The issues with Sola Scriptura

Albion · Aug 30, 2016

Wolf_Says said:
Where is this?

Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2.

How exactly does that prove my argument wrong? Please expand on this a bit in order so that I can answer.p

You said that Peter was appointed the head of the Apostles, but at the Council of Jerusalem which undertook some very important business and is included in Scripture, James was the chairman. This would seem to disprove your statement.

tickingclocker · Aug 30, 2016

Wolf_Says said:
<Staff Edit>

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.

Please explain where they have holes? Everything in my OP comes from debates I have had either here on the forums or in RL about SS. I have also provided links in my OP in regards to certain statements.

What are the keys to the kingdom of heaven? It's the gospel message of God to humanity through salvation by Jesus Christ, through His position of Savior and His Lordship. Not "through" Peter. Peter is subject to the same Lord as you and I are.

Where does it state that the 'first meeting' was help by Peter?

Peter was the head of the Catholic church, yes. I agree with that. But no church holds the sole authority of Jesus Christ on earth, because all believers have been given priesthood authority by God Himself. The Bride of Christ is made of many parts. Jesus Christ being the Head. Still. Not Peter.

Wolf_Says · Aug 30, 2016

Albion said:
You said that Peter was appointed the head of the Apostles, but at the Council of Jerusalem which undertook some very important business and is included in Scripture, James was the chairman. This would seem to disprove your statement.

James is the chairman of a council does not mean that Peter was still not the head of the Apostles.

Jesus continuously places Peter as the head of the Apostles, as in John 21:15-19 when He said Feed my sheep. Earlier Jesus asked is Peter loves Him more than these, meaning the other Apostles to which Peter replied yes.

Lulav · Aug 30, 2016

Lulav · Aug 30, 2016

MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE.
THIS THREAD WAS TEMPORARILY
CLOSED AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
CLEANED OF FLAMING AND GOADING
POSTS.

IF YOUR POST IS MISSING OR EDITED
IT IS BECAUSE IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF
THAT RULE.
PLEASE ADDRESS THE SUBJECT ONLY
AND NO PERSONAL REMARKS
OR THIS THREAD MAY HAVE TO BE CLOSED
PERMANENTLY
THANK YOU

Hawkiz · Aug 30, 2016

At least on one level, Christ and the Church are viewed as one-in-the-same. Just as a husband and wife are said to become one flesh, (but clearly still exist in separate forms) so too the bride of Christ (the Church) and Christ are one. This concept is confirmed by Jesus Himself in Acts 9:4, when Jesus confronts Saul saying: 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?', in reference to Saul persecuting the Church.

This union between Jesus and His Church, and viewing them as joined, is in no small part the reason why many view the Church as the highest authority here on earth. Jesus is who brings the ultimate and final authority to the union, but the Church as the bride is allowed (by and because of Christ) to share in that authority.

If one declares 'No! The Church does not have nor share Christ's authority!', the burden of proof falls to them to demonstrate Scripturally why not...since the above verse shows that persecution of the Church is equal to persecution of Jesus (from Christ's own words to Saul/Paul). And I will grant that there are also verses that clearly declare that the Scriptures are also authoritative. Further, there are verses that demonstrate that non-written traditions (such as 'word of mouth or by letter', 2 Thessalonians 2:15) have authority as well. Thus, the three legged stool example. All have authority granted by God, and none stand well without the others.

I will go ahead and spin this argument out a bit: all three figures of authority are found...in Scripture...which actually turns out to be 'good' for all of us. Defenders of SS can claim that since they are found there, Scripture must actually be the most important 'leg'. Defenders of the Church can make a similar claim, since the interpretation of Scripture clearly matters (the Ethiopian eunuch tells us as much). And defenders of Tradition can claim that Tradition is the most important 'leg', because there are clearly Traditions, and Scripture itself tells us that not everything is written down. (John 20:30).

Therefore, if we are all to examine the evidence, we must be cautious to claim that 'The 'leg' that is most important to me is the only one that matters!' Like the blind men touching the elephant, we are all right, but only partially if we only seek one portion of what has been given to us. To ignore one portion is to not 'see' the whole picture.

Peace in Christ
Hawkiz

tickingclocker · Aug 30, 2016

Wolf_Says said:
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.

Please explain where they have holes? Everything in my OP comes from debates I have had either here on the forums or in RL about SS. I have also provided links in my OP in regards to certain statements.

I really shouldn't be answering while being distracted, but here goes. Please forgive the disjointedness of the post:

First of all, I think by seeing what's going on, I need to state I do not 'hate' Catholics or the Catholic church simply because I disagree with some of their beliefs. Let's get that out of the way. I don't hate any Christian church, but love them all and value their historical and spiritual input in Christianity. Good, bad, or indifferent. So please don't start accusing me of "hating" you or your church because you and I disagree. You can believe whatever you wish to about Peter, his authority, etc. As long as you claim Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord? Everything else is secondary. EVERYTHING. As a matter of fact, I embrace each others differences as a great jewel Christianity refuses to see for what it is! They don't really realize what they have been allowed!

