (Church History, 3:3:5)

In Him,

Bill

Hello Bill.....thank you for the information. What that means to me is that he is at the bottom of the barrel searching for straws.

That is always what happens when one rejects the Bible as the Word of God isn't it???

 

[Major1]

It IS a memorial. It just not ONLY a memorial.

You see, the Bible also says, "My flesh is real food." "Whoever does not eat my flesh does not have life within them." "Those who do not discern the body of Christ eat and drink judgment upon themselves."

So by your logic, you are believing that when Jesus said "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood", He was speaking literally, and He meant that LITERALLY we should do just that.
Now if we do that, what you are saying LITERALLY then is that that we should take a nibble on him like a vampire, or a cannibal.

Isn't it hilarious that YOU reject Sola Scriptura which is the Literal understanding of the Scriptures, but then you turn right around and accept the words Jesus said as LITERAL and you actually want to bake a bite out of Jesus.

Honestly, do you think about what you are believing before you put it to type?????

Please allow me to give you some basic 101 Christian teaching to help your understanding. Now, it goes without saying that I DO NOT WANT YOU TO ACCEPT WHAT I AM SAYING. YOU DO THE WORK ON THIS. YOU LOOK UP WHAT I AM SAYING. YOU CONFIRM ALL OF THIS WITH YOUR BIBLE.

John 1: The Word Became Flesh..........
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

Easy, right. I am sure you agree with that because you have your Bible open and you just read that for yourself. Now verse 14 says...............
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

Now what do YOU see from the Word of God????? You Literally see ................

Jesus Flesh = The Word

Therefore by eating Jesus Flesh he meant consume scripture. It is that simple.

Now He also said you must drink living Water, a man cannot live on bread alone, this is Faith, but it is more than Faith because you do not have to have Faith to believe. Jesus wanted us to have proof that he came so he sent his spirit. Remember God is Spirit and he wants our spirits to be full, just like a well, flowing over in fact. So he sent his holy spirit to quench our thirst.

So if you do one thing today, eat some flesh by reading scriptures and drink some blood or drink some living water through faith, belief and through intentionally attempting to become aware of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Peace, Joy, Truth and Love. Immerse yourselve in it, bathe in it, be baptised by it and overwhelmed by the peace that your Father wants you to have.

Feast on scripture, there are llots of information and Scriptures that we are now privvy to thanks to the internet. You are free to explore, grow and learn so that you do not let your upbrining tie you down, be free and explore with the mind that you are blessed with, be ravenous and fill your spirit with food and drink today.

 

[Major1]

There has to be a canon, or every person would have a different canon. Some would say only the four gospels are the NT. Some would accept the epistles of Paul but not the rest. Some would add extra books such as 1 Clement, the Didache, or the Book of Mormon.

The real question is, what is the authority that determines the canon?

It has been stated over and over and over. GOD!

 

[PeaceB]

I do not accept your circular reasoning. What you are saying is nothing more than what Catholic web sites have proposed for years. It is NOT new and it is not correct, it is only a deflection rooted in unbelief that the Bible is God's Word.

WHY is that the case one must ask????

Because YOU as a Catholic want to continue to do the Non-Biblical things that you believe in such as....
Purgatory and baby baptism, and the sinlessness of Mary, and the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Rosary and the assumption of Mary and the list goes on and on and on.

To continue on as you want to do you must discredit the Word of God because it convicts YOU of your false doctrinal concepts instigated by the RCC.

Friend, what you accept and do not accept is between you and God. It is no particular concern of mine.

But none of that changes the fact that your belief that Hebrews (and other books of the Bible) are Scripture, are the inspired word of God, and are part of the NT canon, comes from outside of the text of the Bible itself, and this fact refutes the definition of Sola Scriptura set forth in this thread.

You have yet to provide one single verse from the Bible that states that Hebrews is Scripture, that states that Hebrews is the inspired word of God, and that states that Hebrews is part of the NT canon, yet you still believe these things. You believe that Hebrews is part of the NT canon because the Church (or the Holy Spirit in your heart) told you that it is part of the NT canon. Thus, all of your beliefs do not come from the text of the Bible itself.

