Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?

[Ortho_Cat]

It becomes funny at points, for instance,.

That's the requirement taught by our apostle for being considered a part of the body of Christ, but watch how many institutionalized Christians throw up something else considered tradition to try and defeat this clear teaching from Paul.

hmmm just that one requirement, eh? Is that the only one? Did he not provide any further clarification, explanation about what the body of Christ or the Church is? Hmm...too bad I guess

 

[ARBITER01]

hmmm just that one requirement, eh? Is that the only one? Did he not provide any further clarification, explanation about what the body of Christ or the Church is? Hmm...too bad I guess

Do you agree with that teaching of Paul's or not?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

It can be shown that apostolic succession is the only legitimate alternative

I'd like for you document that: namely:


1. Apostolic Succession is more inspired by God, more inerrant, more reliable, more objectively knowable and more ecumenically embraced (say by 50,000 denominations) , more historical (say to 1400 BC), than is Scripture.


2. That the disputed doctrines among us can be held up to the light of Apostolic Succession in a way more objective than to Scripture.


3. That Apostolic Succession is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable to all (more than black and white words all can read), MORE ecumenically embrace (more than by 50,000 denominations), MORE historically embraced (before 1400 BC when Scripture first was) than is Scripture. Please document that for us.



I'm more than curious how you would present that...



And I'd be more than curious to see how you even define Apostolic Succession for this: If it is people being appointed by other people - then I have Apostolic Succession and I'm part of this rule/canon you are presenting. If it's a view taught by the 13 Apostles, then how is that different than Sola Scriptura since the only objective, knowable, ecumenically embraced "place" where that teaching is recorded is in the NT (all you've done is eliminate at least 45 books from the rule of Scripture - leaving us with only the 13 books of Paul, 5 books of John, 2 of Peter and 1 of Matthew - now mandating that we can prove those ARE the penmen of those books and that the Apostles are more reliable than God).



Please do what you suggest. Show why Apostolic Succession is the most sound norma normans in norming and how it better meets the criteria than does Scripture - being MORE inspired, reliable, knowable, ecumenically embraced, etc. I'll see how you address those points, I'm VERY curious how you'd do that!!!!!! Beware: the Catholics will oppose that one, too - unless it is limited to it's OWN clergy who are upholding the teachings of the RCC. All Protestants will reject it too, not because they reject accountability (the RCC's problem) but because we don't regard man as above God.



Thank you! I await this with MUCH anticipation!






.

 

[MrPolo]

That's the requirement taught by our apostle for being considered a part of the body of Christ, but watch how many institutionalized Christians throw up something else considered tradition to try and defeat this clear teaching from Paul.

What church teaches tradition is the way to become part of the body of Christ instead of baptism?
I for one fully agree with Paul. So does the Catholic Church passing on that teaching:
CCC#1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ.

 

[GandolftheWhite]

.





I'd like for you document that: namely:


1. Apostolic Succession is more inspired by God, more inerrant, more reliable, more objectively knowable and more ecumenically embraced (say by 50,000 denominations) , more historical (say to 1400 BC), than is Scripture.


2. That the disputed doctrines among us can be held up to the light of Apostolic Succession in a way more objective than to Scripture.


3. That Apostolic Succession is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable to all (more than black and white words all can read), MORE ecumenically embrace (more than by 50,000 denominations), MORE historically embraced (before 1400 BC when Scripture first was) than is Scripture. Please document that for us.



I'm more than curious how you would present that...



And I'd be more than curious to see how you even define Apostolic Succession for this: If it is people being appointed by other people - then I have Apostolic Succession and I'm part of this rule/canon you are presenting. If it's a view taught by the 13 Apostles, then how is that different than Sola Scriptura since the only objective, knowable, ecumenically embraced "place" where that teaching is recorded is in the NT (all you've done is eliminate at least 45 books from the rule of Scripture - leaving us with only the 13 books of Paul, 5 books of John, 2 of Peter and 1 of Matthew - now mandating that we can prove those ARE the penmen of those books and that the Apostles are more reliable than God).



Please do what you suggest. Show why Apostolic Succession is the most sound norma normans in norming and how it better meets the criteria than does Scripture - being MORE inspired, reliable, knowable, ecumenically embraced, etc. I'll see how you address those points, I'm VERY curious how you'd do that!!!!!! Beware: the Catholics will oppose that one, too - unless it is limited to it's OWN clergy who are upholding the teachings of the RCC. All Protestants will reject it too, not because they reject accountability (the RCC's problem) but because we don't regard man as above God.



Thank you! I await this with MUCH anticipation!






.

Lutherans
Baptist
Pentacostals all use Sola Scripturea as it's Norm correct? Sola Scriptura is the ONLY WAY to know and learn and live from the Faith correct?

So if using only the bible as the final rule of Faith to assert doctrine then why various degrees of beliefs. Let take a look

Baptism-

Lutherans infants allowed, God grants his Grace on to the person and becomes a member of the Body of Christ . Sacramental ( I agree 100% by the way)

Pentacostal and Baptist - Infants rejected / only someone of age of reason . Symbolic act of obiedance after one has accepted Christ as their Personal Savior. Not sacremental.