I believe otherwise about what Peter stated. Jesus wasn't addressing Peter himself, but a broader perspective. Jesus was specifically talking what the church was going to be established upon. Upon HIM and His divine authority. Not upon the authority of Peter. (Personally I always thought "rock" was a play upon words for Jesus, who knew Peter had a head like a rock! He was attempting to show him, despite his worst fault Peter divinely grasped the fact that Jesus is Messiah. But that's neither here nor there.) The church rests upon Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord -- without that Gospel truth "key" there would be no need for a church. Do you believe that all Christian churches are just that? Part of the Bride of Christ? I do wonder. I naturally question the motivation behind those who promote their own church label after seeing so much of it abused. Why? I cannot fathom the insistent Catholic position upon being the head of the church on earth. Jesus Christ is the head, wherever a believer is. The Bride is not Peter's, but remains Jesus Christ's.

How do you know Peter was the "only one" to receive the keys to the Kingdom of God? Was Jesus looking directly at Peter when He said, "I will give "you" the keys to the kingdom...."? How do you know? Were you there? He may have been looking at each and every Apostle sitting there! We don't know. People do transfer their attention to a broader audience when speaking. THEY knew the speaker may have switched to including everyone, but not the reader of the one-dimensional transcript. It's all we have to go by, yes, but must we view it so myopically, excluding all others? Didn't Jesus charge every Apostle in the Great Commission with teaching and sharing His Gospel with the world? Not just Peter? Did Jesus imply everyone else could teach "wrong" doctrine except Peter then? (Scripture interprets scripture.) The bible also states in many places that all believers share the same Gospel with the world. All the Apostles were given the authority to share the Gospel with the world, as were those believers they taught, and so forth on down the line. The Gospel is the central theme and message of the Church, not one man's authority and not doctrine. As Albion mentioned, in Jerusalem the first known administrative head of the church was James. If Peter was "Head Apostle", shouldn't it have been Peter instead of James? Can you answer why he wasn't? No. And neither can I. It isn't explained. There's so much that is silent in the bible. -- emotion, innuendo, implication, traditions we have no reference for in our modern culture that were assumed in their day, etc. We don't know enough to determine absolutely that "thus and so" is perfect knowledge when it comes to "rules and regulations". Why is that? Because God deliberately wanted us to focus on building our trust in HIM, not in our pet "rules and regulations"? Maybe so. We all do the best we can. We all wish to glorify God, and worship Him in truth.

This isn't my first rodeo into the realm of spiritual "authority". My former spiritual background is mormonism, which also claims sole authority of Jesus Christ for their church. I often have wondered over the years, when is it ever going to be allowed the property of the One whom God originally gave it to? Why the endless tug-of-war over it? Why does a "church denomination" have to have "sole authority", when it's every believer's natural, God-given possession to SHARE in? All that authority means is taking and sharing the Gospel of salvation with the Lost. I know the Catholic church does so. So do Protestant churches. Jesus saves. Jesus is Lord. It's all the same salvation message no matter what church label sharing it comes from.

Trust in God. It's all you really can do when everything is said and done, anyway. But thank you for sharing your viewpoints. One can only learn how to deepen their faith in God by listening and pondering HIM.

Albion · Aug 30, 2016

Wolf_Says said:
James is the chairman of a council does not mean that Peter was still not the head of the Apostles.

But in your previous post you said that we know he was the head of the Apostles because he headed up the first meeting of the Apostles without Christ. Now you say it doesn't prove anything. This is at least worth a mention IMO.

tickingclocker · Aug 30, 2016

Wolf_Says said:
Where is this?

How exactly does that prove my argument wrong? Please expand on this a bit in order so that I can answer.

I am doing no such thing in making the Church equal to God. There is nothing that is equal to God. I am not being prideful, I am stating a fact about the Bible. I also never said that God was not the head of the Catholic.

I was responding to the assumption that Scripture is incontrovertible truth.

That was a question, complete with a genuine question mark. Not an accusation. Calm down, please.

Constantine the Sinner · Aug 30, 2016

Albion said:
It actually doesn't matter. What matters is that we all do accept it as God's word. And if we say that we do, we cannot simultaneously treat it as incomplete or insufficient--not if it is God's word. Do you agree that it IS divine revelation??

All Holy Tradition is.

Albion · Aug 30, 2016

Constantine the Sinner said:
All Holy Tradition is.

