Proof that Christ's Church was not Sola Scriptura

[PRmerger]

the characteristics of Scripture or identical to the characteristics of God words from His throne

So, is this “characteristic of God’s words from his throne”?

"Saul went in to a cave to relieve himself’.

Also, what are the characteristics of God’s words?

How do we know if something is “characteristic”?–Doesn’t that mean we know something about God already? If so, where did we get this information about what God is like?

Also, do we get to read something and decide if it’s “characteristic of Gods word?”

 

[PRmerger]

Are there any God breathed writings not included in the Bible?

not that we know of.

Maybe the Chronicles of Adam or 3 Corinthians were God breathed: but we don’t have access to them

How would we know if they were theopneustos or not?

Wouldn’t that mean you have to either

1. trust in the authority of someone else to tell you if it’s theopneustos?

or

1. have that authority for yourself?

And if it’s #2, do you think that everyone should have this authority? That is, could, say, Donald Trump prayerfully discern that Hebrews is not theopneustos but that the 3 Corinthians is?

 

[PRmerger]

yes
Jesus had more authority than when St. Peter preached.

So there you go.

Jesus preaching from the Mount would then have more authority than St. Peter’s first encyclical.

 

[alwayswill]

How would we know if they were theopneustos or not?

Wouldn’t that mean you have to either

1. trust in the authority of someone else to tell you if it’s theopneustos?

or

1. have that authority for yourself?

And if it’s #2, do you think that everyone should have this authority? That is, could, say, Donald Trump prayerfully discern that Hebrews is not theopneustos but that the 3 Corinthians is?

You are determined to move the discussion to what is Scripture.

I am telling you ; in this apologetic forum:
hint hint:
That is irrelevant to SS practicing Christians.

You are not going to score any apologetic points with SS believing Christians with that line of reasoning…

BECAUSE SS believing Christians hold SS to be true because of what Scripture is: not what is Scripture.

 

[alwayswill]

So there you go.

Jesus preaching from the Mount would then have more authority than St. Peter’s first encyclical.

bad form!!

my next line of text mattered

 

[PRmerger]

You are determined to move the discussion to what is Scripture.

Well, yes. It is the natural segue of this discussion.

You asserted that Scripture was “known”, but when I asked you how it was “known”, you can’t answer.

That’s kind of a big deal, alwayswill.

It refutes everything about SS.

You also asserted that Scripture has “characteristics” of God’s Word, but that presupposes that you know something about God without Scripture.

And that, also, refutes everything about SS.

These are things that you need to think about if you wish to embrace the paradigm of SS.

You can see that it’s an incoherent position.

 

[alwayswill]

Well, yes. It is the natural segue of this discussion.

You asserted that Scripture was “known”, but when I asked you how it was “known”, you can’t answer.

That’s kind of a big deal, alwayswill.

It refutes everything about SS.

but i do know
I know what is Scripture based on the testimony of the Church.\

You also asserted that Scripture has “characteristics” of God’s Word, but that presupposes that you know something about God without Scripture.

And that, also, refutes everything about SS.

These are things that you need to think about if you wish to embrace the paradigm of SS.

You can see that it’s an incoherent position.

Everything I know about God has been revealed in Scripture:
I see nothing incoherent in that position

 

[PRmerger]

but i do know
I know what is Scripture based on the testimony of the Church.

Excellent.

 

[PRmerger]

Everything I know about God has been revealed in Scripture:
I see nothing incoherent in that position

So…how can you know what is “characteristic of God’s Word”, except that you compare what you read to Scripture?

But…you first have to know what Scripture is, right?

And that comes…from the Church.

Not from the Bible.

The Church is the authority here. Not the Bible.

And that makes you…NOT Sola Scriptura.

 

[alwayswill]

So…how can you know what is “characteristic of God’s Word”, except that you compare what you read to Scripture?

But…you first have to know what Scripture is, right?

And that comes…from the Church.

Not from the Bible.

The Church is the authority here. Not the Bible.

And that makes you…NOT Sola Scriptura.

how do you know the Church has authority?

 

[PRmerger]

how do you know the Church has authority?

Because Christ established it.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed.

Which would mean, of course, that the inspired writers were infallible, yes?

Which means you believe that men can be infallible, right?

alwayswill, would you mind answering the above question?

 

[alwayswill]

Because Christ established it.

how do you know that?

 

[PRmerger]

how do you know that?

From history.

We know that a man named Jesus lived, and that established a church, that he died under Pontius Pilate and was said to have risen from the dead.

None of that is from Scripture, but rather from secular historical sources.

 

[alwayswill]

alwayswill, would you mind answering the above question?

sure :
"Which would mean, of course, that the inspired writers were infallible, yes?