Eucharist/Communion

Lutherans - It IS the body and blood of Christ. sacramental

Pentacostals and Baptist - symbolic act of obiedence, bread is still the bread, the wine (or should I say the Welch's grape juice) still remains the Welch's Grape juice. not sacramental


Speaking in Tongues

Lutherans - not practiced
Baptists - Pretty fully rejected for todays times
Pentacostals - Fully embraced and the sign of being batized in the Holy Spirit (it is sacramental in way to them)


So if we are going to use Scripture as THE Final authority when ruling over what is the right doctrine on just these three things. ( though they are many many others but 3 just to illustrate)

who is right according to Scripture ALONE?

thanks

 

[sunlover1]

who is right according to Scripture ALONE?

thanks

None, we ALL see only in part.. NONE of us (including you) can see in full yet.

 

[GandolftheWhite]

None, we ALL see only in part.. NONE of us (including you) can see in full yet.

while I agree with you in essance they we will do not see in full yet. But there has to be a right way or a wrong way in the three examples I gave.

The first two were institued by Christ, do you think the Apostles disagreed on what was meant by the Eucharist and Baptism? do you think half thought it symbolic and the other half thought it sacramental

I don't.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

while I agree with you in essance they we will do not see in full yet. But there has to be a right way or a wrong way in the three examples I gave.

The first two were institued by Christ, do you think the Apostles disagreed on what was meant by the Eucharist and Baptism? do you think half thought it symbolic and the other half thought it sacramental

I don't.

And further, did God intend for us not to know the true meaning of the baptism and the eucharist after it had been revealed to the apostles, and after they were instructed to teach others the same?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Do you agree with that teaching of Paul's or not?

Of course, but it is one verse among many. I in no way think it is a full exposition on what becoming a member of the body of Christ means, as you assert.

 

[sunlover1]

while I agree with you in essance they we will do not see in full yet. But there has to be a right way or a wrong way in the three examples I gave.

The first two were institued by Christ, do you think the Apostles disagreed on what was meant by the Eucharist and Baptism? do you think half thought it symbolic and the other half thought it sacramental

I don't.

I don't think that they disagreed on what was meant by communion...
dunno.
They did have some confusion over baptism...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I don't think that they disagreed on what was meant by communion...
dunno.
They did have some confusion over baptism...

when and where? (i.e. chapter, verse...)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Lutherans
Baptist
Pentacostals all use Sola Scripturea as it's Norm correct?

You describe an EXTREMELY diverse group (some Pentecostals, for example, are not Trinitarians, etc.) - so I can't answer for the whole group. I really can't make a sweeping declaration about a whole faith groups or whether they or all in them use the Rule of Scripture in norming.

Sola Scriptura is the ONLY WAY to know and learn and live from the Faith correct?

No.

Baptism-

Lutherans infants allowed, God grants his Grace on to the person and becomes a member of the Body of Christ . Sacramental ( I agree 100% by the way)

Pentacostal and Baptist - Infants rejected / only someone of age of reason . Symbolic act of obiedance after one has accepted Christ as their Personal Savior. Not sacremental.

Again, I wouldn't make a sweeping generality that all of them use Scripture as the Rule.

AT MOST what you MIGHT be alluding to is that not all that use the norm arbitrate issues identically according. Of course. The same is true with the Rule of Law. Not everyone embracing the Rule of Law necessarily arbitrates every situtation identically according to that Rule. But, of course, you are talking about arbitration - a different issue for another day and thread.

So if we are going to use Scripture as THE Final authority when ruling over what is the right doctrine on just these three things. ( though they are many many others but 3 just to illustrate) who is right according to Scripture ALONE?

I'm not sure you're talking about the Rule of Scripture? I'm just not sure...

Of course, not ALL are going to arbitrate the issue identically according to the same rule. I know of no situation where that's ever the case with any rule. My field is scientific research, generally we use math and observable laborative experimentation as our rule. There are HUGE debates as to whether a particular position is or is not normed correct by that rule. But it would be MUCH, MUCH worse (to the point of being entirely moot) if we didn't have a COMMON, fairly objective/knowable/unalterable rule and norm. I don't think anyone has argued that human arbitration is inerrant - even if the rule is. But it's better to have an inerrant rule than no rule at all or to simply excuse self alone from any accountability by any norm in any arbitration. For to limit all such arbitration to self alone for self alone insisting that self alone can't be wrong anyway.


READ the opening post here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[GandolftheWhite]

You describe an EXTREMELY diverse group (some Pentecostals, for example, are not Trinitarians, etc.) - so I can't answer for the whole group. I really can't make a sweeping declaration about a whole faith groups or whether they or all in them use the Rule of Scripture in norming.




No. Not at all. It has nothing to do with that.





Again, I wouldn't make a sweeping generality that all of them use Scripture as the Rule.

AT MOST what you MIGHT be alluding to is that not all that use the norm arbitrate issues identically according. Of course. The same is true with the Rule of Law. Not everyone embracing the Rule of Law necessarily arbitrates every situtation identically according to that Rule. But, of course, you are talking about arbitration - a different issue for another day and thread.





