Defense of Sola Scriptura

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

1. I think accountability of teachers is biblical. God warned us repeatedly to beware of and for false teachers, false prophets, coming antichrists and those that lead many astray. If teachers are infallibly/unaccountable and exempt from wrong, then this warning is absurd.
2. Just one example: In Revelation 2:2, Jesus praises the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church demands (for self exclusively). He praised them for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue and for finding them false.
3. Sound praxis need not be taught in Scripture (praxis almost never is). It might be sound without any exampling of such (you and I are discussing on the internet, we both regard that as a sound praxis and yet such is not mentioned or exampled or taught in the Bible). But, using Scripture as normative is well exampled - right from the time of the very first Scripture coming down from Mt. Sinai some 3400 years ago, Scripture was regarded as normative for those issues of morality. Over and over, the norm is those Ten Commandments (and, we might note, not The Catholic Church or its own “infallible pope”). Jesus used Scripture normatively some 50 times. He never once used The Catholic Church as such, He never used Catholic Tradition as such.
4. I can find so verse that states that The Catholic Church itself - alone and exclusively - is infallible and thus unaccountable, thereby norming and the rule/canon for such.

.

In regards to # 4 you might want to start off with Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15 ff.

Oh, I’ve read them OFTEN. Every single word in them. But, nope - no mention of The Catholic Church. It’s all the claim of self alone for self alone. All to justify the exemption of self alone for self alone of accountability.

The foundational question here is this: Are teachers ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach, especially as doctrine? Is something correct simply because the one exclusively so teaching exclusively so insists? Can a teacher simply circumvent the issue of whether his teaching is correct, and replace that issue with the demand of self that whatever self alone says simply must be accepted with docility? Is that a sound rubric, a sound epistemology? Especially considering that God repeatedly and boldly warned us of FALSE teachers, antichrists, and those that lead many astray? Especially considering, for example, Jesus’ praise of the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as potentially errant and accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue, and for finding them false (Rev. 2:2)? Is it a sound rubric for a defendant to simply exempt self exclusively from accountablility for the issue under review, self instead demanding that self alone be excluded from accountability - and rather whatever he did or said simply be accepted “with docility” as correct? OR should all teachers be regarded as accountable?

IMHO, not only should teachers of Christian doctrine be accountable, but the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident the light will reveal God’s truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from examination, exempt himself exclusively from accountability, lay aside the issue of whether he is correct, and replace all that with the insistence of self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” My study of the cults confirms this rather strongly.

The objection of The Catholic Church is NOT that it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its doctrines. It doesn’t. It’s objection is to accountability; it alone exempts it alone from such, replacing it with the demand of self alone that self alone be accepted with docility (CCC 87, for example).

.

 

[jlhargus]

Oh, and let us not forget that hearsay evidence is not admissible in court, only documented and first-hand testimonies.

JL: You only know the bible IS the bible, because of Tradition. Show me your first-hand testimonies or inspired written epistle which lists what books are inspired.

The Bible, being documented first-hand testimonies, are admissible and may be given credence, whereas, those passed on orally (tradition), cannot.

JL: You do know the Church was up an running, TEACHING the GOSPEL, twenty years or so BEFORE the first word of the NT was even written and almost four hundred years before the CANON was defined. By what authority then was the gospel taught? Tell me what authority decided which books were, AND were NOT inspired?

[2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BRETHREN, STAND FAST, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, WHETHER by WORD, OR our EPISTLE.]

Sola scriptura even tells you, you MUST HOLD BOTH oral AND written DivineTraditions, yet you ignor your only authority. So unless you can find a scripture, which you can’t, that tells you ALL Divine Traditions are NOW included in scriptures. Your sola scriptura traditon of men is false. Sola scriptura, that Tower of Babel, is nothing more than a tradition of men made a doctrine of God around 1520. It does nothing but scatter people of faith, confusing the ONE faith language into thousands and still doing so.

Again sola tells you the AUTHORITY. We are to listen to those whom Christ SENDS, [Lk10:16 HE THAT HEARETH YOU HEARETH ME; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.] Had Christ intended sola scriptura shouldn’t he have said, he who READS you READS ME? We are to HEAR that, authority, the Apostolic Fellowship SENT by Christ.

