Sola scriptura

[Geralt]

scriptures includes the OT and the NT after christ, while it consists only of the OT only before and during christ's humanity. it is this scriptures that He was referring to, Matthew 21:42, Matthew 22:29, etc..

so as you can see, scriptures predates the church after Christ's human life on earth, much more so the institutionalized churches today.

So the Church didn't exist for 60 some odd years until John finished writing?

 

[civilwarbuff]

And Paul himself hints at preparation, as does Christ.

The Last Supper was done during a meal, but that was not always the case. And in fact, there were times when the early Church did not have the opportunity to provide a meal to go along with the Eucharist, so it would not be during a meal.

And Paul also talks about partakers in Communion with some getting drunk and stuffing themselves while others go hungry......sounds like a meal to me.

 

[sculleywr]

scriptures includes the OT and the NT after christ, while it consists only of the OT only before and during christ's humanity. it is this scriptures that He was referring to, Matthew 21:42, Matthew 22:29, etc..

so as you can see, scriptures predates the church after Christ's human life on earth, much more so the institutionalized churches today.

Except that the Church is not just those who came after Christ. The Church is those who were gathered by God. There was the Church of Israel (called the Ekklessia Israel in the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Q'ahal Israel in the Hebrew text). The Church which Christ established was not a replacement of the Church of Israel. It was the fulfillment and completion of that Church. The Faith of Christ is not a new Faith, different from the Faith of the Jews before. Neither is the Church a new Church. IT is a fulfillment of what was always there. The Church began with Abraham, and therefore precedes all Scriptures, which were not written until Moses began to write.

 

[sculleywr]

God's word and its truth does not stand or fall based on the church (which is all true believers). God's word is truth regardless of anything any one of us ever say or do.

And God's words and the truth of them will never pass away. Nothing mankind can ever do will change that. Not our traditions and not our many conflicting interpretations.

And God alone is "the Pillar and Ground of the Truth", not the church. We are blessed to share His truth, and thanks to His giving us His divinely inspired word, we can share it, but He alone is "the Way, the Truth and the Life", not us.



Please choose your words wisely. Be careful that you are not accusing thousands of other Christians of not being true Christians. That is a very serious judgement and condemnation to make. (And of lesser importance, also against forum rules).

I never said anything about anyone's salvation, nor of their desire to follow Christ. I spoke to the doctrines and beliefs they call the Faith. This was very intentional and was not without its nuance. The Faith of the Apostles and Christ consists of EVERYTHING Christ and the Apostles taught, not just what was written down.

Because Scripture calls the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, I will stand by that claim. If you decide that Scripture is wrong, then that, as you said, has absolutely no effect on whether or not it is true. It is true. God said it, that settles it. You can either believe it, or you can say God is wrong. It cannot be rationalized around. It cannot be explained away.

Now, as I said, the Faith is akin to a body. The Scriptures are the heart of that Body, but without the Body, the Scriptures are without power, because they do not have the context in which they were delivered to the Church. If I give you a heart, and tell you to make a body, then what would you say? You would tell me that is impossible. You cannot frankenstein a body fit for the heart. The heart is intended to be used in the Body it was born in. Likewise, Scripture, the Written portion of Tradition, is intended to be received with the Oral portion of Tradition. The Oral Portion forms the rest of the Body. The skin and bones to protect the Tradition and give it form, the lungs to bring in oxygen to give it breath, the mouth and stomach to bring in nutrients to give it strength. The Tradition of the Apostles is not the heart alone. The Faith is not the Scripture alone. Many people have used the Scriptures alone to preach many a heresy. I'd bet pretty much all of them did not intend to preach heresy. But since they had only the heart, they did not have enough to recreate the life which the Faith gives. At least, not in its fullest form. Certainly, wherever the Scripture is, there will always be some of the Truth, but without the rest of the Body, there will always be something false.

