Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[PJM]

Notice how Phillip does not tell him to interpret it on his own and go start his own church? :tsktsk:

And Paul says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. What do pillars and foundations do anyway? They hold things up.

Doesn’t say the bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth because A.) There was no bible yet and B.) you need the correct interpretation of it as Peter pointed out and Phillip as well.

My friend, I LIKED the way you handles this:thumbsup:

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

So what happened to the successors of the other Apostles? There should be apostolic succession from them as well. Just curious.

Blessings,

Rita

Good point, and history shows that there ARE

Were this not FACT, the Infant Church would have stayed in its infancy; not grown to it’s present 1 BILLION PLUS membership.

THANKS for asking such a nice leading question,

Patrick

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Greetings.

There were letters circulating but there was no consensus on new Testament books until much later.

We know that just from looking at early documents such as the Muratorian fragment dated about 170AD. This is the earliest list we have of what was considered inspired:

christian-history.org/muratorian-canon.html

You can see that does not align with what we have today.

Depending on where you were you might have even considered Clement’s first epistle to be inspired.

This is why tradition, of which the scriptures came from, is so important, imo.

It’s how the church, guided by the holy Spirit and the vicar of Christ in 382 AD (pope Damasas) was able to umpire all this and give us the correct NT.

Blessings.

Except that was a local / regional council

 

[commenter]

It’s how the church, guided by the holy Spirit and the vicar of Christ in 382 AD (pope Damasas) was able to umpire all this and give us the correct NT.

Except that was a local / regional council

But not a local/regional pope. A universal pope. Popes choose whether to utilize one council over here, big or small, which recommends these books; or instead to deem authoritative that gnostic council over there, which for all I know might have been more “universal”, which recommended some of the “27” mixed in with gnostic writings. But the pope did not deem authoritative those gnostic councils, or gnostic canons. Thus, Catholics and Protestants today don’t, either.

We really have no way of knowing how “universal” an ancient council was. It was a source of guidance the Magisterium chose to utilize. The fact that there is one NT canon today, rather than many, suggests how many magisteriums there were in ancient times.

 

[commenter]

So what happened to the successors of the other Apostles? There should be apostolic succession from them as well. Just curious.

Rita

There are stories about where the other apostles may have gone, after their narrative leaves off in the bible. For instance, St. Thomas going to India. But we don’t know the details, some stories might or might not be true.

I see you rightly use the term apostolic succession, not successions. In other words, IMHO, there is a single apostolic succession from the college of apostles, not various independent successions. The fact that Christ so closely emphasized the unity of this particular body, suggests that apostolic succession may be only in a single united body of bishops today.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Except that was a local / regional council

Yeah, no American airlines then so ecumenicals were harder to accomplish. BTW, anyone see how ridiculously cheap airline tickets are? I need to fly somewhere…

Back to the topic… It’s Rome, head of the universal church that held that council in 382AD.

And it was reaffirmed, in 393 and 397 AD at Hippo and Cathage, respectively.

And for all intents and purposes, the disputes about what belonged in the bible ceased until Luther had other ideas.

Look at the book listing from the Vulgate.

Then check the listing from the Gutenberg bible in 1450-ish

Same exact canon then, and now.

Have a blessed day

 

[alwayswill]

Doesn’t say the bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth because A.) There was no bible yet and B.) you need the correct interpretation of it as Peter pointed out and Phillip as well.

Agreed :
As the Bible is a collection of all known God breathed writings (aka Scripture)
there was no Bible yet:

(I don’t want assume; so I’ll ask the following)
While there was no Bible, there was Scripture: correct?

Scripture is God’s word correct?

Do you agree that God’s Word is the truth?
John 17:17

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Agreed :
As the Bible is a collection of all known God breathed writings (aka Scripture)
there was no Bible yet:

(I don’t want assume; so I’ll ask the following)
While there was no Bible, there was Scripture: correct?

Scripture is God’s word correct?

Do you agree that God’s Word is the truth?
John 17:17

Yes, there was OT in written form. And if a apostle is pointing to scripture in the early church that is what they are usually referring to.

