Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[sunlover1]

The ones "I've been shown" were not "shown" but claimed ...

Aha.
Well then there you go.

I'm not asking you to defend your faith.

I don't mind defending my faith.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
I'm not asking you to defend your faith.

I don't mind defending my faith.

As my bro Pete says:

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Rotherham) 1 Peter 3:15 But the Lord Christ hallow ye in your hearts, ready always for a defence unto every one that is asking you a reason concerning the hope within you,--nevertheless, with meekness and reverence:

Hmm....I just noticed other versions use "God" in that verse

Young) 1 Peter 3:15 and the Lord God sanctify in your hearts. And [be] ready always for defence to every one who is asking of you an account concerning the hope that [is] in you, with meekness and fear;


Textus Rec.)
1 Peter 3:15 kurion de ton qeon agiasate en taiV kardiaiV umwn etoimoi de aei proV apologian panti tw aitounti umaV logon peri thV en umin elpidoV meta prauthtoV kai fobou

W-H )
1 Peter 3:15 kurion de ton criston agiasate en taiV kardiaiV umwn etoimoi aei proV apologian panti tw aitounti umaV logon peri thV en umin elpidoV alla meta prauthtoV kai fobou

 

[Philothei]

The mother of a friend is a self-professed Apostle and Prophet - who (with some regularity) receives revelations from God. She is also a Penteocostal minister (but has never had a church) and quite internet able. She sends out the divine revelations she receives and (for reasons entirely unknown to me), I'm on her long email notification list. Since she claims that God speaks to her, ergo He does- and this then is the final rule/norm for the evaluation of doctrines? Or can this be done only by you or your denomination?





.

In either answer it is the tradition of men for her prophecy and the "evaluation" so what is your point then?

 

[Kristos]

Sure but how do we discern that it is indeed God talking?

prayer and fasting.

 

[Standing Up]

But have you read the ECFs you claim disagree ?
What were the disagreements you found in the writings of the ECFs you have read ?

If I may jump in, a simple one is Tertullian who said, if you teach the same as apostles, you are apostolic. IOW, let's say the Lutheran group does not trace a physical line of ministers back to an apostle, yet, they teach the same as apostles. Therefore Lutherans are apostolic.

 

[Standing Up]

Biblical prophets were used by God to bring in new revelation and prophesy. My usage of prophets pertained to fore-telling versus forth-telling. I am sorry that I was not specific. None of the ECFs and subsequent theologians claim fore-telling. All are forth-telling what has already been told from their perspectives. None claim to be inspired and infallible.

It's an interesting "explanation" though. If one thinks that OT type prophets continue, then it's a short walk to NT type apostles continue, and hence, we make develop doctrine such that it looks not at all like scripture or the foundation of apostles and prophets.

 

[sensational]

If I may jump in, a simple one is Tertullian who said, if you teach the same as apostles, you are apostolic. IOW, let's say the Lutheran group does not trace a physical line of ministers back to an apostle, yet, they teach the same as apostles. Therefore Lutherans are apostolic.

It would be great if all teached the same and all agreed. Gnostics claimed that they were teaching the same as the Apostles also. They also used the same scriptures as the CC, this is why Tertullian got so fed up and basically admitted the futility in only using the scriptures to argue against them. You are only presenting one side of Tertullians thought on this subject. In reality we are pretty much in the same position considering the differences by different denominations that all claim to be teaching as the apostles yet hold contradictory beliefs on things as foundational as the Eucharist. BTW, im not comparing maintream Protestants to Gnostics as far as what different denoms have in commom but do think this shows the difficulty prospective Christians face today just as they did probably during the 2nd century. Multiple scriptures as well as multiple interpretations all claiming to be apostolic...

In Christ,
JMS

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The mother of a friend is a self-professed Apostle and Prophet - who (with some regularity) receives revelations from God. She is also a Penteocostal minister (but has never had a church) and quite internet able. She sends out the divine revelations she receives and (for reasons entirely unknown to me), I'm on her long email notification list. Since she claims that God speaks to her, ergo He does- and this then is the final rule/norm for the evaluation of doctrines? Or can this be done only by you or your denomination?

.

In either answer it is the tradition of men for her prophecy and the "evaluation" so what is your point then?

1. I think it is only the "tradition of men" in the LDS that there is new, divine revelation in that sense of Prophet. I think elsewhere, we understand that to have ended in the First Century.