If you think so, tell us who decided or decides what constitutes "Holy Tradition."

ashvell · Aug 30, 2016

Sola Scriptura:

-2 Timothy 3:16-17-All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (notice the EVERY here)

-1 Corinthians 4:6-Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

-John 14:26-But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

(notice the “all things”....talking to his disciples )

The Entire Bible is God’s Word

-2 Timothy 3:16-17- All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (Since all Scripture is God breathed, then God said the Bible is the word of God.)

Old Testament:

-Matthew 22:29-32-Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God, At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead-have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ He is not the God of the dead but of the living. (Read Exodus 3:6) God also used “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” many times in the Bible.

- All Bible verses where Jesus said, “It is written...”

Example: Matthew 4:7/Luke 4:12 referring to Deuteronomy 6:16

-Luke 24:44-He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” (...The Old Testament)

New Testament:

-John 1:1-In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (The Word being Jesus notice in vs. 14) This means Jesus is God and therefore whatever Jesus says is God’s words. It is God breathed!

-2 Peter 3:16-He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

-1 Thessalonians 2:13-And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

-1 Timothy 5:18-18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (quotes from Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7)

Larry Wilgus · Aug 30, 2016

Wolf_Says said:
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

Sine Nomine · Aug 30, 2016

Wolf_Says said:
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

Interesting and provocative question.

A couple observations that may be pertinent.

1) I'm not sure that SS is defined appropriately. While the definition given is an adequate statement of what SS has become (must sprinkle modern inerrancy dust on the reformers view, but OK), it seems somewhat distant from the reformers position that S without tradition provides the necessary conditions for saving faith. This view is well stated by the Westminster Confession.

2) The rub with the above is that this position was necessary to displace the singular authority of the Catholic church of the Middle Ages. They had a systematic theology that derived from a more complex interpretive scheme than most inerrantists will allow. Thus, Tradition also had a particular view of how Scripture should be understood which was in substantive ways non-literal, yet nevertheless produced a faith recognizable as true Christianity. Displacing tradition was essential to the Reform movements existence, it could do no other.

3) The different interpretations that abound are in fact, new authoritative traditions asserting themselves as truth. So, it seems we cannot escape Tradition.

4) I think that all would like a higher authority that exerts an indisputable rule that all must follow. But, it appears that Jesus loves us and God desires a plurality of His own, a diversity not a singularity. So, perhaps the notion that an appeal to a higher authority is needed is both logically correct, but spiritually and Scripturally wrong. Again, I think the Westminster Divines said it well, that Scripture contains the things necessary unto salvation and many things that are clear, but also many that are not clear (disputable), that the Holy Spirit knows the answer to (i.e. Not us)

Larry Wilgus · Aug 30, 2016

Wolf_Says said:
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

This posting is NOT ACCURATE, and totally MISREPRESENTS THE VALIDITY OF THE BIBLE.
1 - The Bible does state it is the Word of God - 2 Tim 3:16 "it is God-breathed" KJ Bible. Young's Literal Translation, of which is the leading respected authority of Greek and Hebrew says "every writing is God-breathed". If God can't get His own book straightened out, there is no hope for humanity.

2 - If scripture isn't esteemed, valued and adhered to as the highest authority and came directly from God, what is? It can't be man because all men were spiritually bankrupt. It was the Holy Spirit speaking to men as He hovered over them to write the revelation of who God is.

3 - If all denominations follow the scripture, why are there so many if we're pursuing God from the same book? The Bible is it's own commentary by support from other verses. That's where in court of law, 2 or more witnesses give validity to an argument came - this principle was written in the Bible. I have no problem with writing that are in harmony with the Bible. The problem arise when writings are in conflict with the Bible, then I have to choose the Bible above any other writings.

The absolute fallacy that the Bible came from the RCC is pride and heresy. When Jesus looked at Peter and said "upon this rock, I'll build my church, He wasn't implying that truth would be established upon Peter, or that he would be the first pope. Peter was spiritually dead like all the rest of us before our second birth. Jesus was saying all truth about God would be revealed through the Holy Spirit. May we look to Jesus as the author and finisher of our faith, and not to any denomination (Hebrews 12:2).

benfremer · Aug 30, 2016

Matthew 18 disproves Roman Catholicism. The "power of the keys" is clearly given to a plurality of disciples there and not just to Peter...understanding that I think will likely cure Wolf_Says from what read like just Roman Catholic talking points. Roman Catholicism tries to have a talking point on it, but it doesn't logically add up. Paul's authority being at least equal with Peter and Paul correcting Peter in error (not very *infallible* there "1st pope") also show Roman Catholicism just doesn't add up, though Matthew 18 is like the clearest proof.

Further, the Scriptures are like an extension of apostolic authority *given by Christ* as his "special messengers" (not the invented & transferable kind of apostolic authority for which we have like no record of and seems contradicted by there being multiple "bishops" in one city in Acts 20) -- hence, the Scriptural authority is actually from Christ. http://michaeljkruger.com/were-early-churches-ruled-by-elders-or-a-single-bishop/ exclaims more on the greek wording and logical reasoning I believe.