 

[sculleywr]

And Paul also talks about partakers in Communion with some getting drunk and stuffing themselves while others go hungry......sounds like a meal to me.

This is why I say that not everything that is necessary to follow Christ is in Scripture. We are told to do many things in Scripture which are not fully explained. How is one to be Baptized? Should it be one time? Three times? What if there is no water available or the person is physically unable to be immersed? How should the elders lay on hands when it is requested? How should one go about being married? Should there be a betrothal? Should there be vows as in the west or should the responsibilities of marriage be told to the bride and groom as in the east? Should we burn incense as they did in the Old Testament and even is shown in the New Testament? How should the communal worship proceed?

 

[Winken]

Help me out here. "Tradition," for me, has been unverified information. People have held to a view for perhaps their entire lives, but it still remains tradition, and is carried out as tradition, not accurately citing factual, original information.

You said, "This is why I say that not everything that is necessary to follow Christ is in Scripture."

If it isn't in scripture, how can it be necessary? If it is in the OT, how can it be necessary for the Christian in the Christian Covenant?

Here are some non-essentials in order for one to become and remain a Christian:

Procedural; non-essential... How is one to be Baptized? Should it be one time? Three times? What if there is no water available or the person is physically unable to be immersed?

Procedural; non-essential... How should the elders lay on hands when it is requested?

Procedural; non-essential... How should one go about being married? Should there be a betrothal? Should there be vows as in the west or should the responsibilities of marriage be told to the bride and groom as in the east?

Procedural; non-essential... Should we burn incense as they did in the Old Testament and even is shown in the New Testament?

Procedural; non-essential... How should the communal worship proceed?

Tradition: attitude, folklore, idea, legend, mores, opinion, ritual.

 

[amariselle]

I never said anything about anyone's salvation, nor of their desire to follow Christ. I spoke to the doctrines and beliefs they call the Faith. This was very intentional and was not without its nuance. The Faith of the Apostles and Christ consists of EVERYTHING Christ and the Apostles taught, not just what was written down.

Because Scripture calls the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, I will stand by that claim. If you decide that Scripture is wrong, then that, as you said, has absolutely no effect on whether or not it is true. It is true. God said it, that settles it. You can either believe it, or you can say God is wrong. It cannot be rationalized around. It cannot be explained away.

Now, as I said, the Faith is akin to a body. The Scriptures are the heart of that Body, but without the Body, the Scriptures are without power, because they do not have the context in which they were delivered to the Church. If I give you a heart, and tell you to make a body, then what would you say? You would tell me that is impossible. You cannot frankenstein a body fit for the heart. The heart is intended to be used in the Body it was born in. Likewise, Scripture, the Written portion of Tradition, is intended to be received with the Oral portion of Tradition. The Oral Portion forms the rest of the Body. The skin and bones to protect the Tradition and give it form, the lungs to bring in oxygen to give it breath, the mouth and stomach to bring in nutrients to give it strength. The Tradition of the Apostles is not the heart alone. The Faith is not the Scripture alone. Many people have used the Scriptures alone to preach many a heresy. I'd bet pretty much all of them did not intend to preach heresy. But since they had only the heart, they did not have enough to recreate the life which the Faith gives. At least, not in its fullest form. Certainly, wherever the Scripture is, there will always be some of the Truth, but without the rest of the Body, there will always be something false.

Wow, this is, once again, highly convoluted and judgmental. You're making things much more complicated then they should be.

The Scriptures are God's holy and inspired word, they are not manmade teachings. Yes, there is always the chance that people will twist Scripture, but that does not take away the God-given, inherent value and truth Scripture has.

And you seem to be suggesting that Scripture and oral tradition are two separate things, they're not. Scripture is the result of oral traditions that were written down, as inspired by God Himself.

Any "tradition" that contradicts or adds excessively to Scripture should be highly questioned, and in most cases, rejected.