[Mt28:16 Then THE ELEVEN disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 … 18 And JESUS came and SPAKE unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 GO ye therefore, and TEACH ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 TEACHING them TO OBSERVE ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, even UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD. Amen.]

This IS the teaching authority Christ SENT with His authority to teach the whole world till the END. They pass that authority on by laying on of hands from apostles to bishops to bishops till the END. [1Tm3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD, THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH.] Once again sola tells you the Church IS the pillar and ground of TRUTH.

Paul even verified his teaching with that pillar and ground of truth, to be sure he was not teaching another doctrine or gospel. [Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.]

Tell me how many faith groups has sola united? None. How many has it divided? Thousands. To which faith group do you belong? Who did it split from and who has split from it? I don’t get how anyone can look around and see what sola does and still proclaim it, IT DOESN’T WORK, it ends as NO AUTHORITY.

 

[jlhargus]

He said the Holy Spirit would lead His Apostles into all truth. He did. This “all truth” was preserved for subsequent generations in theopneustos Holy Writ: the N.T. Scriptures.

JL: Show me that sola scriptura saying NOW ALL TRUTH is contained in the written word. [2Thes 2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BRETHREN, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, **WHETHER by WORD, OR our EPISTLE. ]

[2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP ****BY THE HOLY GHOST **which dwelleth IN US.]

[2TIM 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the **THINGS that thou hast **HEARD of me **among many witnesses, the same COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be **ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS **also.]

Acts14:23 And WHEN THEY HAD ORDAINED them ELDERS IN EVERY CHURCH, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Acts20:28 TAKE HEED therefore unto yourselves, and TO ALL THE FLOCK, over the WHICH THE **HOLY GHOST **HATH MADE YOU OVERSEERS, TO FEED THE CHURCH OF GOD, which he hath PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD.

1 TIM 5:17 Let the elders that RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the WORD AND DOCTRINE.

[1Tim4:13 Till I come, GIVE ATTENDANCE TO READING, to EXHORTATION, TO DOCTRINE. 14 NEGLECT NOT **THE GIFT that is IN THEE, which was GIVEN thee by prophecy, WITH THE LAYING ON OF THE HANDS of the presbytery. 15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16 TAKE HEED UNTO THYSELF, and UNTO THE DOCTRINE; CONTINUE IN THEM: for in DOING THIS thou SHALT both SAVE THYSELF, AND THEM THAT HEAR THEE.]

[2Tim1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou STIR UP **THE GIFT OF GOD, which is **IN THEE BY **the PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS. 7 For GOD HATH NOT GIVEN **US **THE SPIRIT OF FEAR; **BUT OF POWER, ** and of love, and of a sound mind.] [Tm4:2 PREACH THE WORD; be instant in season, out of season; REPROVE, REBUKE, EXHORT with all long suffering and doctrine.]

Titus2:15 THESE things SPEAK, and EXHORT, and REBUKE WITH ALL AUTHORITY. Let no man despise thee.

Timothy received the gift of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands, (holy orders, ordination in apostolic succession.) it is the same Holy Spirit the Apostles received at Pentecost to guide the Church into ALL TRUTH, not hit and miss truth. ALL TRUTH (infalibility is a collective not individual gift, except for the pope it is individual, on FAITH and morals only. When speaking as the voice of the whole Church. It is thru the Holy Spirit that oral apostolic tradition is kept and discerned, by the Church, as opposed to a tradition of men.

As the pillar and ground of truth, 1Tm 3:15 the Church’s testimony is of no less value than scripture, because the Holy Spirit is the origin of both and active in both, as the council of Jerusalem wrote to the churches, [Act15:28 For IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO** US, other scriptures say, 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of **TRUTH AND **the spirit of ERROR LK 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me Jn 15:20…if THEY have KEPT my saying they WILL KEEP YOURS ALSO Jn 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone but for them which shall believe on me through their word.] Apostolic tradition is discerned by the help of the Holy Spirit, scripture is inspiried by the Holy Spirit. The canon of the New and Old Testaments were both discerned thru the Holy Spirit, by the church, using Apostolic Tradition. Apostolic Traditions, whether by WORD or Epistle cannot contradict each other, but must always agree.

The Scriptures mislead no one.

