Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[LittleLambofJesus]

I feel as though we do those Christians, especially the martyrs of that age, a disservice in thinking they didn't know right and wrong doctrine and we can't at least learn something from them.

Having said that, the rule of faith for them was scripture; but I acknowledge that some lived it out.

Nice post

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4930&t=KJV
Strong's Number G4930 matches the Greek συντέλεια (synteleia), which occurs 6 times in 6 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Matthew 24:3 He is yet sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples toward-came to Him according to own saying "tell us, when? shall these be and what? the Sign of the Thy ParousiaV, and of the together-finish/sun-teleiaV <4930> of the Age?"

Matthew 28:20 "Teaching them to be keeping all as much as I direct to ye.
And behold! I with ye am all the days, till the together-finish/sun-teleiaV <4930> of the Age. Amen"

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Rule of Scripture is that Scripture is the rule in the norming of doctrines (especially those in dispute). Yes - for Christians, that obviously would be Christian Scripture that is meant by 'Scripture.'

Yes, it is true that 4 denominations each have a slightly UNIQUE canon - a slightly UNIQUE embrace of what is and is not Scripture, they are the OO, EO, RC and LDS. In each of the 4 cased, self only totally agrees with self. But for the other 49,996 denominations (if some Catholics are correct and there are 50,000 denominations), they have the same books -in fact, those are embraced by the other 4, as well.

So, the fact that baptist and lutheran agree on 66 books is more authoritative than 1 billion RC agreeing on theirs?

IF some Catholics are right and there are 50,000 denominations, then:
* ALL of them embrace 66 - the identical 66.

* One denomination has several different sets of different books (the OO ) - all moot to any debate on any dogma. One out of 50,000.

* One denomination has a unique set of additional books (the EO) - all moot to any debate on any dogma. One out of 50,000.

* One denomination since the 16th Century has a unique set of additional books (the RC) - all moot to any dogma. One out of 50,000.

But there's an attempt here to make "much ado about NOTHING." Only in the case of the LDS is this anything of an issue, because only it's unique books make any difference in the debate over doctrines among us
Not so. Maccabees supports the notion of praying to deceased and purgatory. It's not much ado ...

Maccabees supports purgatory.

There are 3 denominations that accept that book. Two agree that verse has nothing whatsoever to do with purgatory - a dogma they don't teach. My own Catholic teachers agreed.

IF your entire reason for throwing out accountability and also the Rule of Scripture is because of one UNIQUE, new dogma of ONE denomination - when the others that accept that book don't agree on that dogma - if that's all you got, then I see a LOT more difficulties in using the views of each denomination as the rule for the views of each denomination or of each denomination being able to exempt itself exclusively from the whole issue of truth.

I still think that Scripture is the most sound rule. I'm open to other suggestions: some rule that is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE ecumenically embraced (say by 50,000 denominations) and historically embraced (say to 1400 BC), MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none than is Scripture - then suggest it. Let's run it by those issues and see how often it was used normatively in Scripture.







.

 

[Heavens]

You guys are all excellent scholars and we admire your fine explanatory statements about the word of God. It has been a pleasure to pick your brains but in doing so, I have had to consult my dictionary to make sure I was correctly understanding what you guys were talking about. You guys have certainly worked yourselves into a position to where you can understand God very well. Great theology, but then I thought, is it not wonderful how the Holy Spirit has managed the canonicalization of the Bible so that fellows like me who have never had Theology 101 can still read the Bible and discover God.

My hobbies in life have been natural philosophy and Biblical studies where it is pleasurable to find that what is discovered in natural philosophy is confirmed by scriptures. To simply understand this is not the answer in preaching the Gospe. The question is, how can we make sola scripture be understandable to the world which is filled mainly with inferiorly educated people compared to these philosophers and theologians that are telling us about God. The word of God, however, is of such a nature that we can make it acceptable to the common man/woman/child.

This drip-down effect must have been difficult for the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John with their logos and dabar philosophy. Their level of understanding was tremendous and how they translated their message to 1000's who could not read and write. My interest on this forum and thread is to spark more participation of common Wesleyan folk in discussing the deep things of God with scholars like you guys. What can be done to spark more participation on these wonderful threads?

 

[Standing Up]

IF some Catholics are right and there are 50,000 denominations, then:
* ALL of them embrace 66 - the identical 66.

