• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

Status
Not open for further replies.

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
ALL the books of the Bible were in use before the Bible was ever compiled! Not sure why this significant point gets glossed over

As was the Didache and the Epistle of Clement.

When Ignatius wrote his epistles they used them too.

Etc.
 
Upvote 0
P

Publius

Guest
That is missing the point.

Go back to being a Christian in the year 200. The Aposles are dead.

There is no bible

Someone gives you an Epistle to read.

How do you know it's genuine?

Do I have a reason to suspect that it's not? Do I have a reason to believe that the Church you insist will not be led into error is deceived?
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,800
1,310
✟478,340.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Was this before or after Peter yielded to the strength of Paul's position?

Peter is who receives the vision and direct orchestration from God that the Gentiles are not to be seen as 'unclean', through vision and the encounter with Cornelius. Paul isn't around.

Peter alone makes the decision to baptize the first Gentiles without first requiring them to be circumcised. Paul isn't around.

Paul is not who established this 'position'. It was God, working through Peter, and the strength of the position is God's, not Paul.

Paul rightly gets a little perturbed with Peter when he refuses to directly take on James' group in Antioch. That will change in Jerusalem.

In Acts 15, James and his party are unmoved by the testimony of Paul and Barnabas, and still insist the Gentiles must be circumcised.

Only when Peter takes the floor and speaks is the debate silenced, and James concedes -- up to that point in time he has been an adamant proponent of requiring circumcision. He cites Peter's testimony, not Paul's in making his decision.

You were saying?
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,800
1,310
✟478,340.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And "somehow" they accepted information about the Nazarene that could not be verified or normed in the OT (the the person Jesus Christ actually did these things that fulfilled the prophecy) which removes them from being sola-scriptura.

Please read again:

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Their being more noble is not because they examined the Scriptures. It is because they received Paul's oral testimony about the person of Jesus Christ (which is not found in Scripture), contrary to the Thessalonians.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,800
1,310
✟478,340.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
ALL the books of the Bible were in use before the Bible was ever compiled! Not sure why this significant point gets glossed over

That would not be true. The book of Revelation found much resistance across the church as being accepted as Scripture and was only fully accepted in the western church when the NT was actually canonized in 397, and in the Eastern church it was even later than that.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Try again.

Acts 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Everyone agrees the apostles spoke first and then wrote it down.

When the Bereans heard the message, they checked the OT.

When we hear the message, we may check both the OT and NT.
 
Upvote 0

Kepha

Veteran
Feb 3, 2005
1,946
113
Canada
✟25,219.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Try again.

Acts 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
So why the need of a council when the many Christians of that day had the Holy Spirit to guide and interpret the OT for themselves individually? Where are the non-denom's councils of today if such a dispute arises?
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So why the need of a council when the many Christians of that day had the Holy Spirit to guide and interpret the OT for themselves individually? Where are the non-denom's councils of today if such a dispute arises?

Councils have met for 2,000 years. Not all Christians bind themselves to all their decisions, eh?
 
Upvote 0

Kepha

Veteran
Feb 3, 2005
1,946
113
Canada
✟25,219.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Councils have met for 2,000 years. Not all Christians bind themselves to all their decisions, eh?
You never answered. Why the need for even one binding council on sola Scripture folks who've already accepted Christ and thereby believe they're being lead by the Holy Spirit when they interpret? And in today's world, how do the non denoms like yourself settle important doctrinal disputes when such matters arise? Certainly the Apostles knew this would happen so if you suggest that self + Holy Spirit is all we have along with some 'possible' suggestions from others where self + Holy Spirit would once again have to discern the truth, what makes you better than NT Christians where they actually needed a Council and you don't.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

You may ask yourself the same question.

Folks keep begging the question about which group continues to be led by the Spirit, which group is the One True Church, which group schismed? How do we know?

It's not enough for some of us to simply hear the continued assumption without any proof. In fact, we have proof to the contrary about some things. We also have scripture. And I have agreed to use first reference tradition. The problem I'm finding is folks who say they abide scripture and tradition, don't. They abide developed tradition over 2000 years and maybe scripture.

So, I'm all for elders getting together and coming to an agreement. What tools did the very early church use? Scripture. First tradition tied to apostles.
 
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,546
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That is missing the point.

Go back to being a Christian in the year 200. The Aposles are dead.

There is no bible

Someone gives you an Epistle to read.

How do you know it's genuine?

C'mon, surely you know this is a red herring.

In 200 you aren't "given an Epistle to read." You go to Church, where you hear an Epistle read; otherwise you either have no contact with any of the NT, or you are a very special person indeed.

And then you either believe the Church, or you don't. And no you can't get away with conflating that with what "tradition" has come to be in our day and age.
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,546
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Do you dodge the question because you are embarrassed by the answer, or some other reason?
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,546
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And "somehow" they accepted information about the Nazarene that could not be verified or normed in the OT (the the person Jesus Christ actually did these things that fulfilled the prophecy) which removes them from being sola-scriptura.

This is the end of rational discussion. Again, I might as well take a RC concept like "praying to Mary," and willfully distort it into what it is not, and then assert that to be what you claim.

This is exactly what you have done here.
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,546
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

This was answered in the post directly preceeding
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Well, the same rules aren't being applied. I said that this way---I've agreed to use first-mention tradition, but what I'm finding is that first tradition does not match later tradition that groups claim to use. There's numerous examples of pick and choose and development.

That's how I understand it. The church quit using the same rules. In fact, the definition of apostolic succession changed from ... to ... , well we're not here to discuss this again. The church quit using the same rules.
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is the end of rational discussion. Again, I might as well take a RC concept like "praying to Mary," and willfully distort it into what it is not, and then assert that to be what you claim.

This is exactly what you have done here.
I knew it wasn't just me.
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,546
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
John10:27:My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Same with other writings that have been mentioned in this thread. Sure, they could be used, even in Church. Yet they don't even come close to the same quality as what we call Scripture, and it's really obvious.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.