I'm not sure you're talking about the Rule of Scripture? I'm just not sure...

Of course, not ALL are going to arbitrate the issue identically according to the same rule. I know of no situation where that's ever the case with any rule. My field is scientific research, generally we use math and observable laborative experimentation as our rule. There are HUGE debates as to whether a particular position is or is not normed correct by that rule. But it would be MUCH, MUCH worse (to the point of being entirely moot) if we didn't have a COMMON, fairly objective/knowable/unalterable rule and norm. I don't think anyone has argued that human arbitration is inerrant - even if the rule is. But it's better to have an inerrant rule than no rule at all or to simply excuse self alone from any accountability by any norm in any arbitration. For to limit all such arbitration to self alone for self alone insisting that self alone can't be wrong anyway.


READ the opening post here:


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

hmmm I think you may be missing my thought. sorry about that

I wasn't asking you to make a general sweeping assertion about other Christian Faiths

what I was asking you is when using Scripture Alone to determine doctrine where do we go when we all don't agree on the intrepretation of scripture

for example I'm becoming a minister and I'm starting my own congragation along with a couple of people. I use Sola Scriptura to determine my doctrine and as my Final Authority. Now I say that we should allow for infants to be baptised, my fellow person starting this congragaton says No, only at of an age of reason.

and again we go on, I would like our doctrined concerning Communion to be that is is the Body and Blood of Christ and it is indeed Sacramental. My fellow person says "No, it's only a memorial symbolic Act."

Now we are both turning to Scripture to be the Final Authority but alas we are still at the same stumbling block. When this happens using Sola Scriptura , where should we turn to solve our stumbling blocks on interpratation?

 

[GandolftheWhite]

ahhh your first statement in your response says it all and is the crux of the matter of Sola Scriptura not being totally accepted.

You have three Christian Faiths that all use Sola Scriptura as the rule of Faith but yet as you described they are EXTREMELY diverse.

Now if all are using Sola Scriptura and you are coming up with different intrepretations, where do we turn. How can Sola Scriptura work when something as basic as Baptism is pulled in every direction Is it sacramental? Is it Symbolic? Do we even need it at all? What do you turn to?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I don't think that they disagreed on what was meant by communion...
dunno.
They did have some confusion over baptism...

hmm i don't see Acts 19 as evidence that the apostles disagreed on the nature of baptism, is that verse you were thinking of?

 

[ARBITER01]

Of course, but it is one verse among many. I in no way think it is a full exposition on what becoming a member of the body of Christ means, as you assert.

Sorry, but there are not opposing truths in scripture, it is very basic,..

1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Jesus said that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit, when he talked to Nicodemus about being born again, and in that scripture section, Paul states the requirement of "For in one Spirit," the same as what Jesus required.

It is a work of GOD, and without that Spiritual immersion, a person is not one of His, no matter what they claim.

That is the only thing required to be one of the body of Christ.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Sorry, but there are not opposing truths in scripture, it is very basic,..

Jesus said that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit, when he talked to Nicodemus about being born again, and in that scripture section, Paul states the requirement of "For in one Spirit," the same as what Jesus required.

It is a work of GOD, and without that Spiritual immersion, a person is not one of His, no matter what they claim.

That is the only thing required to be one of the body of Christ.

I'm not saying anything is contradicting. Let me use another example. It's kind of like saying "all there is to salvation is John 3:16". Sure, this verse talks about salvation, but there are many other verses which do as well. You have to take all the verses concerning Christ's body into account (and of course understand them in their proper context).

 

[ARBITER01]

I'm not saying anything is contradicting. Let me use another example. It's kind of like saying "all there is to salvation is John 3:16". Sure, this verse talks about salvation, but there are many other verses which do as well. You have to take all the verses concerning Christ's body into account (and of course understand them in their proper context).

I agree with context, but we will not see any of the apostles disagreeing with Jesus and what He described as the born again birth. He contrasted the difference between flesh and Spirit, and the statement from Paul highlights a Spiritual birth into the body of Christ, which does agree with what Jesus stated.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

what I was asking you is when using Scripture Alone to determine doctrine where do we go when we all don't agree on the intrepretation of scripture

... assuming the disputed dogma is the result SOLELY of disagreement of which legit existing meaning of the actual word(s) in the text is the ONE meaning that is meant, assuming THAT, then it would go to arbitration - exactly as I explained to you.


The rest of your post - with the focus on "authority" and "interpretation" (as well as your interjection of the issue of arbitration) suggests your lack of understanding as to what the practice of the Rule of Scripture is. I suggest that you read the post you quoted from me. Also, that you READ the opening post here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ Read them. Together, they will help you very much, I'm sure.






.

 

[sunlover1]

hmm i don't see Acts 19 as evidence that the apostles disagreed on the nature of baptism, is that verse you were thinking of?

I said that there was some confusion...
(Is that the citation i suggested in my rep note?
if so yeah. color me lazy .. spring break has begun!)