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.
How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?
Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"
There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."
Let's try again. I'm not saying that you don't believe in the NT or that it's not Scripture. I did, however, comment on the consequences of the point you made, taking it just as you presented it. If the reference to God's revealed word applies only to the OT, but your own church declares the NT to also be part of Holy Scripture...do you then consider the action of the church to have been in error? If not, then the NT is part of Holy Scripture and the verse applies. You can't have it both ways.That is not the import of what I wrote at all. You made a jump when you said that they were referring to OT but since the Church made NT a part of Holy Scripture, we include that too. I claimed that this is wrong, I did not said I do not believe that NT is not Scripture.
Very well, then let's have an answer and no three legged stool analogies. Just the answer to the question I asked.It is not devolving, you asked a question which I answered. Your question was about why churches who place HT above Scripture also differ.
In short, give me a clear answer as to why God's word is not good enough for us? There is no Scriptural rebuttal. There is no practical rebuttal if what you are promoting in place of SS is even less definitive. So what then? And please do not say, "because my church tells me it is." Mine tells me it's not, so that approach won't get us anywhere....if it's true that many different SS denominations have different doctrines, what do we say about the suggested alternative? There are a number of different churches that utilize Holy Tradition instead of SS and...no two of them agree on doctrine although they all say they followed Tradition. If the Bible isn't good enough, the suggested remedy is even less so!
Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.
That is not true. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until Constantine made it the state religion of Rome (actually founded it as such).Thursday said:It was Catholic tradition because all Christians were Catholic at the time.
The books were selected with the guidance of the Holy Spirit using the Church, it wasn't just administration.
That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.
The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
God Bless
I object to saying the Bible is identical to revelation. As would Karl Barth and numerous other modern Protestant theologians.
First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
The defense of SS is circular logic
As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.
Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31
Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"
With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.
There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."
Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.
Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.
So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how
would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.
This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible.
With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.
With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.
That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.
I suggest you take that up then with the actual definition of the concept. That is where I pulled that from.Not complete. It is the sole rule of faith.
I ask, who told you it is the absolute source of truth? You cannot say the Bible said it is the absolute source of truth, because if all that is needed is a book to say it is true, then I have an ocean to sell you inside the Australian Dessert. The book says it is there.Not quite. If something is the absolute source of truth, it will refer to itself because there is no higher authority onto which to refer to, or that other source would the absolute authority.
Actually, that is how everybody uses it now. If it is not found in the Bible, it is not true. <--- That line is all through-out these forums.Not quite. There are truths found outside the Bible. Sola Scriptura does not say that the Bible is the only source of truth.
You left out a key verse.
2 Timothy 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
A man cannot be "complete" or "equipped" if he does not have all the truth he needs. Scripture is complete.
But Paul never says that traditions override or are equal to scriptures. Sola Scriptura is also not a denial of Apostolic tradition (to say it is, is a complete mischaracterization) , but Apostolic tradition comes secondary to scripture.
The way man misuses scripture is not a refutation of Sola Scriptura. And this same false statement can be used against Roman Catholicism. There are multiple denominations of Roman Catholicism. So using that same logic, if there are many denominations of Roman Catholicism, then there is not one true Roman Catholic church
But the argument will probably be that those are not different denominations.
- the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
- the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church
- the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
- the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
- the Chaldean Catholic Church
- the Coptic Catholic Church, and
- the Armenian Catholic Church
I would never use such an argument. There is only one truth and that is God's truth. There are no denominations in Heaven. And denomination has nothing at all to do with eternal salvation in Jesus Christ.
Assertion without evidence. Why is it impossible that the Bible cannot be used to interpret itself? Defend your assertion.
As previously mentioned, this is a false claim. There are many who claim to be Christians, but are not. There are many who claim to be a denomination of Christianity but are not. This has no effect on the Holy Spirits work or the truth of scripture.
No, the assertion is correct and so is the logical path I took. You have not proved otherwise.This is based on previous false assertion.
No it does not. Interpretation is correctly done by examining the historical, cultural context, the language used, the setting, the principles in the passage, i.e. exegetical principles. Sola Scriptura is not you and your Bible alone in the woods, that is a Straw Man fallacy. Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities in the life of the Christian. But those other authorities must come under the authority of scripture. When an external authority teaches something that is in contradiction with the Bible, the word of God is the deciding factor.
Once again, the assertion is not false and you have no proved otherwise.Again, this is a based on a false assertion that has not be proven. As mentioned previously, how man abuses scripture does not violate the authority and truth of scripture.