Which means you believe that men can be infallible, right?"

nope

I agree with the way John MacArthur explains it

"Now, some other things you need to understand about the inspiration of the Scripture. Paul does not say in 2 Timothy…and it’s very important to note that…that the writers were inspired. He says all Scripture is inspired. And you want to understand that. **The writers were not inspired. The Scriptures were. **We talk today about an inspired person, inspired to some great achievement or some great literary accomplishment, whatever it might be, and some great scientific accomplishment. That’s not what we’re talking about. The Bible doesn’t know anything about inspired men. It only knows about inspired words. You understand that? That’s very important.

You say, “What do you mean by that?” ** I mean by that that Paul wrote some things that weren’t inspired. It was not Paul that was inspired; it was Scripture that was inspired. And when Paul wrote Scripture, Scripture was inspired. ** When Paul wrote something else, it was not inspired. Remember now, we’ve been studying 2 Corinthians before we took our little break; we’re going to get back to it in August. And in 2 Corinthians I’ve told you repeatedly that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians, the two inspired books in the New Testament. But there is a letter that he wrote to them before 1 Corinthians and a letter between 1 and 2 Corinthians which do not appear in the Scripture because they were not inspired.

Paul is not just generally inspired. No Bible writer is. No Bible writer is. Isaiah was not an inspired writer as such; neither was David or Paul or John or anybody else. Only when they wrote Scripture were they inspired, or, literally, were they the vehicle through whom God breathed out His word. Scripture is the word of God. It is not the word of inspired men. The writers wrote down the inspired word. So God breathed into them the very words that He wanted them to write. And by some miraculous supernatural, indescribable means, they wrote down exactly what God wanted said, which isn’t difficult if you’re God. He can certainly accomplish that. The actual process can’t be described, it is miraculous. It can’t be defined, it is supernatural."

 

[PRmerger]

sure :
"Which would mean, of course, that the inspired writers were infallible, yes?

Which means you believe that men can be infallible, right?"

nope

I agree with the way John MacArthur explains it

"Now, some other things you need to understand about the inspiration of the Scripture. Paul does not say in 2 Timothy…and it’s very important to note that…that the writers were inspired. He says all Scripture is inspired. And you want to understand that. **The writers were not inspired. The Scriptures were. **We talk today about an inspired person, inspired to some great achievement or some great literary accomplishment, whatever it might be, and some great scientific accomplishment. That’s not what we’re talking about. The Bible doesn’t know anything about inspired men. It only knows about inspired words. You understand that? That’s very important.

You say, “What do you mean by that?” ** I mean by that that Paul wrote some things that weren’t inspired. It was not Paul that was inspired; it was Scripture that was inspired. And when Paul wrote Scripture, Scripture was inspired. ** When Paul wrote something else, it was not inspired. Remember now, we’ve been studying 2 Corinthians before we took our little break; we’re going to get back to it in August. And in 2 Corinthians I’ve told you repeatedly that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians, the two inspired books in the New Testament. But there is a letter that he wrote to them before 1 Corinthians and a letter between 1 and 2 Corinthians which do not appear in the Scripture because they were not inspired.

Paul is not just generally inspired. No Bible writer is. No Bible writer is. Isaiah was not an inspired writer as such; neither was David or Paul or John or anybody else. Only when they wrote Scripture were they inspired, or, literally, were they the vehicle through whom God breathed out His word. Scripture is the word of God. It is not the word of inspired men. The writers wrote down the inspired word. So God breathed into them the very words that He wanted them to write. And by some miraculous supernatural, indescribable means, they wrote down exactly what God wanted said, which isn’t difficult if you’re God. He can certainly accomplish that. The actual process can’t be described, it is miraculous. It can’t be defined, it is supernatural."

So you believe it is wrong to talk about the “inspired writer”?

 

[alwayswill]

From history.

We know that a man named Jesus lived, and that established a church, that he died under Pontius Pilate and was said to have risen from the dead.

None of that is from Scripture, but rather from secular historical sources.

I know the apologetic “chess move” you are trying not to make

but you made a different bad move.

so you know Jesus granted the Church its authority from secular historical sources that cannot possibly infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

I know the apologetic “chess move” you are trying not to make

Sorry…I’m not making any “chess moves”. I’m simply answering your question.

so you know Jesus granted the Church its authority from secular historical sources that cannot possibly infallible.

Sure.

I don’t have to have an infallible source to know something is true.

My mom is not infallible, but she told me that there are eggs on sale and that grocery store, and I know that’s true, too.

So, the point remains: we know that my Church has authority because Jesus founded it.

 

[alwayswill]

So you believe it is wrong to talk about the “inspired writer”?

if we are being precise: that it is not technically correct to speak of the “inspired writer”.

and I don’t correct people when the they say the sun rises even though it is not technically correct

 

[PRmerger]

if we are being precise: that it is not technically correct to speak of the “inspired writer”.

and I don’t correct people when the they say the sun rises even though it is not technically correct

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