JL: Correct scriptures mislead no one, but many are mislead by thousands of contradictiing INTERPRETATIONS, all claiming to be led by the same Holy Spirit into all truth, using the same scriptures and Satan’s most pleasing tradition of men made a doctrine of God called sola scriptura. Peter also tell us, some scripture is hard to understand and many twist to their own destruction. We can see with the JW’s, NWt, that the written word can be changed by anyone. Because the scriptures are written does not guarantee they are correct.

Sola scriptura is split on split and still spliting, sola scripture leds to NO AUTHORITY, just anarchy, every man his own authority.

They’re the Word of GodJesus authored no Scriptures.Jesus authored no Scriptures.SS is not about teaching, nor the authority to teach. Jesus did, however, constantly appeal to the Scriptures in His teaching…

JL: The Church also constantly appeals to scripture in all her teachings. And just as Christ also appealed to Tradition so does the Church.

[Mt23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees SIT IN MOSES’ SEAT: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.] Show me in the OT where it speaks of Moses’ Seat? Don’t try Ex18:13 as Moses’ seat is not used, look in Strong’s Concordance.

 

[jlhargus]

Moondweller, did not Christ appeal to only the OT?

What sort of method would be used to determine the books that we have accepted in the NT were inspired? If the NT is the infallible Word of God, and an instrument/church was used to make the determination of what is inspired, what would that make the instrument the Holy Spirit used?

JL: T More, I see you are looking into the Catholic faith, I will pray that God’s will be done in your life. If I can help you with any points don’t hesitate to pm me. We seem to be getting a lot of former JW’s lately. I would love to hear your story. For instance are you a cradle JW, what made you leave.

 

[jlhargus]

.

JL: American, I will answer your post #596, as soon as I can, it maybe next week.

 

[joe370]

Hey Josiah, no need to respond to my questions with commentary on the CC. I already know your views of the CC. This is a thread about defending sola scriptura so again no need to bring up, for example, the CCC - 87 or docility, unaccountability of the CC. Please, start another thread and bring it up there.

Quote:
In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken.

Like, for example, the position taken by many Christians regarding the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist vs the position taken by many Christians regarding the literal interpretation of our Lords Last supper!

Quote:
…the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

Got it! Now, use norming which is employed to address questions, such as the one I have asked, to finally resolve this issue once and for all, for all those true presence detractors? Address the question using norming to evaluate and arbitrate and finally resolve this doctrinal dispute?

Quote:
In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology). That praxis is called Sola Scriptura.

Aj, either the literal interpretation of the Eucharist or the metaphorical interpretation is correct; one is definitely wrong. So, again, let’s use “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology)- as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)- which is the praxis called sola scriptura to resolve this doctrinal dispute. Surely SS can settle this matter, once and for all? Remember, you are the one that said: Addressing that question is called "norming, so address the question and give me an authoritative answer. If you come back with something like: this is a hermeneutical or exegetical question then norming cannot address this question or any question for that matter.

If it is a hermeneutical/ exegetical question then who or what, in the end, is authorized to resolve and definitively answer this question, any question for that matter? Remember, let’s keep the discussion about the defense of SS, as opposed to what your opinion of the CC.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MD,

Looks like you are evading …again! Let me show you where:

Scripture gave him (Herod) exactly what he wanted: What was understood to be the birthplace of Messiah.“In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it has been written by the prophet” What Herod wanted was to kill the Child - he could have cared less where He was - but, only in so far as he knew where to send His murderous soldiers. I repeat: it did not give Herod what he wanted.

(Matt. 2:5).It’s amazing how those in opposition to SS in some way, or in their own little way, tend to attack the Scriptures.Scripture isn’t for "deciding everything."2 Tim 3:16-17 "All Scripture is inspired by God and (1) profitable for teaching, (2) for reproof, (3) for correction, (4) for training in righteousness; (5) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Again, MD - Paul’s letter to Timothy does not address decision making. Just read your own quote. Only people can decide anything. This is not to say that Scripture is not good and helpful - but, it is to say that it does not decide anything. Decision is an act of the will - it is not a book.,

"Herod’s attempt to kill the Christ Child wasn’t a “good work.” It wasn’t going to decide for him how to do it.