Long ago, I was open to considering Roman Catholicism as correct and attended some of their services, but Matthew 18 clearly disproves it, and life goes on. 1 John 3:6-10 also has some conflict with how Roman Catholicism teaches as well. The Please don't try to Jan Hus me -- I'm just trying to be helpful. Frankly, I think Roman Catholicism's view on sin is much closer than most protestants, though on a technicality, it also doesn't match up with 1 John 3:6-10. I'm not planning to be monitoring this post for responses as I have like an emergency here -- just wanted to try to help and love you all.

Protestant churches are like a mess these days so far as holiness, which I'd guess is perhaps why you prefer Roman Catholicism, but the Bible does actually call for holiness, church discipline and provides clear-enough moral guidance for this life.

Borgias, etc...the papacy is an error and a dangerous one it that...and I hope that you don't end up on the next version of the wiped-out Spanish Armada for it. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that people don't realize such obvious errors and that it is more for convenience convenience that they don't adhere instead to what the Lord clearly instructs.

My life would seemingly be easier if I just didn't tell you this, but now I have because I love you...I also trust that God will ultimately bless me for it, even if like Jan Hus, it seems like I am going to just suffer in the short-term.

- Ben

MichaelS · Aug 30, 2016

While I can't speak for Wolf_Says, I think a few questions addressed to him that haven't been answered deserve some response. I'll hit them one per post.

Most verses in the Bible in reference to scripture are referring to the OT, which the apostles used to show the world that Jesus was the Messiah foretold in the OT.

But since the Church that all of us descend from decided that the NT was also Holy Scripture, you can't take that view unless you disavow the Church.

This still does not change the historical context of the passage. They were talking about OT, the only scripture at the time. This doesn't mean anything in regards to the Church deciding the NT part of Holy Scripture.

Albion said:
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.

Logically, this does not follow. It would be equivalent to saying that any statement I made about my children in 1996 must also apply to the children I had after 1996, otherwise I am either repudiating those children I had later or else declaring my first statement to be in error.

Statements in the Bible must be understood in the context they were written. When Paul tells Timothy "from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation...", the New Testament writings obviously cannot be shoehorned into the meaning of "Holy Scriptures" here, since none of them were even written yet when Timothy was an infant. The historical context cannot be ignored.

MichaelS · Aug 30, 2016

It is not devolving, you asked a question which I answered. Your question was about why churches who place HT above Scripture also differ.

Albion said:
Very well, then let's have an answer and no three legged stool analogies. Just the answer to the question I asked.

The "three-legged stool analogy" actually does answer it. For SS churches, the sole authority is claimed to be the same (Holy Scripture) but the doctrines derived from it differ, even in essentials. This is a problem for the validity of SS as a hermeneutic principle. For the "three-legged stools", Scripture is the same but the other two legs are different. Thus the differences do not invalidate the principle, they simply highlight that those other two "legs" do make a difference.

Albion · Aug 30, 2016

MichaelS said:
While I can't speak for Wolf_Says, I think a few questions addressed to him that haven't been answered deserve some response. I'll hit them one per post.

Logically, this does not follow. It would be equivalent to saying that any statement I made about my children in 1996 must also apply to the children I had after 1996, otherwise I am either repudiating those children I had later or else declaring my first statement to be in error.

No. But you have to think this through. Is the NT part of Holy Scripture or not? If you say "No," because the most cited verse that teaches that God inspired men to write as he revealed his truths to them is in the OT...then you automatically saying that the Church which canonized the Bible was in error when it did. That would be a significant problem, I'd think, for Catholics who like to think and argue that their denomination was the one to canonize the Scriptures and cannot have been wrong about that. If you say "Yes," then you cannot also say that the verse in question doesn't apply to the whole of Scripture, just as every other part of the OT is still considered to be divine revelation and in force unless specifically superseded by something in the NT.

Statements in the Bible must be understood in the context they were written.

Now we're into the realm of personal opinion and liberal theology, meaning that one person's POV is as good as the next one's. Speaking for myself, I don't think that the OT was once authoritative but, because of changing cultural norms, etc., it no longer is.

Larry Wilgus · Aug 30, 2016

Thursday said:
Do you know how the NT books were selected? There was much discussion and disagreement about which books should be included for centuries after Christ.

The books were chosen by the Catholic Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This is absolute foolishness to think the RCC had anything to do with the books in the Bible. What arrogance and pride.

The issues with Sola Scriptura

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Y'shua is His Name

Y'shua is His Name

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

New Member

Active Member

Scientist and Christian

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

Active Member

Facilitator

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency