T
tester
Guest
Your above scenario is impossilbe because God is the Author.
- Status
J
jericho777
Guest
Their a comin’ the end is near!
J
joe370
Guest
Tester, the Pharisees were all fallible people. The CC leaders were/are all fallible people.
No one on this earth is infallible, but some how we ended up with the infallible word of God, and some how the CC in the 4th century, made an infallible decision as to what would be part of the canon and what would not be part of the canon, at a time when some books (now in the bible) - were considered questionable and other books (not in our bible) - were considered inspired but eventually jettisoned, by the CC council.
The canon was not unanimously settled by the end of the first century or in the 2nd century or in the 3rd century, so, you and I are putting are trust in the 4th century CC. Why should we if they cannot infallibly decide or interpret anything via the guidance of the HS?
No one on this earth is infallible, but some how we ended up with the infallible word of God, and some how the CC in the 4th century, made an infallible decision as to what would be part of the canon and what would not be part of the canon, at a time when some books (now in the bible) - were considered questionable and other books (not in our bible) - were considered inspired but eventually jettisoned, by the CC council.
The canon was not unanimously settled by the end of the first century or in the 2nd century or in the 3rd century, so, you and I are putting are trust in the 4th century CC. Why should we if they cannot infallibly decide or interpret anything via the guidance of the HS?
J
joe370
Guest
=tester;7173944]Your above scenario is impossilbe because God is the Author.
I agree. I was simply working from within the framework of your premise that no one can interpret infallibly.
I agree. I was simply working from within the framework of your premise that no one can interpret infallibly.
J
jericho777
Guest
Do you think scripture was actually scripture when it was penned in the first century?
Actually God ordained apart from the will of men what would be His word.
F
fhansen
Guest
Actually, I’ve had them “reason” with and witness to me with any bible of my choice. In any case there’re always false prophets- and then there’s the real thing.
J
joe370
Guest
Yes Jericho.
J
jericho777
Guest
I regularly dialog with them and they only believe their bible is the true word of God. They have sanitized the bible as to deny the deity of Jesus. EX John 1:1In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and was a god. NWT They add the letter a in front of the word god and take this to mean a mighty man. How ever the word used for God and god in greek is the same word Theos and means deity not a mighty man.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. NIV
T
tester
Guest
.I thought the context was infallibility on doctrine not as people
I know how. God is the Author, God is Sovereign
As to you other points : already discussed in other threads:
God can use ANYONE to accomplish HIS will: that does not bestow infallibility on them.
God can use unbelieving leaders like Cyrus (Isaiah 45)
“For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor,** though you do not acknowledge me**………I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,”
or God can use Pharaoh: (Exodus 9:15)
But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
or God can use Pilate (John 19)
Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”
Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above
or a bit of hyperbole about stones: (Luke 19)
Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!”
“I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”
Did Cyrus , Pharaoh,and Pilate do EXACTLY what God had willed?
So was Cyrus , Pharaoh, or Pilate infallible?
The POINT is that God uses all types of people to accomplish his Sovereign Will; that does NOT mean those kingdoms, institutions, or people (or stones !) are infallible!
Joe370 , my brother in Christ: I wish you were more passionate about lifting up the name of our Lord who is worthy of all honor and glory and praise ; then spending your time on lifting up your church.
Christ FIRST in all things.
F
fhansen
Guest
I understand that, but they used the King James for years and will still defend their positions with any bible just to prove they can.
J
joe370
Guest
Good. We are clear on that fact.
Agreed. Do you admit the following:
Hebrews: no clear author and was questioned as to its authenticity in certain parts for a couple centuries.
James: Western church not certain James was the apostle; was questioned as to its authenticity in certain parts for a couple centuries.
2 Peter: highly debated because of style difference; was questioned as to its authenticity in certain parts for a couple centuries.
2 and 3 John: were doubted…in certain parts for a couple centuries.
Jude: questioned because of reference to Book of Enoch (14-5) which was not inspired - in certain parts for a couple centuries.
Revelation: Debated longest because of doctrinal issue of chapter 20.
Nobody is infallible.
Like Paul…agreed.
No man is infallible.
No man is infallible.
The point of this thread was to discover a consensus among sola scriptura advocates. If you would rather not discuss that with me, that’s cool brother. Should we talk about lifting up the name of our Lord who is worthy of all honor and glory and praise, on this thread???