Of course it was not a good work - who said it was. The act of crucifying Christ was not a good work, either. Good works are not the issue here, MD. The issue is that men decide what Scripture means! Don’t believe me … well … just look around you! 20,000+ PCs out there all claiming different things and all claiming SS - must tell you that such chaos can only come from one source: the Devil! SS breeds nothing but chaos, it is a traditiion of man (specifically, Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII) because prior to the reformation, it did nto exist.

So, if you differ on men deciding what Scripture means - how do you explain all of this deafing doctrinal chaos from all of these PCs - all claiming to follow Christ - yet all refusing to follow the Chruch He founded on Peter?

God bless

You need to reread AJs post to understand the fundamental issue in respect to SS.

 

[moondweller]

MD, poor choice of a word on my part, and I apologize.

Thanks TM. But I’m curious as to what other word you would have used.

No, Moondweller, I’m not suggeting the OT is not inspired. You said that the Jesus appealed to the scriptures, which of course, like you said, the NT didn’t exist. I just wanted to know exactly what you meant.

It completely escapes me as to why that wouldn’t have been obvious if, as you say, you knew when you asked the question that the N.T. did not yet exist. Thereby begging the question if you perhaps were suggesting that the O.T. was not theopneustos (“inspired”).

What criteria did these men use to determine what was inspired? Were not others Epistles written? Some by actual Apostles? How do you know they aren’t fit to be in the NT? What were they lacking? Would not Thomas’ account have been “God Breathed” the moment it was penned? He was an Apsotle after all.

The Writings had to be written by an Apostle or someone directly associated with them.

If you’re referring to the “Gospel of Thomas,” it was a second century writing, a forgery by name, and within it covered the life of Jesus from the 5th to 12th year. It presents Him as a miracle worker to satisfy boyish whims. It’s blasphemous. Rejecting it obviously was a no-brainer.

There were all sorts of later writings that employed the familiar names of the Apostles or others, such as the: “Gospel of Peter” (2nd Cen.); “Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew” (5th Cen.); “Gospel of Joseph the Carpenter” (4th Cen.); “Apocalypse of Peter”; Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas; there was a letter supposedly from Peter to James (2nd Cen.) in which Peter violently attacked Paul. A pure fabrication in interest of the Ebionites. I think you get the idea here.

Something “moved” the Early Church to determine what was to be canon and what was not, no?

Yes. Often the content of the writings made it obvious. Keep in mind, ALL the Books of the N.T. were written in the 1st century and were copied and distributed among the churches quite quickly. The churches were familiar with them. The so-called ECFs quoted from them profusely. They didn’t quote from the forgeries - they knew.

I don’t think the Ford reference is analogous. Because we’ve seen a Ford pickup on the road before (we might in fact be driving one as well) is how we determine that it is one. Once we’ve seen it once, we can indentify one every single time.

The point is, TM, a Ford PU has distinguishing features by which it can be identified from the others and by the observer.

The group of men that you describe that did in fact determine what was canon was the CC, no?

No. Both the Councils of Carthage and Hippo were provincial (regional synods, attended by 50 N. African Bishops), not ecumenical. IOW, they had no authority to speak for the whole church. Nevertheless, the Councils didn’t confer on those N.T. Books any authority which they did not already possess, they simply recorded their previously established canonicity. As for the “Catholic Church” (not EO, and distinct from the church, catholic), it didn’t “infallibly” (notice I put infallibly in quotes) declare its canon until the Council of Trent.

I agree, the Jews knew which books were scripture. And part of that has been removed, no?

No. The Jews of Palestine never accepted the “Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha” as part of their sacred Scripture. The Protestants agreed with the Jews. Who better knew their Scriptures than the Jews?

Hebrews 11 actually describes things that are found in Maccabees.

Such as?

TM, the author of 2 Macc. actually states that his book is the abridgment of another man’s work (2 Macc. 2:23). And he concludes the book by saying: “If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I can do” (2 Macc. 15:38). Hardly sounds “theopneustos” to me. “Mediocre” perfectly describes the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonicals). They don’t stand up to the Scriptures.

 

[moondweller]

Hi, MD, Looks like you are evading …again!

Nope, I evaded nothing.