Thus, you are refuted. Good day to you.

 

[PeaceB]

So by your logic, you are believing that when Jesus said "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood", He was speaking literally, and He meant that LITERALLY we should do just that.
Now if we do that, what you are saying LITERALLY then is that that we should take a nibble on him like a vampire, or a cannibal.

Isn't it hilarious that YOU reject Sola Scriptura which is the Literal understanding of the Scriptures, but then you turn right around and accept the words Jesus said as LITERAL and you actually want to bake a bite out of Jesus.

Honestly, do you think about what you are believing before you put it to type?????

Please allow me to give you some basic 101 Christian teaching to help your understanding. Now, it goes without saying that I DO NOT WANT YOU TO ACCEPT WHAT I AM SAYING. YOU DO THE WORK ON THIS. YOU LOOK UP WHAT I AM SAYING. YOU CONFIRM ALL OF THIS WITH YOUR BIBLE.

John 1: The Word Became Flesh..........
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

Easy, right. I am sure you agree with that because you have your Bible open and you just read that for yourself. Now verse 14 says...............
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

Now what do YOU see from the Word of God????? You Literally see ................

Jesus Flesh = The Word

Therefore by eating Jesus Flesh he meant consume scripture. It is that simple.

Now He also said you must drink living Water, a man cannot live on bread alone, this is Faith, but it is more than Faith because you do not have to have Faith to believe. Jesus wanted us to have proof that he came so he sent his spirit. Remember God is Spirit and he wants our spirits to be full, just like a well, flowing over in fact. So he sent his holy spirit to quench our thirst.

So if you do one thing today, eat some flesh by reading scriptures and drink some blood or drink some living water through faith, belief and through intentionally attempting to become aware of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Peace, Joy, Truth and Love. Immerse yourselve in it, bathe in it, be baptised by it and overwhelmed by the peace that your Father wants you to have.

Feast on scripture, there are llots of information and Scriptures that we are now privvy to thanks to the internet. You are free to explore, grow and learn so that you do not let your upbrining tie you down, be free and explore with the mind that you are blessed with, be ravenous and fill your spirit with food and drink today.

No. Jesus did not state anything about consuming Scripture in John 6. The interpretation above is rank eisegesis.

 

[Major1]

No. Jesus did not state anything about consuming Scripture in John 6. The interpretation above is rank eisegesis.

You are in error. Your misunderstand is flawed.

You just do not understand it as it is from the Bible.

God bless you.

 

[Major1]

Friend, what you accept and do not accept is between you and God. It is no particular concern of mine.

But none of that changes the fact that your belief that Hebrews (and other books of the Bible) are Scripture, are the inspired word of God, and are part of the NT canon, comes from outside of the text of the Bible itself, and this fact refutes the definition of Sola Scriptura set forth in this thread.

You have yet to provide one single verse of from the Bible that states that Hebrews is Scripture, that states that Hebrews is the inspired word of God, and that states that Hebrews is part of the NT canon, yet you still believe these things. Thus, you are refuted. Good day to you.

You have refuted NOTHING, friend. NOTHING. You have posted opinions but not a single one is verified.

Actually, I could not have said it better than you just did.

I just did not say it because I do not like to throw dirt on other people.

The ONLY reason you brought it up is because you are unable to prove anything with Scriptures that you post. Actually the RCC did not accept Hewbres or James but there they are in the Bible.

RCC Church history, 3:3:5................
Eusebius g
"Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place.".

My dear friend, if the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?

Then may I ask you to provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

I will send you some SPF 100 if you give me your address because you just got burned......Again!

 

[PeaceB]

As a member of the roman church Peace is using the book of Hebrews in this struggle because the church of rome has historically questioned it's status.

No. I used the book of Hebrews because I know that he cannot find a verse in the Bible that states that it is part of the NT canon, and without such a verse he cannot hold that Hebrews is part of the NT canon without refuting the definition of Sola Scriptura set forth in this thread. Thank you.

 

[PeaceB]

You have refuted NOTHING, friend. NOTHING. You have posted opinions but not a single one is verified.

Actually, I could not have said it better than you just did.

