Sola Scriptura

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Circular reasoning rests on itself. Not that it's only being claimed by one person/group.

So, on whom or what does the claim of the RCC rest - who or what else claims it?


And what does that have to do with the EOC and RCC not agreeing on any but self on what is and is not Scripture?


And with what is the most sound norma normans among us as we evaluate disputed dogmas among us?







.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Well at best Scripture can give you a hint of Jesus. It's the experience of Jesus himself that's what we're after.

Experience of Jesus?

 

[Montalban]

So, on whom or what does the claim of the RCC rest - who or what else claims it?

That's up to them to argue. I've not seen them making a circular argument. All I've seen is you suggesting that they do; and even there stating reasons which don't make it 'circular' (such as they are the only ones who argue something)

And what does that have to do with the EOC and RCC not agreeing on any but self on what is and is not Scripture?

I don't know. How many guesses do I get?

And with what is the most sound norma normans among us as we evaluate disputed dogmas among us?

You keep falling back on this term as if it's a salve to the problem that scripture does not show sola scriptura. You have no basis for referring ONLY to scripture.

 

[Albion]

Well at best Scripture can give you a hint of Jesus. It's the experience of Jesus himself that's what we're after.

Then I'd recommend the Bible to you. Oh, that's right...

 

[Montalban]

Then I'd recommend the Bible to you. Oh, that's right...

What people seem to do is turn Jesus into someone you can only know by reading, not by experiencing.

I'd recommend the living Jesus Christ to you. Oh, that's right...!

It'd be like me reading about a sunrise and then going out and experiencing it and others just content to read about it because the book itself is 'all sufficient'

 

[SolomonVII]

RCC and EO authority rest on a faith claim. It is only circular when this is not recognized them, and they think that the claim is actually based on sound logic.
It rests on the willingness of the laity to believe that God is with their holy men, and the willingness of the holy men to believe that they are the voice pieces for the Almighty God.

For Catholics the bishops acting in consort with one another are enough to make the claim for infallible interpretation and even non-apostolic pronunciations of Holy Spirit intent. For EO, laity has a veto, as apparent since Florence when they used it against what would otherwise deemed to be an infallible decision of a general council acting in concert with the whole of the Christian world. Historians would point out the real veto was from the Muslim caliphs who intervened in the meantime, but no matter.

Sola Scripture rests in a faith claim as well, a practical one for a schismed church; one which is based also in the fact that all in the schismed church agree that Scripture is God-breathed and valid apostolic teaching. One has only to read the ecf's to recognize how central that Scripture was in their decisions and how much they depended upon it to understand the faith. It was not that there was no church to rely on, but that the church was dispersed and institutionally weak. Scripture was therefore the mainstay.

As the church became institutionally stronger, it began creating dogma in its own right. As long as the church was trusted by all to be the living voice of God this was not a problem. However, when God speaks with two voices, or three, through the various powerful churches that came to the fore over time, and when the Holy Men became rather less than holy, and rather more than self-serving, this is where the distrust of that claim to infallibility by people who still took Christ seriously, but could not extend the same trust in a corrupted church.

Neither sola scripture nor infallible interpretation are circular arguments. Indeed they are not arguments at all. They are faith claims. One claims Scripture as the only authority that can be trusted to be God breathed. The other claims the Holy men acting in various stages of cooperation with each other and the church as a whole as the authority to be trusted in.

 

[Montalban]

RCC and EO authority rest on a faith claim. It is only circular when this is not recognized them, and they think that the claim is based on sound logic.<snip>

Straw-man

 

[Montalban]

When Jesus showed he was God he chose 12. Of those 12, they passed down (through continuous office of bishops and the church) this witness.

Our church's claims rest on Jesus is God

 

[SolomonVII]

Straw-man

Cartoon duck.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

What people seem to do is turn Jesus into someone you can only know by reading, not by experiencing.

I'd recommend the living Jesus Christ to you. Oh, that's right...!

Only if you think of the bible as a book to be read and not the words to be lived.

It'd be like me reading about a sunrise and then going out and experiencing it and others just content to read about it because the book itself is 'all sufficient'

It's like reading the Scripture when Christ said "love your enemies" and then you go out there and experience it by "loving your enemies".

 

[daydreamergurl15]

When Jesus showed he was God he chose 12.

Yes, Jesus chose 12 and then God chose another in Matthias and then Jesus chose Paul, 14 in all and that's as far as Scripture takes us.

EDIT: I should say this, Scripture calls Barnabas an apostle, although we don't have any Scripture showing us that He was picked by Jesus, I guess it's something that has to be assumed because all the other apostles were picked by being called by Him.

Noxot pointed this out to me.