God has given us His word for a reason. Through it we find guidance. We know from God's word what can happen when tradition is put above Scripture, Jesus was very very clear about this.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

it does. Second Thessalonians even commands Tradition. But Tradition is not new teaching. That is, quite literally, the opposite of the meaning of Tradition. You may as well say that black is white.

The Tradition of the Church is defined by Irenaeus as "That Tradition, which was delivered by the Apostles, and preserved by the successions of the Presbyters in the Church.

You get no indication of your definition of Tradition because your definition of Tradition is a strawman that isn't the Orthodox Church's definition of Tradition.

No. In Thessalonians, Paul is using the word "tradition" in reference to an eschatological teaching and not as a doctrine on worship. All other appearances of the word "tradition" in the Bible is in reference to false worship or wrong religious practices.


...

 

[Winken]

Also, could you explain how you could study Scripture without coming up with an interpretation of it? And how current, Protestant interpretations are preferable to ancient interpretations made by those who devote their lives to poverty, prayer, fasting and study?

There is only one interpretation / application of God's Word. It is provided to each authentic Christian by the Holy Spirit, not man (or woman). It's rock-solid i/a rises out of the Bible and nowhere else. Faith comes by hearing (the Holy Spirit), and hearing by the Word of God.

 

[Geralt]

well if you to make a general case, obviously you are right since the church of God is the elect since the beginning of man. and therefore NO, it did not start with Abraham but even before abraham. And if you are describing about 'scriptures' then it is not just the written word, but the spoken word of God communicating with man- which obviously preceded Abraham himself.​

what you probably are trying to argue is that the 'church' is above and has authority over scriptures which of course is
non-sensical considering the church quotes scripture to get its legitimacy while at the same time claims to derive its source from God himself.
​

Except that the Church is not just those who came after Christ. The Church is those who were gathered by God. There was the Church of Israel (called the Ekklessia Israel in the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Q'ahal Israel in the Hebrew text). The Church which Christ established was not a replacement of the Church of Israel. It was the fulfillment and completion of that Church. The Faith of Christ is not a new Faith, different from the Faith of the Jews before. Neither is the Church a new Church. IT is a fulfillment of what was always there. The Church began with Abraham, and therefore precedes all Scriptures, which were not written until Moses began to write.

 

[W2L]

well if you to make a general case, obviously you are right since the church of God is the elect since the beginning of man. and therefore NO, it did not start with Abraham but even before abraham. And if you are describing about 'scriptures' then it is not just the written word, but the spoken word of God communicating with man- which obviously preceded Abraham himself.​

what you probably are trying to argue is that the 'church' is above and has authority over scriptures which of course is
non-sensical considering the church quotes scripture to get its legitimacy while at the same time claims to derive its source from God himself.
​

The words of Christ and the apostles are what help people to understand and also to follow the spirit, but hes more interested in promoting a denomination instead. If he knew the power of Christ and his words, he would just promote those things alone. He has no faith in that though. His faith is built on a Church, not on the Word.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

You said the Church didn't author Scripture. But the Church DID author Scripture.

You promote a false concept that writer is author. You ignore the multiple passages of scripture saying Jesus through the Holy Spirit is the author, meaning originator of the truths presented in scripture. Further, you falsely state that the 13 apostles that had authority to speak God's words were the Church. By this you deceptively usurp authority to your present church leaders thinking they have the same authority as the writers of the letters contained in the N.T. The only thing a church did with the canon was to throw out the trash and copy the letters of scripture already circulating and completed 60 years after Jesus' death. From this you attribute them to be author and higher authority then God's words contained in scripture.

I have prodded you without answer, now I ask. Do you believe scripture to be God's word?

God did not come down and deliver Scripture to the Apostles in the way that Joseph Smith claims the Book of Mormon was delivered, or in the way that Mohammed claimed the Qur'an was delivered.

Of all the great miracles God has performed, you now dictate the mechanism that God must have used to make his word known; as if inspiration through the Holy Spirit is somehow lesser in authority than if God came down or sent an angel to dictate his word directly.

