Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Standing Up]

Note carefully what I said, I did not say that the apostolic office itself continued. I said that the office of the bishops (the highest authority after the apostes) took it's place with regards to preservance of church doctrine and teaching, and were commissioned by the apostles to do so and continue teaching other's the same.

Paul to Timothy:

2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

So, what's the problem? That the bishops at times do not teach the same as can be tied to apostles? Or that they have the authority to do so anyway?

 

[Thekla]

Since Montalban can't, could you provide the tradition sources that supported Arius' claim?

There weren't.

 

[Standing Up]

My point is that the first bishops were appointed by and succeeded the apostles, and that this succession continues today.

What does that mean though? Even c112ad there was a formed custom that was substituted for an apostolic teaching, let alone what developed over 2000 years.

Besides, other ECFs acknowledged that what mattered was the same teaching as apostles, NOT the fact of succsession per se.

What's your point?

 

[Standing Up]

There weren't.

Ok, can you provide the tradition sources that disproved him?

 

[Standing Up]

Actually, there are at least four different scriptural canons in use today in the Christian world.

Some only have 22 books, others more; some missing books that are in the 27, some use books that are not in the 27.

Which group has the inspired collection?

Don't all Christians agree on the 27 of the NT, but not the books of the OT?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

'Tis ok, I don't know what the sign of the Cross has to do with President Obama, either....

Good, then perhaps you get my point.

See if you can stick to the subject.



.

 

[Hentenza]

Again, I did not say that it 'replaced' the apostles, such as 'fulfilling' the roles of the apostles. The bishops merely carried on the jurisdictional duties of taking care of the flock and ensuring correct teaching.

Sure but they are not apostles and there is no succession list that "legally" proves that one is worthy.

That's good, but if you do not have a historical connection to the source, don't you have to wonder if something got lost somewhere between the first century and now?

Brother, I have a historical connection. I follow the teachings of the apostles.

 

[Hentenza]

Absolutely why we can't go SS

Yeah, instead lets go with thousands of competing "T"raditions.

 

[laconicstudent]

Good, then perhaps you get my point.

No.

See if you can stick to the subject.

I'm not the one bringing up President Obama in a thread on theology.

.

??

 

[Steve Petersen]

Don't all Christians agree on the 27 of the NT, but not the books of the OT?

No.

 

[Montalban]

Yeah, instead lets go with thousands of competing "T"raditions.

Yes, I know your argument is "We're unable to prove ourselves, so let's try the same on you guys"

You've repeated this several times

 

[Montalban]

Since Montalban can't, could you provide the tradition sources that supported Arius' claim?

You've already convinced countless others that Arianism was based on the Bible. And that tradition safeguarded the truth.

You should quit while you're ahead.

 

[Standing Up]

You've already convinced countless others that Arianism was based on the Bible. And that tradition safeguarded the truth.

You should quit while you're ahead.

You should read the other thread about it.

From what I see, they both argued from scripute, but no tradition either way. The ones with the whole of scripture prevailed over the singular verse selections in much the same way that the devil said, it is written, and Christ said, it is written and you've misunderstood the whole council of God as revealed in scripture.

PS. You also should know that Arianism arose at the time when the bread change and office of priest became the norm. IOW, with the bread there was a time when Christ was not, then He is. See the connection between the two false teachings?

 

[Standing Up]

No.

Forgot about the OO's.

 

[Thekla]

The Tradition was in maintaining what was received understanding; Scripture was used as evidence of what was received (Tradition) and Scripture was used as evidence to support the heretical teachings of Arius.

That those in accord with the received understanding used Scripture should not be surprising, and it is not evidence of Sola Scriptura. Recall, both sides used the same Scripture.

Arius used Scripture, wrested away from Tradition - and ended up, through his own intellect, in heresy.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

No.

Well, so much for that...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Forgot about the OO's.

That's 50 million Christians...and not only the OO's differ in their canon.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So, what's the problem? That the bishops at times do not teach the same as can be tied to apostles? Or that they have the authority to do so anyway?

Those are both problems, which is why we have more than one bishop to preserve the faith. Sometimes a bishop needs to be replaced of course. Even all of Jesus 12 apostles weren't good.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

You should read the other thread about it.

From what I see, they both argued from scripute, but no tradition either way. The ones with the whole of scripture prevailed over the singular verse selections in much the same way that the devil said, it is written, and Christ said, it is written and you've misunderstood the whole council of God as revealed in scripture.

PS. You also should know that Arianism arose at the time when the bread change and office of priest became the norm. IOW, with the bread there was a time when Christ was not, then He is. See the connection between the two false teachings?

What exactly are you asking for with regards to the condemnation of Arianism besides the council decision? I think if you read the history on it you will see that there are many theological nuances discussed; the answers to which are not expressly contained in scripture. Of course the decision won't contradict scripture, because it is the truth. Truth tends to be consistent...

Arianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uh, Arius was born in 250 AD, the proper understanding of the episcopate and the eucharist outside of scripture was expressed as early as 80 AD by St. Clement:

Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

 

[Standing Up]

That's 50 million Christians...and not only the OO's differ in their canon.

Believe they have nuances about doctrines that EO don't agree with. In any event, we all differ on the OT. Which other NT groups did I miss?