Completely based in false hood. Christ never established a Pope. Peter never called himself the Bishop of Rome. Peter never established himself as head of the Church. Christ is the head of the Church, not fallible sinful man.
If Ignatius called it the Catholic church, he was referring to the universal body of believers, not the Roman Catholic church, and certainly not the Roman Catholic church of today that is so completely different from the Roman Catholic church that was founded around 350 AD. There is no Apostolic succession through the Popes, Anti-Popes, Popes put in place by politicial heads, the Pornacracy, multiple Popes, Popes anathemetizing other Popes, and forged documents (the Pseudo-Isadorian Decretals). Popes introducing false doctrines of the Assumption of Mary, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, that the early church fathers knew absolutely nothing of and were not developed until after about 1400 AD in response to the Reformation.
The Canon of Scripture was formed around 250 AD, long before the Roman Catholic church was even thought of. There is not one shred of evidence that the Council of Nicea had anything to do with the Canon of Scripture (you are perpetuating a myth).
God has preserved His word throughout time, not the Roman Catholic church.
What the scriptures do point out, about the highest authority here on earth, as the AMPC translation aptly puts it in Matthew 28:18, "Jesus approached and, breaking the silence, said to them, All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me."So the concept of Sola Scriptura, which I shall reference as SS from now on, has been in debate here for the past few days it seems. After reading and watching and debating on a few threads myself, I decided to make a new thread in regards to the issues with this concept.
This will be a long post, please read entirely before responding
First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
On the surface, this sounds like a rather valid idea. The Bible is the written word of God right? So how could there be anything higher?
However, when we dig past the surface, there are 3 key issues that come up in regards to SS.
1) The defense of SS is circular logic
First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Who told you that it was the word of God?
S) The Bible clearly states that it is the word of God.
Q) I ask again, where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) The Bible does not need to state SS since it is the word of God.
Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible. This ends up having the debate get absolutely nowhere. How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?
A couple of things to point out here. Since Jesus is the authority here on earth right now, He stated in John 17:20 "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word". Their word is found in the scriptures and as the second point, so are the traditions they have already been handed down to us. It's within their word in which people might believe that defines those apostolic traditions and what they are. Not some later commandments of men.This leads right into issue 2
2) SS is found nowhere in the Bible
As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.
However, the actual concept of SS is found nowhere in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of places that support scripture, as it should, since the Bible is the written word of God.
Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31
These do not state SS however, as the Bible also gives testament to traditions, namely Traditions of Christ.
Namely in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6
If we were to believe that SS was true, then by its own argument, it must be found in the Bible. If we look at John, this does not tell us SS. In fact, it is stating that Johns gospel should be enough, not the Bible. If we look at Timothy, it also does not state SS. Instead, is referring to the OT on how it is divine scripture and learning it leads to Jesus Christ.
Funny enough, in Timothy, Paul also points out the importance of apostolic tradition with verse 14.
The NT scriptures were maintained through time by the Gentiles the same way the OT scriptures were maintained and handed down by the Jews. Being the instrument by which God preserves His word does not necessarily of and by itself exclude it from not only having wrong teachings but also share a similar fate.Now on the issue 3
3) SS and authority
Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"
There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."
The obvious follow-up question is "Well who is more right and how do you know?"
Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.
The issue here is, when you believe the Bible is the highest authority, then there cannot be an authority to interpret the Bible since that authority would then have to be higher or equal to the Bible.
Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.
So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.
This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."
With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.
With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.
Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.
That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.
The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
God Bless
The NT scriptures were maintained through time by the Gentiles the same way the OT scriptures were maintained and handed down by the Jews. Being the instrument by which God preserves His word does not necessarily of and by itself exclude it from not only having wrong teachings but also share a similar fate.
You are assuming that the Catholic Pope should be the authority because the office was held by Peter? Why? Other apostolic-based churches claim the same thing, but they don't claim they alone have the right to speak "for God" as His sole authority. God holds the only true authority to speak for Himself, just as you alone hold the true authority to speak for yourself. So where can you point to biblically that states Peter was the "head Apostle"? It states that the Apostles and Disciples who knew Jesus, held everything "in common" including belief. That would mean under-authority as well, subject to the head who IS Jesus Christ. Not one Apostle.So the concept of Sola Scriptura, which I shall reference as SS from now on, has been in debate here for the past few days it seems. After reading and watching and debating on a few threads myself, I decided to make a new thread in regards to the issues with this concept.
This will be a long post, please read entirely before responding
First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
On the surface, this sounds like a rather valid idea. The Bible is the written word of God right? So how could there be anything higher?