2. My point IS the evaluation. IF I'm right and the poster DOES embrace that truth matters (even just a little bit), then accountability has been embraced and ergo norming - and the issue before us is WHAT best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans for that evaluation. And we're FINALLY approaching the issue of the thread.


3. IF your point is that the views, customs and practices of your denomination ARE the best norm for the evaluation of the views, customs and practices of your denomination - so that if self alone agrees with self alone ergo self is correct - then I disagree with you: your rubric simply mandates that everyone is right (or more likely, exempt from the entire issue of correctness).






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IOW, let's say the Lutheran group does not trace a physical line of ministers back to an apostle, yet, they teach the same as apostles.

NONE can.

Therefore Lutherans are apostolic.

I wouldn't argue with that....





.

 

[Thekla]

Aha.
Well then there you go.

Why do you make the claim ?

I don't mind defending my faith.

I wasn't clear about what you were saying here:

I most likely will refrain from either though since
we all have google and i could make a carreer out
of wild goose chases defending my faith.
Interesting conversations here to be sure.

Sorry !

But I do ask why you make the claim, how you arrived at the idea behind the claim you make, and if you have read the ECFs you evaluate to make the claim ...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Gnostics claimed that they were teaching the same as the Apostles also.

... as does the LDS.

Problem is, there is no confirmation of such since the "teachings" to which are referred don't exist - such is a phantom.

It's VERY easy to say, "Jesus said that I'm the most intelligent man ever to exist" if I don't need to quote Him on that but instead can insist, "He said it - or at least meant to - and I happen to know that." It's an altogether different situation if I need to quote Him on that, from some objective, knowable, reliable source OUTSIDE and ABOVE me (and you)....

Of course, it's all moot if truth just doesn't matter or if self alone exempts self alone from that entire issue - replacing it with the demand of self alone that all just be "quietly, docilicly submissive to self" as unto God.





.

 

[sunlover1]

prayer and fasting.

So can we determine who's interpreting the Bible right the same way?

 

[Dorothea]

Or alternatively, one could assert that no one knows who is right; that is, the true teaching be out there somewhere, but no one can know for sure. A distinction, but one which I think still leads down the same path towards relativism that you mentioned.

Yes.

 

[Thekla]

Sure but how do we discern that it is indeed God talking?

In either case ... (ourselves or others) it is a question of maturity. Of becoming a "friend of God" in the highest sense.

It seems to me that if we say "I hear God speak to me", but cannot say "I hear God speaking through others" then perhaps I have made for myself a "personalized" God.

How do I discern that what I read in the Holy Scriptures is not actually me "reading in then my distortion" ?

Just as when we "hide the Scriptures in our heart", do we hide what God says or our opinion of it ?

 

[Philothei]

1. I think it is only the "tradition of men" in the LDS that there is new, divine revelation in that sense of Prophet. I think elsewhere, we understand that to have ended in the First Century.


2. My point IS the evaluation. IF I'm right and the poster DOES embrace that truth matters (even just a little bit), then accountability has been embraced and ergo norming - and the issue before us is WHAT best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans for that evaluation. And we're FINALLY approaching the issue of the thread.


3. IF your point is that the views, customs and practices of your denomination ARE the best norm for the evaluation of the views, customs and practices of your denomination - so that if self alone agrees with self alone ergo self is correct - then I disagree with you: your rubric simply mandates that everyone is right (or more likely, exempt from the entire issue of correctness).






.

1. what about cults? Do they have a right to their interpretation?
2. what serves? your own individual evalutation just any other orthodox view ...where do you see it normanizing that way...Or we have to study all the epistimology or norming the bible ? I would rather trust the Traditiion of the Chruch and the chruch fathers. They normalized and substantiated everything. Writers like John Chrysostome dedicated their lives examining the sctiptures juxtuposing it...

3.How is your opinion of things normalized by the scripture at best any different? Man interprets scripture that is common to both methods. You cannot escape "man" he is the one who wrote the Bible (through d. inspiration) and the one who interpreting it also with divine revelation. If it was not for the council to decide for the canon like the Op claims then there would not even be a canon to "normalize".(?)

 

[Dorothea]

That's what he said, He said we have Scripture.
GOD's words... THE truth
(Thy word O God is truth)
We got it, yes, we DO have the truth which
was revealed to us by God!