Again, MD - Paul’s letter to Timothy does not address decision making. Just read your own quote. Only people can decide anything. This is not to say that Scripture is not good and helpful - but, it is to say that it does not decide anything. Decision is an act of the will - it is not a book.,

Scripture is DIVINE REVELATION. Hence its absolute authority, even to test the doctrines and traditions of men. For instance, when the Sadducees tested Jesus on the resurrection of the dead He responded: “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matt. 22:29). Their misunderstanding of the Scriptures was rooted in their unbelief, since their Scriptures clearly revealed a future resurrection (e.g., Dan. 12:2). Unbelief in what the Scriptures clearly reveal is often the cause of man’s “misunderstandings.” The decision is to BELIEVE (or not) what God has clearly revealed in His written Word. Scripture doesn’t make that decision for you. “…but the righteous {man} shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17).

 

[PRmerger]

If you’re referring to the “Gospel of Thomas,” it was a second century writing, a forgery by name, and within it covered the life of Jesus from the 5th to 12th year. It presents Him as a miracle worker to satisfy boyish whims. It’s blasphemous. Rejecting it obviously was a no-brainer.

That is the most nonsensical statement in this entire thread.

You’re claiming that the reason we know it’s not theopneustos is because it contains blasphemy? It’s blasphemous because it contains things not in Scripture? Clearly that’s begging the question isn’t it?

You need a non-Scriptural authority to tell you what is Scriptural in order to avoid begging the question…hence, the bishops of the CC, through Sacred Tradition, decreed and declared what was theopneustos.

And they declared the Gospel of Thomas non-inspired. Which is why you declare it to be so also.

 

[PRmerger]

The Writings had to be written by an Apostle or someone directly associated with them.

Says who?

(Of course, my answer is: the CC. But what’s your answer, moon?)

 

[joe370]

**Moondweller, is the holy bible the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal disputes? Or, is it the church leadership to which each Christian belongs (regardless of denomination) - that wields the final authority for resolving doctrinal disputes?

Josiah tells me that sola scriptura cannot arbitrate, evaluate or resolve anything, on it’s own. He tells me that resolving doctrinal disputes is a hermeneutic/exegetic issue, not a sola scriptura issue. If he is right, and I do agree with him, then hermeneutically and exegetically speaking, who or what has the final authority to resolve doctrinal disputes, in the end?

Where do we draw the line in the sand that separates the essential doctrinal truths from the non-essential doctrinal truths, considering the fact that the holy bible does not make the distinction between the two? What if I decide that something is essential but you disagree, and vice- versa? Does that mean that I am wrong? **

 

[moondweller]

**Moondweller, is the holy bible the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal disputes?**Yes.

Or, is it the church leadership to which each Christian belongs (regardless of denomination) - that wields the final authority for resolving doctrinal disputes?

 

[PRmerger]

The doctrines pertaining to salvation are the essentials.

Firstly, where does Scripture say that “doctrines pertaining to salvation are the essentials”? Chapter and verse, please.

Secondly, what are these “essential” salvation doctrines?

Thirdly, if these are “essential”, why is there no agreement on these “essentials”? Just on these forums I’ve seen a lot of different lists of “essentials” from various Protestants. (Not to mention the 40,000 different denominations that see it quite differently).

 

[moondweller]

Firstly, where does Scripture say that “doctrines pertaining to salvation are the essentials”? Chapter and verse, please. Secondly, what are these “essential” salvation doctrines?

The death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ are all about salvation, PR. Maybe this is new revelation to you, but if you would study the Scriptures you’ll see this to be a major theme in the N.T. Epistles, especialy Pauline. Jesus Himself said:John 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him."Study the Scriptures, PR, and you will see that in them is the Divinely revealed truth that Christ’s work of salvation on our behalf was accomplished and “finished” through His sacrificial death and bodily resurrection, and that His work of salvation is applied, in full, to a believer at the time of personal belief in Him. Paul wrote to the Corinthians:1 Cor 15:3-4 “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,”“Of first importance” means “essential.” The essential message of Biblical Christianity is that of salvation, not a Church.

PR, do you consider Augustine a “Catholic?” “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things charity,” are his words.

Thirdly, if these are “essential”, why is there no agreement on these “essentials”?

Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, is the thread that connects many Protestant churches, regardless of denomination.