However, when we dig past the surface, there are 3 key issues that come up in regards to SS.
1) The defense of SS is circular logic
First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Who told you that it was the word of God?
S) The Bible clearly states that it is the word of God.
Q) I ask again, where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) The Bible does not need to state SS since it is the word of God.
Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible. This ends up having the debate get absolutely nowhere. How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?
This leads right into issue 2
2) SS is found nowhere in the Bible
As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.
However, the actual concept of SS is found nowhere in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of places that support scripture, as it should, since the Bible is the written word of God.
Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31
These do not state SS however, as the Bible also gives testament to traditions, namely Traditions of Christ.
Namely in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6
If we were to believe that SS was true, then by its own argument, it must be found in the Bible. If we look at John, this does not tell us SS. In fact, it is stating that Johns gospel should be enough, not the Bible. If we look at Timothy, it also does not state SS. Instead, is referring to the OT on how it is divine scripture and learning it leads to Jesus Christ.
Funny enough, in Timothy, Paul also points out the importance of apostolic tradition with verse 14.
Now on the issue 3
3) SS and authority
Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"
There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."
The obvious follow-up question is "Well who is more right and how do you know?"
Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.
The issue here is, when you believe the Bible is the highest authority, then there cannot be an authority to interpret the Bible since that authority would then have to be higher or equal to the Bible.
Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.
So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.
This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."
With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.
With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.
Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.
That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.
The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
God Bless
It was Peter who Jesus built His Church on, hence the name change from Simon to Peter. Peter was also the only Apostle to receive the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. This is where Peter is made head of the Apostles. The first meeting of the Apostles after the death of Jesus was held by Peter. Peter was the head of the Church on earth, and God is the head of the Church in its entirety.You are assuming that the Catholic Pope should be the authority because the office was held by Peter? Why? Other apostolic-based churches claim the same thing, but they don't claim they alone have the right to speak "for God" as His sole authority. God holds the only true authority to speak for Himself, just as you alone hold the true authority to speak for yourself. So where can you point to biblically that states Peter was the "head Apostle"? It states that the Apostles, and every other Apostle and Disciple who knew Jesus, held everything "in common" including belief. That would mean under-authority as well, subject to the head who IS Jesus Christ. Not one Apostle.
I've always found that when people ask this question, they either want to justify something outside scripture, or, they are trying to prove their own agenda as valid. In other words, your assumptions have holes.
He was apparently referring to the miraculous conversion of thousands of Jews from all over the region on Pentecost. That really started the building of the church in numerical terms and Peter was indeed chosen by Christ. The idea that a line of Popes, etc. is somehow predicted by Christ's words here is very fanciful and artificial. Even if it were so, we'd have to account for the fact that it wasn't known in the church for several hundred more years (although the verse in question was).It was Peter who Jesus built His Church on, hence the name change from Simon to Peter.
James presided at the Council of Jerusalem which made the important choice of a 12th Apostle, so your argument doesn't seem to hold up.Peter was also the only Apostle to receive the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. This is where Peter is made head of the Apostles. The first meeting of the Apostles after the death of Jesus was held by Peter.
The church--any church--cannot hold incontrovertible truth. God alone holds that distinction. You are attempting to make the church, and in this instance, the Catholic church, equal with God, being divine? The Bride of Christ is not divine. Through God the bible was developed. It's God's Word, not the church's word. You would think those of the Catholic church would be humbled by being chosen as His tool, instead of prideful. Who is head of the toolbox, but the Master Carpenter?The teachings and traditions of Jesus Christ, preserved by His Church for 2000 years. This INCLUDES SCRIPTURE.
God made a Church, that Church is the incontrovertible truth. Through that Church came the Bible. Jesus performed works and gave commands, which are preserved through this Church started by Jesus.
Where is this?He was apparently referring to the miraculous conversion of thousands of Jews from all over the region on Pentecost.
How exactly does that prove my argument wrong? Please expand on this a bit in order so that I can answer.James presided at the Council of Jerusalem which made the important choice of a 12th Apostle, so your argument doesn't seem to hold up.
The church--any church--cannot hold incontrovertible truth. God alone holds that distinction. You are attempting to make the church, and in this instance, the Catholic church, equal with God, being divine? The Bride of Christ is not divine. Through God the bible was developed. It's God's Word, not the church's word. You would think those of the Catholic church would be humbled by being chosen as His tool, instead of prideful. Who is head of the toolbox, but the Master Carpenter?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?