You and others still have not answered this question of relativism. Your comments here sound like relativism. You have evaded the main issue here. That those who say people interpret Scriptures differently and that's fine is basically saying, imo, that there is not absolute Truth that Christ - who is the Truth - passed down in His teaching. You keep saying the Scriptures, the Scriptures. Yes, the Scriptures are recorded accounts of their experiences with Christ God and the revelation of His being the Son of God. Still, there are many teachings in which Christ gave His people that have today and throughout history differed in their understandings of what those teachings truly mean. For example, the two main commandments of Baptism and Holy Communion. Just in Protestant groups alone, not all agree on these. So, what would the answer be? What I've been seeing in these threads is basically "well, everyone is able to interepret these passages on their own and come to what is the truth," or how they understand it. So, in other words, every view is accepted as the truth = relativism = NO TRUTH.

I seriously cannot fathom why this is insufficient in your mind.

Because you have not answered this issue on many interpretations, but keep bringing up "read the Scriptures." We all do as Christians. This isn't the point. The point I was trying to make is there is one understanding of the teachings of Christ. Do we have all the answers of God? Nobody does, but is there a group or somebody who is closest to this truth, who does understand the true context and revelation of truth on all His teachings? I think so.

Interesting opinion but seriously, it's not at all a fact.
Especially in light of the fact that they were often at odds
with each other. But we disagree is all. I put no stock in men.
And Scripture says not to go beyond what is written for this
exact reason, that no man be exalted over another (imo)

The scriptures say not to go astray with strange doctrines of men, not the Apostolic tradition. And yes, we ARE to go with also what is not written, according to St. Paul. We are to preserve both oral and written traditions of Christ's teachings through His Apostles. So the ECF's didn't agree on everything. They're not infallible. We got that. But what we see is that they do agree on many important issues, such as the Eucharist. This would tell us this is what Christ truly meant. We look at all of their writings together and compare. We never take one CF's writings and say that's it. This is the point. Truth is found through the consensus of the people of God through the use of all the sources through Holy Tradition. There is not ONE ultimate authority in any. Only CHRIST is the ultimate authority over His Body, as He is the Head.

I look to the Apostles themselves and do not go beyond what is written.
But more than that. I have God's help.

So what do the rest of us have? We don't have the writings of the Apostles or God's help? This does not prove any point, sun. This just says you look at these things as your guide. That's fine, but what about everybody else who does the same, and they come up with different ideas of what particular scriptural verses mean?

Wow, like I said earlier, in part:

And if it's not enough that God dwells inside of us:
We have the Messiah, interceding on our behalf! (Gets better and better baby!)
We have the Written Word of God, lol (oh man God is good!)
We have the assurance that IF any man lack wisdom, He can ask
His Father who WILL give HIm wisdom!!! Glory to God!!
We have the ability to hear the very voice of GOD! (His sheep be blessed man!)
We have...promises and we have God speaking to us, and we have an unction
from the Holy one and we have been given everything we could need for life and godliness..

Like it says in the Bible,
He's given us all we need for life and godliness..
And aint THAT the truth!

God is more than a book. He is experienced. The Bible shows us how to live the life, not just read about it, as I'm sure you know.

The point is, yes, we have God in us to guide us. And if we allow Him to do so, which is difficult for all of us who constantly stumble over our own egos/pride, He would lead us all to the same understanding. This hasn't happened, has it?


PS: I'm edgy today. If I came off kinda rough, it's because this Lent is really testing me. God bless.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Or alternatively, one could assert that no one knows who is right; that is, the true teaching be out there somewhere, but no one can know for sure. A distinction, but one which I think still leads down the same path towards relativism that you mentioned.

1. I agree, although I'm not too sure that's worse than, "I alone am right cuz I alone agree with I alone and I alone assert that I alone am right." Nor that it is better than, "Truth only matters for every OTHER teacher - in the sole, individual, exclusive case of ME alone the only thing that matters is the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER that I alone claim that I alone have and the demand that I alone make that all just be in docilic submission to ME as unto God Himself."