* One denomination has several different sets of different books (the OO ) - all moot to any debate on any dogma. One out of 50,000.

* One denomination has a unique set of additional books (the EO) - all moot to any debate on any dogma. One out of 50,000.

* One denomination since the 16th Century has a unique set of additional books (the RC) - all moot to any dogma. One out of 50,000.

Certainly a different spin to things. A weakness turned into strength. I like it.

There are 3 denominations that accept that book. Two agree that verse has nothing whatsoever to do with purgatory - a dogma they don't teach. My own Catholic teachers agreed.

IF your entire reason for throwing out accountability and also the Rule of Scripture is because of one UNIQUE, new dogma of ONE denomination - when the others that accept that book don't agree on that dogma - if that's all you got, then I see a LOT more difficulties in using the views of each denomination as the rule for the views of each denomination or of each denomination being able to exempt itself exclusively from the whole issue of truth.

They all teach it's fine to pray to the deceased and that purgatory or something similar is 'out there'. Only one, however, may have made it a dogma.

I still think that Scripture is the most sound rule. I'm open to other suggestions: some rule that is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE ecumenically embraced (say by 50,000 denominations) and historically embraced (say to 1400 BC), MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none than is Scripture - then suggest it. Let's run it by those issues and see how often it was used normatively in Scripture.

.

Scripture is the rule of faith. We've been over its claims for itself and the claims of the ECFs for scripture.

For Tradition, it too, for viability and veracity, has to connect clearly and directly to an apostle. At this stage of history, that Tradition and Scripture would be identical.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

The Rule of Scripture is that Scripture is the rule in the norming of doctrines (especially those in dispute). Yes - for Christians, that obviously would be Christian Scripture that is meant by 'Scripture.'


Yes, it is true that 4 denominations each have a slightly UNIQUE canon - a slightly UNIQUE embrace of what is and is not Scripture, they are the OO, EO, RC and LDS. In each of the 4 cased, self only totally agrees with self. But for the other 49,996 denominations (if some Catholics are correct and there are 50,000 denominations), they have the same books -in fact, those are embraced by the other 4, as well.



.

Not true, the Assyrian Church of the East only uses 22 books of the new testament. There are an ancient church (400,000 strong) so must be considered as well. There may be another denomination I forgot.

Also, the catholic 'denomination' is a pretty large one (the largest) and the EO is the second largest. It seems the protestant "rule" is in the minority, so what does that mean then? We aren't going to be able to make everyone happy, that's for sure.

 

[laconicstudent]

Not true, the Assyrian Church of the East only uses 22 books of the new testament. There are an ancient church (400,000 strong) so must be considered as well. There may be another denomination I forgot.

Also, the catholic 'denomination' is a pretty large one (the largest) and the EO is the second largest. It seems the protestant "rule" is in the minority, so what does that mean then? We aren't going to be able to make everyone happy, that's for sure.

We have an ACoE poster on CF, username is Warrior in Christ or something like that. Haven't seen him in a while though.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Guess I missed your post about Oneness Pentecosts instead of Arius. Do you not think the Trinity is shown in scripture?

I'm all for scripture-only with apostle-tied-tradition (they'll come out the same).

Honestly, I think if you were to show Paul and the other's the doctrine of the Trinity today as we know it (with the Father, Son and Spirit co-eternal, same in essence, etc.), they would be like

Seriously, the doctrine as we know it was not established in any way in scripture. We have to trust that the Holy Spirit guided the church in the correct direction, as many non-trinitarians can provide well supported claims that the doctrine was influenced by pagans/neoplatonists or other philosophies/religions in the 3rd/4th century.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Honestly, I think if you were to show Paul and the other's the doctrine of the Trinity today as we know it (with the Father, Son and Spirit co-eternal, same in essence, etc.), they would be like

Seriously, the doctrine as we know it was not established in any way in scripture. We have to trust that the Holy Spirit guided the church in the correct direction, as many non-trinitarians can provide well supported claims that the doctrine was influenced by pagans/neoplatonists or other philosophies/religions in the 3rd/4th century.

Just as in Acts 15, the Church calls on the power of the Holy Spirit, God, to make an authoritative judgment and define certain things as needed, as heresies crop up. That is how it seems to me anyway.

