Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Montalban]

By context, I was referring to the author's intentions and understanding when they formulated it.

Why have the Creed if the Bible explains it all?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

What about 'equal to'?

St. Thekla, Protomartyr and Equal to the Apostles

Troparion (Tone 4) –

You were enlightened by the words of Paul, O Bride of God, Thekla,
And your faith was confirmed by Peter, O Chosen One of God.
You became the first sufferer and martyr among women,
By entering into the flames as into a place of gladness.
For when you accepted the Cross of Christ,
The demonic powers were frightened away.
O all-praised One, intercede before Christ God that our souls may be saved.
​

 

[Montalban]

And Constantine

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Why have the Creed if the Bible explains it all?

Seriously, I have no idea why the Church fathers spend 450+ years settling church doctrine, formulating canons, condemning heretics, etc. when it was all right there in front of their eyes, plain as day for anyone to see! Think of how much time they could have saved if Luther and Calvin were around back then...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And Constantine

yep, she was just an example

 

[Montalban]

And the Councils weren't something that you could jet into, it involved a trip of great hardship.

They could have just used the self-authenticating book that they had.

 

[Hentenza]

Well of course, no one can be you or I either.

However, do you have scripture references to support your belief that the apostolic office was intended to be discontinued?

Here are the biblical requirements for the office of apostle:

1. The person must be a witness of the life of the Lord and be able to testify about Christ and His resurrection from personal knowledge (actual witness). (John 15:27, Acts 1:21-22, 1 Cor. 9:1, Acts 22:14-15).

2. They must have been immediately called to that office by Christ. (Luke 6:13, Gal. 1:1).

3. It is essential that they should be infallibly inspired. (John 14:26, 16:13, 1 Thess. 2:13).

4. The qualification of the power of working miracles. (Acts 2:43, 1 Cor. 12:8-11).

Based of the above, the apostles, therefore, could not have successors to their office. The office of apostles ceased when John died.

 

[Montalban]

yep, she was just an example

I find Paul and Barnabas' "apostleship" interesting

 

[Hentenza]

By context, I was referring to the author's intentions and understanding when they formulated it.

The author was not inspired nor inerrant. The Nicene creed is a good summary of the faith simply because it is biblical.

 

[Philothei]

So? The plethora of competing "T"raditions do the same. In fact, one large general "rule" of hermeunetics is to not import one's bias into scripture but to allow scripture to interpret scripture. The result of importing ones biases usually results in eisegesis. Arius imported his bias into scripture resulting in eisegesis.

How did the Fathers "allowed scripture to interpret scripture" if they collectively made descisions on their own exegesis on doctrinal questions? if you are alone interpreting the Bible are you bias free from one's own eisegesis?

 

[Hentenza]

Arius had a different interpretation of scripture, but his teachings were based on such.

Not just him, Nestorius as well.

Your denomination also has different interpretations of scripture. Arius and Nestorius were simply debunked because their arguments were not biblical.

 

[Hentenza]

How did the Fathers "allowed scripture to interpret scripture" if they collectively made descisions on their own exegesis on doctrinal questions? if you are alone interpreting the Bible are you bias free from one's own eisegesis?

Why do you fall into the fallacy argument that "we" are alone interpreting the bible? I do have a church you know. We do have folks with the gift of teaching.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Here are the biblical requirements for the office of apostle:

1. The person must be a witness of the life of the Lord and be able to testify about Christ and His resurrection from personal knowledge (actual witness). (John 15:27, Acts 1:21-22, 1 Cor. 9:1, Acts 22:14-15).

2. They must have been immediately called to that office by Christ. (Luke 6:13, Gal. 1:1).

3. It is essential that they should be infallibly inspired. (John 14:26, 16:13, 1 Thess. 2:13).

4. The qualification of the power of working miracles. (Acts 2:43, 1 Cor. 12:8-11).

Based of the above, the apostles, therefore, could not have successors to their office. The office of apostles ceased when John died.

Would you consider that Silas and Timothy fit this criteria?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Your denomination also has different interpretations of scripture. Arius and Nestorius were simply debunked because their arguments were not biblical.

I wouldn't say that Arianism and Nestorianism were "simply" debunked. Arianism persisted almost 100 years, while Nestorianism (and monophysitism which is related) was very influential and persisted for quite some time as well.

100 years seems like a long time to 'simply' thumb through scripture and point someone to the correct verse.

 

[Standing Up]

Would you consider that Silas and Timothy fit this criteria?

Apostle had to be, amongst other things, an eyewitness of the risen Christ.

Timothy, Silas, and others don't fit the definition.

The office of apostle (as defined) is over. Again, Jesus commented about the prophets from Abel to John the Baptist, and NT from James to John the Revelator.

 

[Standing Up]

I wouldn't say that Arianism and Nestorianism were "simply" debunked. Arianism persisted almost 100 years, while Nestorianism (and monophysitism which is related) was very influential and persisted for quite some time as well.

100 years seems like a long time to 'simply' thumb through scripture and point someone to the correct verse.

You're right. It was an ongoing issue.

 

[Standing Up]

How did the Fathers "allowed scripture to interpret scripture" if they collectively made descisions on their own exegesis on doctrinal questions? if you are alone interpreting the Bible are you bias free from one's own eisegesis?

To what Tradition did they point to prove Arius wrong?

 

[Montalban]

Your denomination also has different interpretations of scripture.

Yes, scripture alone is not a proper guide

Arius and Nestorius were simply debunked because their arguments were not biblical.

Interesting in light of your previous statement.

So we have a biblical interpretation, but they didn't?

Cool

But Nestoirus did argue from scripture. Sorry,

 

[Philothei]

Your denomination also has different interpretations of scripture. Arius and Nestorius were simply debunked because their arguments were not biblical.

That took a while to "debunk" as unbiblical...for that is when the councils decideed and weighted etc. They were pretty much biblical indeed... they were opinions on the Bible, just like any SS can also do.

 

[Philothei]

Apostle had to be, amongst other things, an eyewitness of the risen Christ.

Timothy, Silas, and others don't fit the definition.

The office of apostle (as defined) is over. Again, Jesus commented about the prophets from Abel to John the Baptist, and NT from James to John the Revelator.

That would exclude then Luke and Paul right?