2. There is a third alternative: "This is a matter precious to my faith - but not an issue I proclaim as a divisive, binding, dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty as I currently articulate it." As you probably know, a significant aspect of what divides the RCC from Protestants is not that we view it WRONG or HERETICAL to believe that Mary was Assumed into Heaven upon Her death or undeath but rather whether such is DOGMA (to use just one example), the issue is often not JUST the teaching but it's STATUS. My Lutheran pastor believes that Mary never once had sex. He admits many Lutheran pastors hold that She probably did. And, according to him, most agree with me - holding no view at all on that. Often believed? Yes! DOGMA? No. Sometimes, it seems to ME, it's okay to say, "I don't fully KNOW, my mind is not superior to God's and I can't explain all the ways and thoughts of God - and if you don't cross your "t's" and dot your "i's" exactly like me - you are apostate, heretical and likely headed for hell - let's light a match and light up the night with your flames" (to put it dramatically, lol).... Humility. It is not necessarily the same as relativism, IMO. But I don't want to derail this subject.


The issue before us HERE is whether truth matters in Christian dogma - even just a tiny bit. IF it does, then accountability is embraced, norming entered, and the issue before us is WHAT serves as the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation. THAT is the sole issue of the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura).






.

 

[Dorothea]

Hmmmmm.. Why do you keep asking me this over and over and over?
I mean, I can keep saying the same answer but why?
Do you find it so hard to believe that someone can read the same book
and get (SOMEWHAT) different takes?
Happens with the Bible, happens with the law books
happens with the writings of the Early Christians..
Or do you disbelieve me, or .. am I not giving a clear
response? Or do you believe I am wrong?

Multiple choice lol.

See, this is what I mean! Reading this looks as if any view is correct and there is no absolute truth revealed in Christ's teachings in the Bible. This is relativism and will dangerously lead someone towards secular humanism. Be careful, sun.

We do not believe that there are many acceptable truths, but one. One God, one truthful teaching.

 

[Dorothea]

Aha.
Well then there you go.


I don't mind defending my faith.

So, you do not know what the ECF's disagreed on? You just have read that they did. Is this what you're saying by not answering Thekla?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. I think it is only the "tradition of men" in the LDS that there is new, divine revelation in that sense of Prophet. I think elsewhere, we understand that to have ended in the First Century.


2. My point IS the evaluation. IF I'm right and the poster DOES embrace that truth matters (even just a little bit), then accountability has been embraced and ergo norming - and the issue before us is WHAT best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans for that evaluation. And we're FINALLY approaching the issue of the thread.


3. IF your point is that the views, customs and practices of your denomination ARE the best norm for the evaluation of the views, customs and practices of your denomination - so that if self alone agrees with self alone ergo self is correct - then I disagree with you: your rubric simply mandates that everyone is right (or more likely, exempt from the entire issue of correctness).






.

1. what about cults? Do they have a right to their interpretation?

1. I think you are entirely confusing the embraced rule in norming with the issues of hermeneutics and arbitration.


2. From MY studies, the cults are quite united in designating SELF as the sole, infallible/unaccountable, "authoritative" (powerful) interpreter of Scripture - as self alone "sees" it. Compare with The Catholic Catechism # 85, 87 and 113. But again, you seem to be entirely confusing 3 different issues: hermeneutics, arbitration and norming. This thread is about WHAT is embraced as the rule in norming.

2. what serves? your own individual evalutation

1. You seem to be imputing to me the EO, RC, LDS insistence that self be the only permitted interpreter and arbiter. I don't embrace the individualistic and institutional/denominational paradigm.


2. While I don't entirely refute that there IS, in practice, an individual determination (after all, I changed from Catholic to Lutheran - ANY here that have EVER changed their view or their denomination or EVER joined a denomination must admit SOME level of individual arbitration), but saying "this makes sense to ME" is not the same as "This is Truth." Again, I don't embrace your very individualistic and denominational model.

3.How is your opinion of things normalized by the scripture at best any different?

Self looking in the mirror at self to see if self looks like self is not the same as all being acccountable to an objective, knowable, unalterable, reliable Rule OUTSIDE and ABOVE all - as arbitrated not by self alone.

You cannot escape "man" he is the one who wrote the Bible

Moot. Man also wrote the US Constitution and yet it may serve as the Rule in those issues (it's called The Rule of Law). You may not regard the center line painted in the road to have been placed there directly by God (and thus be infallible) to determine it's sound to stay on the right hand side of that line while driving (under normal conditions in the USA).

But that point is MOOT here. It is virtually ecumenical that GOD is the Author of His Scriptures - thus is (to say the LEAST) reliable. Certainly sufficient for this purpose.

Read this, especially the sections "Why Scripture?" and "Why the Rule of Scripture is Rejected by Some?" http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/





Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah






.