Proof that Christ's Church was not Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter joemccarron
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Interesting…

and yet John MacArthur himself identifies the writers of Scripture as “inspired writers”.

A lot.

It appears that he’s contradicting his own writings.

Look at all the times he’s talked about the writers of Scripture as being “inspired writers”:

gty.org/resources/sermons/90-323/The-Bible-Is-Gods-Word

gty.org/resources/sermons/80-420/scripture-is-sufficient

gty.org/resources/sermons/90-154/the-character-of-gods-word
Click to expand...
More references by JMcA of “inspired writers”:

gty.org/resources/sermons/80-125/The-Glory-of-the-Cross

gty.org/resources/sermons/90-228/the-creation-of-woman

gty.org/resources/sermons/42-95/why-the-believer-doubts-part-1
 
PRmerger said:
More references by JMcA of “inspired writers”:

gty.org/resources/sermons/80-125/The-Glory-of-the-Cross

gty.org/resources/sermons/90-228/the-creation-of-woman

gty.org/resources/sermons/42-95/why-the-believer-doubts-part-1
Click to expand...
common expression

even the infallible word of God says the sun rises
and BTW referring the Scripures as inspired is the weakest translation of the Greek “theopneustos” : which is more accurately translated as “God breathed”

Beatles’ melodies are inspired: Paul McCartney wrote inspired tunes.
Scripture is God breathed
 
alwayswill said:
common expression

even the infallible word of God says the sun rises
Click to expand...
I think you really have to stretch your credulity to think, *after all the times JMcA uses the phrase “inspired writer”**…that he doesn’t really believe that the writers of Scripture are…inspired.

This is NOT an example of phenomenological language, alwayswill.

And I think you know this.

Clearly, JMcA believes the writers of Scripture to be inspired.

However, in order to cling to the untenable assertion that men can’t be infallible, he has to make some sort of weird gyrations saying, “men can’t be inspired, only the text can be…and all those times that I said ‘inspired writer’ I didn’t really mean that.”
*and I didn’t even cite all of his references to “inspired writer”.
 
PRmerger said:
If the Anglican defers to the authority of the CC, then he is NOT SS.

Incidentally, this also means that the Anglican acknowledges that the CC has been given the charism of infallibility. At least as it pertains to the canon of the NT.
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura is not SOLO Scriptura

redeeminggod.com/sola-scriptura-solo-scriptura/
…when most people today talk about Sola Scriptura, what they really have in mind is Solo Scriptura. “Solo” Scriptura is the idea that we can learn all matters about faith and practice using the Bible alone, plus nothing else. If a group or person studies the Bible, and they think they have found some truth, doctrine, or practice in Scripture, then they should believe or practice this idea, whether or not it was ever believed or practiced previously in the history of the church. This is “Solo” Scriptura.

**
Sola Scriptura, on the other hand, as talked about by the Reformers, held to nothing of the sort. They believed that Scripture should be studied in conjunction with the rest of the community of the Saints, especially those Early Church Fathers who helped develop the Creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon.**
 
Duane1966 said:
Why there is in principle, no difference between sola scriptura, and solo scriptura.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
Click to expand...
“According to Keith Mathison, over the last one hundred and fifty years Evangelicalism has replaced sola scriptura, according to which Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority, with solo scriptura, the notion that Scripture is the only ecclesial authority”

Not in my Church

Not in any of the dozen Sola Scriprura practicing churches in my area that VERY familiar with.

Not in any of the church-plants that I and my church have been involved with .

Not with any of church’s our overseas missionaries.

Not with any churches that Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, Grudem, Washer, Keller are affiliated with
 
PRmerger said:
I ask you this question as well. Are there any God breathed writings not included in the Bible?

And what is the source for your answer?
Click to expand...
Sorry, alwayswill, but did you answer this question?

If not, would you please do so.

And if you did, could you point me to your response? Thanks.
 
PRmerger said:
Sorry, alwayswill, but did you answer this question?

If not, would you please do so.

And if you did, could you point me to your response? Thanks.
Click to expand...
in post 67
I know what is Scripture based on the testimony of the Church
 
alwayswill said:
for the third time:
in post 67
I know what is Scripture based on the testimony of the Church
Click to expand...
Ah. Sorry.