Of those 12, they passed down (through continuous office of bishops and the church) this witness.

Seeing as most of your bishops don't even meet the qualifications in scripture to even be bishops, I don't trust their traditions.

Our church's claims rest on Jesus is God

So does every other church.

 

[Noxot]

barnabas was an apostle too. but traditions of men and their weakness keep them from reading the letter of barnabas.

the NT letters seem to show that there were prophets in the time of the apostles too. so i dunno why it would have ever stopped. but I think traditions on both sides are holding everyone back from the fullness of the liberty of the sons of God.

Acts 14:14 (YLT)
(14:14) and having heard, the apostles Barnabas and Paul, having rent their garments, did spring into the multitude, crying

where exactly in the words of the bible does it say that there are no more apostles and prophets?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

barnabas was an apostle too. but traditions of men and their weakness keep them from reading the letter of barnabas.

the NT letters seem to show that there were prophets in the time of the apostles too. so i dunno why it would have ever stopped. but I think traditions on both sides are holding everyone back from the fullness of the liberty of the sons of God.

Acts 14:14 (YLT)
(14:14) and having heard, the apostles Barnabas and Paul, having rent their garments, did spring into the multitude, crying

where exactly in the words of the bible does it say that there are no more apostles and prophets?

If the bible says that Barnabas was an apostle, then it was Scripture that said it and NOT tradition.

As for the other things as prophecy and whatnot, all I know is if what people are prophesying is going against Scripture, I'll side with Scripture.

And I don't understand this question "where exactly in the words of the bible does it say that there are no more apostles and prophets?" If we see Christ picking His apostles and prophets and we have NEVER had man pick an apostle or prophet, even in Acts 2 when Matthias was picked it was God who picked him, then what makes us think that an apostle or a prophet can be picked by men? And each Apostle came out boldly with the gifts of the Holy Spirit preaching Christ and Him crucified, so what more will these guys be adding that the Apostles 2000 years ago did not? But if they are going to claim that they are both Apostles and Prophets, then let's make sure that what they are teaching sides with Scripture.

 

[Montalban]

Only if you think of the bible as a book to be read and not the words to be lived.

That was my point. Simply reading it is not all sufficient. It doesn't contain all that is sufficient. Jesus does.

It's like reading the Scripture when Christ said "love your enemies" and then you go out there and experience it by "loving your enemies".

Not quite. It's like knowing Jesus.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, Jesus chose 12 and then God chose another in Matthias and then Jesus chose Paul, 14 in all and that's as far as Scripture takes us.

Where do they say "After this, simply rely on scriputre?"

EDIT: I should say this, Scripture calls Barnabas an apostle, although we don't have any Scripture showing us that He was picked by Jesus, I guess it's something that has to be assumed because all the other apostles were picked by being called by Him.

I'm happy with that

 

[daydreamergurl15]

That was my point. Simply reading it is not all sufficient. It doesn't contain all that is sufficient. Jesus does.

My point was that reading Scripture and experiencing Him can be the same, because you read His words and you go out there and do as it asked of you. Why do you think people call us hypocrites when we refuse to follow what was being preached in scripture? Because Scripture isn't only to be read but to be lived and people can tell in our lives if we're living what we believe.

Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers o the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does...---James 1:21-25​

Not quite. It's like knowing Jesus.

If we are to pattern our lives after Christ wouldn't it make sense to do as He did?
Christ went to His Father and prayed....so we do likewise.
Christ loved His enemies....so we do likewise.
Christ obeyed and counted on His Father...so we do, and fail at times, but get up and continue to do likewise.

There are many things that Christ has done and that we as Christians are striving to do. There are things that God only prepared Christ for and therefore we will never have the opportunity to do, but that doesn't mean we experience Him less.

 

[Rick Otto]

For some, iterating what may be called "the insufficiency of scripture" is a tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

For some, iterating what may be called "the insufficiency of scripture" is a tradition.

There is that. Wonder who began that tradition? Not apostles.

 

[Montalban]

My point was that reading Scripture and experiencing Him can be the same, because you read His words and you go out there and do as it asked of you. Why do you think people call us hypocrites when we refuse to follow what was being preached in scripture? Because Scripture isn't only to be read but to be lived and people can tell in our lives if we're living what we believe.

I don't deny that reading scripture can inspire you towards Jesus. But I'm not the one saying scriptures are 'all sufficient'. How can they be? People are called to Jesus all the time without having read scriptures.

 

[Montalban]

Post #552 suggests Apostles didn't begin with tradition. They certainly didn't begin with scripture as they 'existed' before the NT did.

Of course the OT existed, but if StandingUp can find OT scripture that lead to the Apostles I'm sure there'd be some kind of point