Just on these forums I’ve seen a lot of different lists of “essentials” from various Protestants.

What I’ve seen on this forum are Protestants who have never met each other and attend different churches in various parts of the country all express the same essential Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone - a true spiritual unity, not simply religious conformity.

 

[PRmerger]

The death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ are all about salvation, PR.

Indeed!

However, that’s a non-sequitor. I asked for verses in Scripture which tell us that “doctrines pertaining to salvation are the essentials”.

Still waiting. Chapter and verse, please, moon!

you will see that in them is the Divinely revealed truth that Christ’s work of salvation on our behalf was accomplished and “finished” through His sacrificial death and bodily resurrection…

Amen! That’s very Catholic of you to say that, moon.

However, it’s also a non-sequitor. I asked for verses in Scripture which tell us that “doctrines pertaining to salvation are the essentials”.

The essential message of Biblical Christianity is that of salvation, not a Church.

That’s creating a dichotomy where none exists, moon. Christ’s church and salvation are not separate entitites.

PR, do you consider Augustine a “Catholic?” “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things charity,” are his words.

Yes, indeed. And it is his Church, the CC, which determines what’s an “essential” doctrine, and what’s a “non-essential” doctrine.

I’m assuming, however, that you object to the CC’s determination of what’s essential, yes?

(BTW, you already do tacitly accept the CC’s determination of what’s “essential” each and every time you cite Scripture–for it is the CC that tells you those books/letters were “essential” or theopneustos, and not, say, the Gospel of Thomas)

 

[PRmerger]

What I’ve seen on this forum are Protestants who have never met each other and attend different churches in various parts of the country all express the same essential Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone - a true spiritual unity, not simply religious conformity.

Are you saying that this is the only essential:
Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Moondweller, is the holy bible the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal disputes?

Yes…

Josiah tells me that sola scriptura cannot arbitrate, evaluate or resolve anything, on it’s own. He tells me that resolving doctrinal disputes is a hermeneutic/exegetic issue, not a sola scriptura issue. If he is right, and I do agree with him,
Well, if you agree with him then your problem is solved.

Ultimately the Scriptures. Hermeneutics and exegesis has to do with accurately interpreting the Scriptures. The answers concerning man’s salvation are REVEALED in the SCRIPTURES

The problem will be solved when you and Josiah use sola scriptura, with the aid of Hermeneutics and exegesis to accurately interpret the Scriptures, by arbitrating evaluating and finally resolving the following question:

I think, that you believe in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist, as do many many people. Josiah and JonNC (sola scriptura advocates) - believe that the bread and wine really and truly become the flesh and blood of our Savior, once consecrated! There can only be one answer to this question. You and Josiah cannot both be right and it does matter…is very essential, according to the bible. Resolve this matter once, and for all, and I will believe you, regarding sola scriptura!

Josiah and I understand that the Jews were not allowed to drink any kind of blood, and Jesus of course knew this, as I am sure you do too. This is what was so hard for them to accept, when they said:

“This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” John 6:60

And why "many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.” John 6:66

Josiah and I understand that, If Jesus had only been speaking symbolically, he could easily have called them back to explain this, but He didn’t; He let them walk away. MD, why didn’t Jesus do this, if in fact He was only speaking in metaphor?

1Cor 11:29 “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

Surely, no one has to worry about worthily receiving a mere symbol? Would you at least consider this doctrine an essential doctrine?

 

[SemperReformada]

I think, that you believe in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist, as do many many people. Josiah and JonNC (sola scriptura advocates) - believe that the bread and wine really and truly become the flesh and blood of our Savior, once consecrated! There can only be one answer to this question. You and Josiah cannot both be right and it does matter…is very essential, according to the bible. Resolve this matter once, and for all, and I will believe you, regarding sola scriptura!

First sola scriptura does not claim that it’s adherents will all come to the same conclusion on scriptural meanings.

Secondly, if you hold your own theological system to the standards you seem to hold sola scriptura to it fails also doesn’t it?

 

[PRmerger]

First sola scriptura does not claim that it’s adherents will all come to the same conclusion on scriptural meanings.

So one person can read Scripture and conclude “A” and another can read it and conclude “not A” and that’s ok, in your paradigm?