 

[Standing Up]

Honestly, I think if you were to show Paul and the other's the doctrine of the Trinity today as we know it (with the Father, Son and Spirit co-eternal, same in essence, etc.), they would be like

Seriously, the doctrine as we know it was not established in any way in scripture. We have to trust that the Holy Spirit guided the church in the correct direction, as many non-trinitarians can provide well supported claims that the doctrine was influenced by pagans/neoplatonists or other philosophies/religions in the 3rd/4th century.

The Trinity has never been an issue for me. If it were a man, or a man filled with the Spirit, who died for my sins, I expect to remain in my sins and go to hell. But if it were the Son of the Living God who died for my sins and was raised for my life, I have been made the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. I have been sanctified and justified once for all and then continue to wash with the Word (logos/rhema).

Anyway, supposedly, after Nicea, the concepts were modified and changed so that you might be right. I haven't really looked too far into it. I already know they didn't teach the same (2 TIm. 2:2).

 

[sunlover1]

Seriously, the doctrine as we know it was not established in any way in scripture. We have to trust that the Holy Spirit guided the church in the correct direction, as many non-trinitarians can provide well supported claims that the doctrine was influenced by pagans/neoplatonists or other philosophies/religions in the 3rd/4th century.

Not to be disagreeable but when you say we "have to trust that the Holy
Spirit guided the church in the ..."
Well.. since I trust no man blush and the church is made up OF men...
I could not do that. And so quite a few years ago, I decided that I wasn't
going to just take someone's word for it, but rather would study it out
myself... prayerfully.

 

[laconicstudent]

Not to be disagreeable but when you say we "have to trust that the Holy
Spirit guided the church in the ..."
Well.. since I trust no man blush and the church is made up OF men...
I could not do that. And so quite a few years ago, I decided that I wasn't
going to just take someone's word for it, but rather would study it out
myself... prayerfully.

You trust no man? Not even Jesus?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

The Trinity has never been an issue for me. If it were a man, or a man filled with the Spirit, who died for my sins, I expect to remain in my sins and go to hell. But if it were the Son of the Living God who died for my sins and was raised for my life, I have been made the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. I have been sanctified and justified once for all and then continue to wash with the Word (logos/rhema).

Anyway, supposedly, after Nicea, the concepts were modified and changed so that you might be right. I haven't really looked too far into it. I already know they didn't teach the same (2 TIm. 2:2).

Well, you have to ask yourself the question though, if you worship Jesus, are you worshipping God, or are you worshipping someone else (a creature?) Obviously, worship is supposed to be rendered to God alone, so if Jesus is not God, then how can he be worshipped? This still leaves the Holy Spirit though. These are some of the questions the the ECF's posed those who denied the Trinity, I'm not sure how they defended the deity of the Holy Spirit. This is the central dogma in the EOC though, the Trinity is not 'up for grabs".

 

[Philothei]

Not to be disagreeable but when you say we "have to trust that the Holy
Spirit guided the church in the ..."
Well.. since I trust no man blush and the church is made up OF men...
I could not do that. And so quite a few years ago, I decided that I wasn't
going to just take someone's word for it, but rather would study it out
myself... prayerfully.

But....trusting yourself IS trusting a man or ...errrr...a woman? We all trust someone even if it is ourselves. The sad part is that the Fathers who we trust have been well 'seasoned" since they did gave us the Creed, Trinity and the canon of NT

We are not that seasoned as we cannot accumulate all their experience (called tradition) in our life times to do that . That is why we do trust them to guide... Between my chores my busy life etc... I think it would be impossible to read all the Bible esp. if I was not Greek if I tried to translated... wow...forget that!!! loll....

 

[Ortho_Cat]

But....trusting yourself IS trusting a man or ...errrr...a woman? We all trust someone even if it is ourselves. The sad part is that the Fathers who we trust have been well 'seasoned" since they did gave us the Creed, Trinity and the canon of NT

We are not that seasoned as we cannot accumulate all their experience (called tradition) in our life times to do that . That is why we do trust them to guide... Between my chores my busy life etc... I think it would be impossible to read all the Bible esp. if I was not Greek if I tried to translated... wow...forget that!!! loll....

Yes, the Church has taken care of all the foundational preparatory work for us, established the doctrines, praxis, etc. and has provided us with great examples in the lives of the saints, so we can jump right in and get right to work with the thing most needful, the salvation of our souls!