You oppose what scripture says, that God speaks through the writers of scripture.

Certainly it[scripture] was inspired, but it was not the foundation of the Church, for the Church was there before it. The Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. It does not say the Pillar and Ground of the Scripture. Since Scripture is not the comprehensive compendium of all Truth, and never claims to be such, the Scripture is only part of that which stands upon the Church. But remember, without a foundation, all things fall apart. As you said, the Church SUPPORTS Scripture. So when you remove Scripture from the Church, you remove it from its support. You now have a roof with no walls or pillars to hold it upon. You have part of the story, but not the whole thing.

How about I remind you of what I actually posted instead of you arguing against something you incorrectly quote of me.

If you actually read what scripture says instead of hijacking it for your own profit, you would learn that scripture says the church supports the truth; the church is not the truth or creator of it. This does not mean the church does not tell the truth, what it means is that there is only one source of incontrovertible truth, that is God's word. The church's function is therefore to support that truth.

The multitude of churches' job is to the support the truths Jesus gave us that are now contained in scripture, not make up new ones. I never said the church supports scripture. The church may vary well maintain canons, but Jesus' words require no support for being true. Learn that the timeless words of God surpass the fleeting churches of this age that promote God's words. As Jesus said:

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.​

As far as you stating scripture stands on the church and is inadequate without the church, you have so contorted God's word for your own doctrine. Examine the context. The bulk of 1 Timothy 3 teaches about the support organization of a church/religious institution to support the Church/body of saints. Verse 5 mentions overseers taking care of God's church which represent the saints, not a religious institution.

5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)​

Verses 9 and 10 say deacons should be tested to see if they hold a true faith so that their serving of the saints is good.

9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.​

Now looking at the summary Paul provides in verse 14 and 15 we see the purpose of this text is to provide instructions on how the saints are to be guided on how to conduct themselves. That means promoting the truths/teachings of Jesus to be followed by the saints in their lives. No where does the text teach about "maintaining/supporting" scripture.

14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.​

Lastly in verse 16 you have Jesus as the source of all godliness, that being how the saints should strive to conduct their lives as God instructs and desires.

16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels, was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.​

In whole, to say as you do that 1 Tim 3 teaches that a religious institutions is the support for scripture, totally misses the point of what Paul wrote and is complete fabrication. What 1 Tim 3 actually teaches is that the church supports the saints by promoting the truths of God. Elsewhere we learn that the truths of God are conveyed to us with his words in scripture.

Returning to my metaphor of the Body, the Scripture is the heart of the Tradition of the Church. Without the Body, the Heart cannot function, and without the heart, the body cannot function. Protestants have a bodiless heart. Their heart has no oxygen from the Lungs of Tradition. It has no nutrients from the stomach of Tradition. It has no electrical impulses from the Brain of Tradition (the Brain being Christ Himself). They try to put it into a new body, but the bodies they try to put it in will, in the end, reject the heart transplant.

Your "metaphor" is nothing but made up slander. How about you read scripture to see what parts make us strong and ready to battle the devil.

Eph 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.​

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

This is why I say that not everything that is necessary to follow Christ is in Scripture. We are told to do many things in Scripture which are not fully explained. How is one to be Baptized? Should it be one time? Three times? What if there is no water available or the person is physically unable to be immersed? How should the elders lay on hands when it is requested? How should one go about being married? Should there be a betrothal? Should there be vows as in the west or should the responsibilities of marriage be told to the bride and groom as in the east? Should we burn incense as they did in the Old Testament and even is shown in the New Testament? How should the communal worship proceed?

Another contortion of words. Somehow the unspecified becomes of utmost importance; because something was done a certain way, that it must forever be done a certain way. You offer NO proof of such a claim. You usurp authority in unspecified methods/traditions used in the church as being necessary to be done a certain way for salvation or at least to be a true follower of Christ. Just because something might be necessary to follow Christ, does not mean that it is necessary for it to be done a specific way. Understand that unspecified details are not critical for our faith. You examples are ridiculous and taken to extreme would mean that the rite of marriage could only be done using specific words in a specific language by a specific person.