J
joe370
Guest
Tester one thing is for certain from my exhaustive research of the ECF’s: 20 of the 27 NT books were never questioned as to their authenticity. All the church Fathers spoke in favor of their canonicity. 
J
joe370
Guest
Tester, back to the OP if your still interested. JonNC believes that scripture is the ultimate yardstick for measuring everything vis-a-vis Jesus’ teachings, but that the measuring, so to speak, should be left up to the church leaders. Jon also say that individual interpretation is a no - no, which agrees with scripture. Regarding church authority, what Jon says, seems to agree with Paul, who said in Hebrews 13:17, obey your leaders and submit to their authority. The only difference between Jon and myself is the fact that Jon defers to the Lutheran church, a wonderful church by the way; I have friends like Jon who belong to a couple different LC’s) - and I defer to the CC.
Is this how sola scripture should work? I’m trying to stay on point.
Is this how sola scripture should work? I’m trying to stay on point.
T
tester
Guest
from James White:
Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly,** it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.** I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church, being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And,** finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church. **
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly,** it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.** I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church, being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And,** finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church. **
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
T
tester
Guest
by Erik Wait
the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not teach that we are to ignore what teachers in the church have taught and practiced in the past. We are not starting from scratch when we read our Bible. Rather the student of Scripture needs to be aware of what has been taught and practiced in the church both positively (Hebrews 12:1) and negatively (1 Corinthians 10:6). This is why Martin Luther and John Calvin did not see themselves as novel. Rather they were returning to, and continuing the development of, the theology of Augustine. We are standing on the shoulders of giants. However, we are to examine the teaching of the theologians of history and test it with the Scriptures. Thus we may correct their errors and further the insights they have given us.
the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches that Scripture is the only infallible, inerrant authority on earth. All other authorities whether they be familial (parents), ecclesiastical (pastors, elders, deacons), or civil (kings, presidents, prime ministers) are subordinate and fallible authorities. This special and unique place of Scripture does not deny the authority of the father in a household, the pastor in the church, or the president of a country but rather it establishes them. These leaders are to be ministers of God who are assigned specific roles in their related covenantal spheres of responsibility. For any earthly authority to place himself above Scripture, whether overtly or by implication is to attempt to take the place of authority which belongs to God alone.
the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not teach that we are to ignore what teachers in the church have taught and practiced in the past. We are not starting from scratch when we read our Bible. Rather the student of Scripture needs to be aware of what has been taught and practiced in the church both positively (Hebrews 12:1) and negatively (1 Corinthians 10:6). This is why Martin Luther and John Calvin did not see themselves as novel. Rather they were returning to, and continuing the development of, the theology of Augustine. We are standing on the shoulders of giants. However, we are to examine the teaching of the theologians of history and test it with the Scriptures. Thus we may correct their errors and further the insights they have given us.
the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches that Scripture is the only infallible, inerrant authority on earth. All other authorities whether they be familial (parents), ecclesiastical (pastors, elders, deacons), or civil (kings, presidents, prime ministers) are subordinate and fallible authorities. This special and unique place of Scripture does not deny the authority of the father in a household, the pastor in the church, or the president of a country but rather it establishes them. These leaders are to be ministers of God who are assigned specific roles in their related covenantal spheres of responsibility. For any earthly authority to place himself above Scripture, whether overtly or by implication is to attempt to take the place of authority which belongs to God alone.
I
Izdaari
Guest
Though I am Protestant (by default, being neither Catholic nor Orthodox – never mind that I agree with both on a fair amount of theology), I don’t claim to be Sola Scriptura. Instead, I am Prima Scriptura, in a Wesleyan Quadrilateral sort of way. I owe credit to a Fundamentalist friend for pointing that out*.* I had thought I was Sola Scriptura… but after due consideration, I had to conclude she was correct: I am not, and that’s why I don’t qualify as Fundamentalist, though I do agree with the historic “five fundamentals”.
S
simspt
Guest
The early Church (2nd century foward) viewed itself as the authority to teach and interpret scripture. It also viewed itself as having the authority to accept or reject its own writings as authoritative.
T
tester
Guest
and what about the Hebrew Sciptures in 200BC?
S
simspt
Guest
The east and west churches didnt always agree on writings (Rev, John due to Montanists disputes probably)being authoritative. It appears there was differences of opinion that was later resolved within the Church.
S
simspt
Guest
What about the Priests
- Status