 

[Standing Up]

Well, you have to ask yourself the question though, if you worship Jesus, are you worshipping God, or are you worshipping someone else (a creature?) Obviously, worship is supposed to be rendered to God alone, so if Jesus is not God, then how can he be worshipped?

Like I said, not a creation (creature). Not an angel. My Lord and my God. In the beginning ... Never been an issue for me.

This still leaves the Holy Spirit though. These are some of the questions the the ECF's posed those who denied the Trinity, I'm not sure how they defended the deity of the Holy Spirit. This is the central dogma in the EOC though, the Trinity is not 'up for grabs".

The Spirit the same.

Back to the thread.

 

[Standing Up]

Not to be disagreeable but when you say we "have to trust that the Holy
Spirit guided the church in the ..."
Well.. since I trust no man blush and the church is made up OF men...
I could not do that. And so quite a few years ago, I decided that I wasn't
going to just take someone's word for it, but rather would study it out
myself... prayerfully.

Part of the confusion is still the idea of how some define the church---a building or the called-out ones. (the latter).

There are wolves in sheep's clothing---we were warned, but some assume it can't happen in their group.

There is also the call to test the spirits. To check what's said against scripture. To test those who call themselves apostles.

The only rule of faith given us and used by Christians is scripture. But some use Tradition because of their assumption above. The "it is written" is replaced by "it was said somewhere by someone who might have some sort of tie to an apostle".

 

[Standing Up]

But....trusting yourself IS trusting a man or ...errrr...a woman? We all trust someone even if it is ourselves. The sad part is that the Fathers who we trust have been well 'seasoned" since they did gave us the Creed, Trinity and the canon of NT

We are not that seasoned as we cannot accumulate all their experience (called tradition) in our life times to do that . That is why we do trust them to guide... Between my chores my busy life etc... I think it would be impossible to read all the Bible esp. if I was not Greek if I tried to translated... wow...forget that!!! loll....

There is an element of trust, a step of faith. And yes, not everyone has the time, inclination, or calling to do all of that.

But the issue is when it's been shown otherwise from what's been taught 1000 years, what obligation is there to 'renew the mind' or 'change the practice'? Simple example is Irenaeus, he does speak to tradition, but only tradition tied to apostles. For some practices/doctrines, there's a huge span of time between the two, between an apostle and it's first written occurrence.

So, if some check the scripture to see if things said are so, that is the ultimate source. IOW, granting the Church gave us the bible claim, basically what is being said is that the Church recognizes the ultimate authority of scripture as apostolic. The Church never tried to usurp that, eh? Or did she?

 

[Philothei]

]Part of the confusion is still the idea of how some define the church---a building or the called-out ones. (the latter).

Matthew 18:15
[ Dealing With Sin in the Church ] “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
http://www.christianforums.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:14-16&version=NIV
Matthew 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.


Acts 8:1
And Saul approved of their killing him. [ The Church Persecuted and Scattered ] On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.
http://www.christianforums.com/passage/?search=Acts+8:1-3&version=NIVActs 8:3
But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.

http://www.christianforums.com/passage/?search=Acts+8:2-4&version=NIV
http://www.christianforums.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:16-18&version=NIV

There are wolves in sheep's clothing---we were warned, but some assume it can't happen in their group.

no...because :
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
http://www.christianforums.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16:17-19&version=NIV

There is also the call to test the spirits. To check what's said against scripture. To test those who call themselves apostles.

And sure enough we do...
The only rule of faith given us and used by Christians is scripture. But some use Tradition because of their assumption above. The "it is written" is replaced by "it was said somewhere by someone who might have some sort of tie to an apostle".

[/QUOTE]

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
see above verses....we are to go to the Church ^^^

To be continued.....

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



Philothei,


Thank you for all those affirmations of the Protestant view that Christians are PEOPLE and that the "gathering" "assembly" "community" " communion" of Christians is ergo also PEOPLE. The gathering of people is not a denomination (it indeed has nothing whatsoever to do with any denomination - the EO, RCC, LDS or any other) .

Now, what in the world that has to do with accountability and therefore with norming and the embraced rule in such - I just don't know.





.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Not to be disagreeable but when you say we "have to trust that the Holy
Spirit guided the church in the ..."
Well.. since I trust no man blush and the church is made up OF men...
I could not do that. And so quite a few years ago, I decided that I wasn't
going to just take someone's word for it, but rather would study it out
myself... prayerfully.

You still are trusting man: yourself.