So you defer to the Church on several matters then. 👍

And by the Church, you mean the Catholic Church, for that is the only Church that was around in the 4th century when the ancient texts were examined and then contained in a Book.
 
alwayswill said:
“According to Keith Mathison, over the last one hundred and fifty years Evangelicalism has replaced sola scriptura, according to which Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority, with solo scriptura, the notion that Scripture is the only ecclesial authority”

Not in my Church

Not in any of the dozen Sola Scriprura practicing churches in my area that VERY familiar with.

Not in any of the church-plants that I and my church have been involved with .

Not with any of church’s our overseas missionaries.

Not with any churches that Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, Grudem, Washer, Keller are affiliated with
Click to expand...
Your comment does not address the point that the authors of the article are making, that in principle, there is no difference between sola and solo scriptura.

The Reformation has born this out. Why could not Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli agree on the Eucharist, when they were all practicing sola scriptura? Scripture cannot interpret itself. At some point, you have let the church you belong to have the authority of interpreting Scripture, as long as you agree with them. This is what every church that has split off from another has done. In this, there is no denial.

I find it interesting that within one hundred years of the Reformation, a book was written called The Two Hundred Interpretations of what Christ Meant By This is My Body. Except for the Catholic interpretation, 199 interpretations were from sola scriptura practicing churches.
 
Duane1966 said:
Your comment does not address the point that the authors of the article are making, that in principle, there is no difference between sola and solo scriptura.

The Reformation has born this out. Why could not Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli agree on the Eucharist, when they were all practicing sola scriptura? Scripture cannot interpret itself. At some point, you have let the church you belong to have the authority of interpreting Scripture, as long as you agree with them. This is what every church that has split off from another has done. In this, there is no denial.

I find it interesting that within one hundred years of the Reformation, a book was written called The Two Hundred Interpretations of what Christ Meant By This is My Body. Except for the Catholic interpretation, 199 interpretations were from sola scriptura practicing churches.
Click to expand...
 
Duane1966 said:
At some point, you have let the church you belong to have the authority of interpreting Scripture, as long as you agree with them.
Click to expand...
This is such an important point.

It is the foundation of the splintering of Christianity into thousands of denominations.

It’s an obscenity.

If you don’t agree with your (fallible) church’s interpretation, then, hey, go start your own (fallible) church and create your own (fallible) doctrines.

Just what the devil ordered.
 
PRmerger said:
Ah. Sorry.

So you defer to the Church on several matters then. 👍

And by the Church, you mean the Catholic Church, for that is the only Church that was around in the 4th century when the ancient texts were examined and then contained in a Book.
Click to expand...
already said that in post 30
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14350534&postcount=30

“And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.”
 
Duane1966 said:
Your comment does not address the point that the authors of the article are making, that in principle, there is no difference between sola and solo scriptura.

The Reformation has born this out. Why could not Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli agree on the Eucharist, when they were all practicing sola scriptura? Scripture cannot interpret itself. At some point, you have let the church you belong to have the authority of interpreting Scripture, as long as you agree with them. This is what every church that has split off from another has done. In this, there is no denial.

I find it interesting that within one hundred years of the Reformation, a book was written called The Two Hundred Interpretations of what Christ Meant By This is My Body. Except for the Catholic interpretation, 199 interpretations were from sola scriptura practicing churches.
Click to expand...
It seems that most of the Catholic apologetic discussions arguing against Sola Scriptura are aimed at other Catholics, to convince them SS is an error.
It’s a Catholic to Catholic discussion.
I’m here to tell you that you are often missing the view of the Sola Scriptura proponents…

now follow this key point:

misunderstanding what God says from His throne does not diminish the authority of His words

misunderstanding what God says in writings breathed out bu God does not diminish the authority of those writings

misunderstanding God does not diminish His authority.
 
PRmerger said:
This is such an important point.

It is the foundation of the splintering of Christianity into thousands of denominations.

It’s an obscenity.

If you don’t agree with your (fallible) church’s interpretation, then, hey, go start your own (fallible) church and create your own (fallible) doctrines.

Just what the devil ordered.
Click to expand...
once again :
misunderstanding God does not diminish His authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top