Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Rick Otto]

iginally Posted by Rick Otto

You couldn't be more wrong. I've seldom seen anything so irrelevant. It has nothing at all to do with suffering, it is about knowing what you're talking about when discussing your faith!!!

​

By posting this, you are basically saying that your opinion regarding scripture is the correct one (i.e. glorification of personal opinion).

Defending reason isn't glorifying anything.

You are able to do so because technically according to sola scriptura, everyone's opinion regarding scripture is just as valid as the next.

No it isn't. You have redefined it according to your personal error. I could explore that & identify the exact error, but we should pack a lunch because i suspect it'll open a floodgate of errors. There is nothing that Sola Scriptura validates excepts scripture. Your definition of it is both unscriptural & factualy incorrect.

The difference in reality however, is that Philothei is speaking with 2000 years of church history on her side;

Another misperception on your part...

hardly based on personal opinion,

totaly blinded by personal opinion in this particular instance...

but rather on the concensus teachings of many.

Totaly unsubstantiated by any citation of commentary on the verse in question.

This is not just in reference to this particular verse; i am speaking of an entire manner or 'ethos' of using scripture. Sorry if I caused offense.

It is yet offensive that you now claim to be defending her "entire ethos" when that was never a part of the issue under discussion, & STILL you leave the real current issue untouched, that being that 1 Peter3:15 has nothing at all to do with suffering for doing good, but is instead about being able to articulate, explain what you believe.
That being said, apology "accepted". lol
My Wheaties taste fine.

 

[Rick Otto]

1Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; __________________

Peter is addressing those who are suffering for Christ ... he speaks at length about the difference of suffering in the flesh because of sins, and suffering in the flesh even when we are falsely accused ie, for and like Christ.

Everyone for Christ was suffering. He is addressing specificaly :
1Peter1:1: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Really, Thekla!
I see no "at length" speech about the difference between suffering judgement for sin & suffering persecution for Christ.
Besides, it has nothing to do with the verse I quoted & the reason I quoted it, which was to substantiate the idea that we need to understand (interperet) scripture ourselves so that we can offer a reason for our beliefs.
Just because I am able to describe, relate, & define truth myself does not make that truth my personal opinion.

The FOLLOWING verse (which I did NOT quote because it wasn't germain to the point i was trying to make, which is in danger of being drowned out by the confusion...) IS about suffering for doing good.:
16] Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
[17] For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

But that has again, NOTHING to do with the point I was trying to make, which is that we must all be personaly responsible for our own understanding (interpretation) of scripture.
I don't care if your church is a TEN thousand years old.
It just means to me you have a longer record of error to answer for.

 

[Thekla]

But where does Peter say that the defense of our faith comes from Scripture - this I think was the point.

 

[Rick Otto]

But where does Peter say that the defense of our faith comes from Scripture - this I think was the point.

OK! THank you. We agree on the defending our faith! Peter is is instructing us to defend our faith.
From where does Peter instruct us to do so? Scripture. 1 Peter IS scripture! It is the source opf the truth we seek to verify & it is the only trustworthy verifier of that truth. It is the first place we go to to check all other sources, & it by definition won't contradict the revealed spiritual truths it presents. (some of the physical facts are in contradiction, but nothing I've seen that assaults doctrine except in the technical sense on an irrational logical extreme position of bible inerrancy where adherents are typicaly ignorant of differing canons, lexicons, authorship issues, etc.


So the defense or explanation of our faith, the interpretation & understanding of it, naturaly is going to come from itself, the essential whole of which can be found in scripture.

The history of the Church is not our faith, it is the history of it.
Tradition can confuse the two in our mind.
I don't think we should identify so strongly with the history as with the future of His body.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

OK! THank you. We agree on the defending our faith! Peter is is instructing us to defend our faith.
From where does Peter instruct us to do so? Scripture. 1 Peter IS scripture! It is the source opf the truth we seek to verify & it is the only trustworthy verifier of that truth. It is the first place we go to to check all other sources, & it by definition won't contradict the revealed spiritual truths it presents. (some of the physical facts are in contradiction, but nothing I've seen that assaults doctrine except in the technical sense on an irrational logical extreme position of bible inerrancy where adherents are typicaly ignorant of differing canons, lexicons, authorship issues, etc.

-snip-

Besides, it has nothing to do with the verse I quoted & the reason I quoted it, which was to substantiate the idea that we need to understand (interperet) scripture ourselves so that we can offer a reason for our beliefs.
Just because I am able to describe, relate, & define truth myself does not make that truth my personal opinion.

-snip-

Wow, I really don't see this at all...I'm sorry, but this verse and all those around it have everything to do with "suffering for doing good". The surrounding context of the verse makes that crystal clear.