Learn how Paul teaches that the tradition of women covering their hair in church is just a tradition and not a truth from God that must be forever followed.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Because Scripture calls the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, I will stand by that claim. If you decide that Scripture is wrong, then that, as you said, has absolutely no effect on whether or not it is true. It is true. God said it, that settles it. You can either believe it, or you can say God is wrong. It cannot be rationalized around. It cannot be explained away.

First of all your use of the Church to be the EO Church is a contortion of scripture in 1 Tim 3:15 as if there is only one true religious institution that is promoting the truths of God to the living saints.

Look at most translations of the verse to see that Paul is addressing the household of God, which is then explained to be the church of God.

15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
​

Looking at verse 5 one may even argue that the church of God is not even a religious institution, but the collection of living saints that are being taken care of by overseers and served by deacons. This would mean all churches that contain saints. Given that at the time of Paul writing the words there were multiple churches, it should be obvious that Paul is not promoting one particular church to be the authority over truth.

5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?​

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I don't preach my Church alone. I preach the Church which is headed by Christ, which means that Christ is there as the Head of that Church. And if Christ is the Head of the Church, then the Church cannot fail for where the Head leads, there goes the Body.

Do you say that Christ is the head of protestant churches?
If not, which religious institutions do you include that Christ is the head of?

 

[Winken]

We need to separate "church," (small c) from Church, the Body of Christ. In fact, we need to use the Body of Christ terminology every time we post about the Church, but never when we post about the church. The "church" in modern usage has become a building. The "church" (small c) otherwise is an assembly, not the Body of Christ.

I suppose it will take many years for us to straighten out the necessary language in English. I can help in German, but otherwise, they are on their own.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Do you say that Christ is the head of protestant churches?
If not, which religious institutions do you include that Christ is the head of?

Good luck. I have asked several times about traditions; point me to the writing and who wrote them that way I can go read for myself. The answer is mostly "Well the church says...." so I wonder if these comments are based on what the church says and not what a person finds out on their own.....

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

We need to separate "church," (small c) from Church, the Body of Christ. In fact, we need to use the Body of Christ terminology every time we post about the Church, but never when we post about the church. The "church" in modern usage has become a building. The "church" (small c) otherwise is an assembly, not the Body of Christ.

I suppose it will take many years for us to straighten out the necessary language in English. I can help in German, but otherwise, they are on their own.

There are some that refuse the standard meaning of the Church to be the body of earthly saints.
They wish to promote the authority of a particular religious institution and call it the Church.
Yes, this leads to confusion. Yes, I think they know what they do.

 

[lesliedellow]

No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

That is often heard from Catholics. Catholic theologians tend to know better. They would say that the canon was not determined upon by the Church, but the Church merely recognised a canon whose author was God.

In practice that meant the Old Testament, because it had been the scriptures than none other than Jesus himself had recognised, and those early Christian writings that the second century Church had come to venerate, because of their apostolic authorship, or because they had been authored by somebody closely associated with the apostles.

At the time of the Reformation the question came up, "Which Old Testament?" The Septuagint or the Hebrew Bible?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

That is often heard from Catholics. Catholic theologians tend to know better. They would say that the canon was not determined upon by the Church, but the Church merely recognised a canon whose author was God.

In practice that meant the Old Testament, because it had been the scriptures than none other than Jesus himself had recognised, and those early Christian writings that the second century Church had come to venerate, because of their apostolic authorship, or because they had been authored by somebody closely associated with the apostles.

At the time of the Reformation the question came up, "Which Old Testament?" The Septuagint or the Hebrew Bible?

The one generally referenced by the New Testament would be the obvious choice.