I just did not say it because I do not like to throw dirt on other people.

The ONLY reason you brought it up is because you are unable to prove anything with Scriptures that you post. Actually the RCC did not accept Hewbres or James but there they are in the Bible.

RCC Church history, 3:3:5................
Eusebius g
"Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place.".

My dear friend, if the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?

Well, if it were "so simple" you would have the entire canon of Scripture in your possession, which you do not because your OT is lacking 7 books that are the inspired word of God.

Martin Luther, who originated many of the doctrines that you hold, such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, rejected the book of James as the inspired word of God. That is well documented.

Regardless, Eusebius wrote at a point in time before the Holy Spirit inspired the Catholic church to define the canon. The Holy Spirit acts when He chooses to act.

Then may I ask you to provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

The NT canon originates from oral Apostolic Tradition. As you admitted, the text of the Bible does not contain an inspired table of contents, and Christians are bound to hold that a specific set of 27 books, and only those 27 books are Scripture.

 

[Major1]

No. I used the book of Hebrews because I know that he cannot find a verse in the Bible that states that it is part of the NT canon, and without such a verse he cannot hold that Hebrews is part of the NT canon without refuting the definition of Sola Scriptura set forth in this thread. Thank you.

YOU have things inside out. It is hard to imagine a serious Christian who has a basic education, let alone anyone with an advanced degree, who cannot see and understand that prima facie the Word of God is different from any other literature in the world.

The Bible is, to paraphrase L.S. Chafer.....
"not a book that men could write if they would, or would write if they could".

This is an elegant way of saying that the power of scripture is easily seen with the naked eye – at least for any and all who have the Spirit of God and have a desire to know.

If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, then surely it is one. Then again, if it doesn't, it isn't. One can argue that the style of Hebrews is somewhat different from that of Paul's other writings, but can one really claim that Hebrews does not empower, inspire, humble the ego, and elevate the spirit in the same way that all other scripture does?

We can tell when a cut of meat looks well marbled, and, on the other hand, when a particular steak has gone bad – with a single sniff. Any amateur geologists can easily tell the difference between gold and pyrite. Any apprentice diamond merchant can easily discern whether the stone is real or merely paste. Why do we assume that in the case of the most important tangible thing in this world, the holy scriptures, that this will not also be the case?

There is nothing adduced in the “information” given that should cause any Christian who has read Hebrews and felt its power through the Holy Spirit to now think that it is not legitimately part of the canon.

Hebrews 2:7 / Psalm 8:5 (8:6 in the Hebrew), this is one verse that as it occurs in the book of Hebrews is both 1) exactly as it occurs in the LXX, and 2) a fairly literal translation of the Hebrew original.

 

[Major1]

No. I used the book of Hebrews because I know that he cannot find a verse in the Bible that states that it is part of the NT canon, and without such a verse he cannot hold that Hebrews is part of the NT canon without refuting the definition of Sola Scriptura set forth in this thread. Thank you.

By your logic........"Bible that states that it is part of the NT canon".

Where in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do we find verses that they claim that they are part of the New Test. canon????

 

[Major1]

Well, if it were "so simple" you would have the entire canon of Scripture in your possession, which you do not because your OT is lacking 7 books that are the inspired word of God.

Martin Luther, who originated many of the doctrines that you hold, such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, rejected the book of James as the inspired word of God. That is well documented.

Regardless, Eusebius wrote at a point in time before the Holy Spirit inspired the Catholic church to define the canon. The Holy Spirit acts when He chooses to act.


The NT canon originates from oral Apostolic Tradition. As you admitted, the text of the Bible does not contain an inspired table of contents, and Christians are bound to hold that a specific set of 27 books, and only those 27 books are Scripture.

I asked you............
"Then may I ask you to provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

Your reply was.............
"The NT canon originates from oral Apostolic Tradition. As you admitted, the text of the Bible does not contain an inspired table of contents, and Christians are bound to hold that a specific set of 27 books, and only those 27 books are Scripture."

That does not answer the question does it? Again......
"what is an example of a doctrine from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about?"

And again......Where in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the statements that they "Belong in the canon of Scriptures".