1 Peter 3:15, He is addressing those who may suffer for righteousness sake. He is telling them to represent Christ, and to stand firm in the faith that was delivered to them in the face of persecution.

In fact, if you go to bible.cc and look at the chapter by chapter, the topical heading for 1 Peter 3:8-22 is indeed 'suffering for doing good'; that is the immediate context.

It seems to me that to use this verse as some kind of stand-alone SS prooftext is to read a foreign interpretation into the text that is simply not historical...that is what I was getting at earlier, and i think this is often the case for other verses which are typically used to defend SS as well. I didn't think it was necessary to support this verse, as it seems readily apparent to me and the others the meaning of which, but I can go look through some commentary next week if u want...

 

[Thekla]

OK! THank you. We agree on the defending our faith! Peter is is instructing us to defend our faith.
From where does Peter instruct us to do so? Scripture. 1 Peter IS scripture! It is the source opf the truth we seek to verify & it is the only trustworthy verifier of that truth. It is the first place we go to to check all other sources, & it by definition won't contradict the revealed spiritual truths it presents. (some of the physical facts are in contradiction, but nothing I've seen that assaults doctrine except in the technical sense on an irrational logical extreme position of bible inerrancy where adherents are typicaly ignorant of differing canons, lexicons, authorship issues, etc.


So the defense or explanation of our faith, the interpretation & understanding of it, naturaly is going to come from itself, the essential whole of which can be found in scripture.

The history of the Church is not our faith, it is the history of it.
Tradition can confuse the two in our mind.
I don't think we should identify so strongly with the history as with the future of His body.

If I understand your argument, it's a curious one ...

In a sense, it claims that there was no 'defending one's faith' until to do so was written by Peter ... until it was scripted in Scripture.

The "whole of faith" is not found in Scripture. Instead, Peter seems to be saying that the whole of faith is found in your life and to "defend the faith" from your experience - the evidence of faith being found in the life. The reason why you suffer, the reason for your hope ...
Christ says that the Holy Spirit will "give us" what to say.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

If I understand your argument, it's a curious one ...

In a sense, it claims that there was no 'defending one's faith' until to do so was written by Peter ... until it was scripted in Scripture.

The "whole of faith" is not found in Scripture. Instead, Peter seems to be saying that the whole of faith is found in your life and to "defend the faith" from your experience - the evidence of faith being found in the life. The reason why you suffer, the reason for your hope ...
Christ says that the Holy Spirit will "give us" what to say.

Further, these people have been previously instructed in the faith. In this letter, Peter is encouraging them to stand firm in what they have been taught, and reminding them the faith they have received is the true faith.

12With the help of Silas,b whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.
13She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. 14Greet one another with a kiss of love.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Personally I will read any gospel, act, or epistle and if I find it spiritually uplifting and useful I will continue studying it. The traditions of various churches can be useful but as my mood icon states I like to be a little daring.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Personally I will read any gospel, act, or epistle and if I find it spiritually uplifting and useful I will continue studying it. The traditions of various churches can be useful but as my mood icon states I like to be a little daring.

lol...I can tell!

I like your sig quotes, btw

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I like your sig quotes, btw

Thank you.

I say that the traditions of Churches are important because if a book has been trusted by and has lead to the higher spiritual development of millions of people for over two thousand years there is probably very good reason to read it. At the same time if a book was thought worth hiding at the possible risk of ones very future (being a "heretic" isn't always a good social move or even conducive to ones health) from book burners it may also very well have some qualities that make it worth reading as well. Like the Gospel of Thomas for example.

 

[Meepy]

Have you read the history of the canon? Many books that we have were originally, prior to the decision, were not part of the "common" circulation but became part of the canon. Many books that were part of the "common" circulation were ignored.
Sadly, it doesn't look like what God told Moses was not adhered to in the decisions, i.e. "do not add to this word," "do not diminish this word," and it looks like they never put forth the test of who/what is a true or false prophet of God.

The test I apply is by Jesus' own words and what God said through Moses. Everything else must fall in line with those two. If something doesn't seem to jive with what Jesus and/or Moses said, then there must be at least 2 other "witnesses" to the saying (and that means 2 other authors must verify the passage in question - and that is scriptural).
Just my 2cents.

that is not true. As already by the 2nd century Christians had a good sense of the inspired writings and the common circulation of the gospels as St. Irenaeus testifies. The Gospels and the writings of Paul were well known as the core scriptures of the NT. There were issues with John's Revelation, Jude, Hebrews, and a few other epistles. The didache and the shepard of hermes was also used a lot.

 

[Heavens]

The Lord is with you Rick Otto

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But where does Peter say that the defense of our faith comes from Scripture - this I think was the point.

1. "Defense?" Of the dogma of who/what?


2. Where does Peter say that the "defense" of "our faith" comes from RCC or EO or LDS or Lutheran or Calvinist "tradition" or that "our faith" is exempt from the issue of truth if self alone so declares that it is for self alone?








.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ah, the glorification of personal opinion in action...

Yes.

I agree with your constant and consistent rebuke of self declaring self to be the sole authority, sole interpreter of Scripture and sole arbiter of truth - moot in the case of self since self declares self to be infallible and the very voice of God. But then I know of only two denominations that do that: the RCC (CCC 85 and 87 for example) and the early LDS ("On the Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, for example)- but you're strongly leading me to believe the EO falls into this category, too. ALL passionate rejectors of Sola Scriptura.






.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Personally I will read any gospel, act, or epistle and if I find it spiritually uplifting and useful I will continue studying it.
The traditions of various churches can be useful but as my mood icon states I like to be a little daring.

One must be both daring and thick-skinned to post here on GT
As my mood icon states, I am a cynic by nature

Kindgdom Bible Studies Lambs Book of Life Part 1

*SNIP*

The book stores are filled to overflowing today with all types of books dealing with every aspect of earthly life.

Even in the church world there are books setting forth every kind of viewpoint relating to God, the Bible, doctrine, Christian experience, and church order.
However the subject material of most of these books largely contains a message of religious tradition and spiritual death.

 

[Thekla]

1. "Defense?" Of the dogma of who/what?


2. Where does Peter say that the "defense" of "our faith" comes from RCC or EO or LDS or Lutheran or Calvinist "tradition" or that "our faith" is exempt from the issue of truth if self alone so declares that it is for self alone?








.

I don't understand the relationship of your question/s to the matters discussed and exhorted in the epistles of Peter - maybe you could give a further description ?

(Although, per your questions, how is it known that what Peter writes is authoritative ?)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. "Defense?" Of the dogma of who/what?


2. Where does Peter say that the "defense" of "our faith" comes from RCC or EO or LDS or Lutheran or Calvinist "tradition" or that "our faith" is exempt from the issue of truth if self alone so declares that it is for self alone?

I don't understand the relationship of your question/s to the matters discussed and exhorted in the epistles of Peter - maybe you could give a further description ?

(Although, per your questions, how is it known that what Peter writes is authoritative ?)

I responded to what YOU posted, not what St. Peter by inspiration penned.


Where did I say ANYTHING about "authority?" This thread is about WHAT is commonly embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans as we evaluate disputed doctrines among us.

1Peter3:15: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Yes, accountability seems embraced. And I see nothing in this verse to indicate that if self insists that self alone is exempt from accountability and the issue of truth ergo self alone is. Nor do I see anything here that indicates that if self alone agrees with self alone, ergo self alone is correct.
No, this verse does not example the Rule of Scripture (as so very, very many do) but it doesn't support the RC/LDS (and it seems EO) alternative. IMO.






.

 

[Thekla]

I responded to what YOU posted, not what St. Peter by inspiration penned.


Where did I say ANYTHING about "authority?" This thread is about WHAT is commonly embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans as we evaluate disputed doctrines among us.



.

Again, if clarification could be provided please; your "question in response" seemed to ignore the sub-context of the discussion re: Peter's statements in his epistles.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Again, if clarification could be provided please; your "question in response" seemed to ignore the sub-context of the discussion re: Peter's statements in his epistles.

I rather like his responses to Jesus when asked about Peter loving Him [I believe the RCs also use this passaged for the primacy of their Pope .]

Young) John 21:16 He saith to him again, a second time, "Simon, [son] of Jonas, dost thou love me?" he saith to him, "Yes, Lord; thou hast known that I dearly love thee". He saith to him "Tend my sheep."
17 He saith to him the third time, "Simon, [son] of Jonas, dost thou dearly love Me?" Peter was grieved that He said to him the third time, "Dost thou dearly love me?" and he said to Him, "Lord, thou hast known all things; thou dost know that I dearly love thee." Jesus saith to him, "Feed my sheep"

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G4263 matches the Greek πρόβατον (probaton), which occurs 41 times in 37 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

4263. probaton prob'-at-on probably neuter of a presumed derivative of 4260; something that walks forward (a quadruped), i.e. (specially), a sheep (literally or figuratively):--sheep(-fold).

 

[Heavens]

But where does Peter say that the defense of our faith comes from Scripture - this I think was the point.

(2Pe 3:16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(2Pe 3:17) Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Can't be any clearer than that can it