I agree with every scripture in the bible. Just have a problem with people’s interpretations of it. Amen to John 17:17

 

[alwayswill]

Yes, there was OT in written form.

I agree with every scripture in the bible. Just not people’s interpretations of it.

you quoted 1 Timothy 3:15
Most would consider that letter as Paul’s next to last writing:
1 Timothy came after Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts 1 & 2 Peter, and nearly all of Paul’s other writtings:

were they not NT Scriptures in written form?

 

[alwayswill]

Yes, there was OT in written form. And if a apostle is pointing to scripture in the early church that is what they are usually referring to.

I agree with every scripture in the bible. Just have a problem with people’s interpretations of it. Amen to John 17:17

…And Paul says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. What do pillars and foundations do anyway? They hold things up.

…:

Is it your interpretation that the truth (that is to be held up the pillar and foundation) referred to in 1 Timothy 3:15 does not include Scripture?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

you quoted 1 Timothy 3:15
Most would consider that Paul’s next to last writing:
1 Timothy came after Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts 1 & 2 Peter, and nearly all of Paul’s other writtings:

were they not NT Scriptures in written form?

They are difficult to date but here’s what is believed

1 Timothy was 64-65 AD

Matthew 70AD

Mark- probably 70AD

Luke/Acts- (can be argued it’s the same book) 70-80 AD

Peter- 50-65 AD

What they had then was mainly Paul’s letters being circulated.But of course lack of proper transportation took a long time to get things accomplished.

And most people were illiterate then, so these folks are relying on Church leaders who are equipped with OT and maybe a letter to their particular region from Paul…and, of course, oral tradition which was eventually written and properly circulated.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Is it your interpretation that the truth (that is to be held up the pillar and foundation) referred to in 1 Timothy 3:15 does not include Scripture?

My interpretation is that the scriptures are objective truth. It’s faulty interpretations of them that are the problem.

And that Jesus is one in the same with the church Acts 9:4 and that is why we can rely on the church for proper interpretation.

 

[alwayswill]

My interpretation is that the scriptures are objective truth. It’s faulty interpretations of them that are the problem.

And that Jesus is one in the same with the church Acts 9:4 and that is why we can rely on the church for proper interpretation.

Agreed: faulty interpretations of them that is the problem.

Does a faulty interpretation of a God breathed writing diminish the authority of that God breathed writing?

 

[alwayswill]

They are difficult to date but here’s what is believed

1 Timothy was 64-65 AD
…
…

Luke/Acts- (can be argued it’s the same book) 70-80 AD

.

Just an FYI (not to derail this thread)

Paul quotes Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18,
For Scripture says,
“Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”
**and **
“The worker deserves his wages.”

Luke 10:7
Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Agreed: faulty interpretations of them that is the problem.

Does a faulty interpretation of a God breathed writing diminish the authority of that God breathed writing?

Is the Westboro Baptist church speaking authoritatively when they quote the bible in your opinion?

 

[spedteacherita]

Is the Westboro Baptist church speaking authoritatively when they quote the bible in your opinion?

The Westboro Baptist Church is almost defunct as the founder died and family members have or are yet leaving it. They are a cult in all actuality as they use Scripture for their purposes. They don’t share the love of Jesus at all as we all know and take a few verses out of context for their own use.

I watched a documentary and in it was a sermon that Fred Phelps gave and it lasted no longer than 8-10 minutes. The only thing he talked about was how God hated America because it allowed “fags” (his word) to exist. Seriously twisted.

God bless!

Rita

 

[alwayswill]

Is the Westboro Baptist church speaking authoritatively when they quote the bible in your opinion?

Protestants make a distinction between between being infallible (incapable of error) and being authoritative.

My college Astronomy professor (PhD, author of many books) told us Pluto was a planet.
Was he authoritative.? yes Was he infallible ? no

Your example in the OP of supreme court interpreting the constitution:
Are they authoritative? Absolutely ! without a doubt
Are they infallible? I don’t think anyone believes they are.

Scripture ( because of what it is) is infallible and authoritative.
Anyone’s interpretation of Scripture is correct IF it agrees with the whole council of Scripture…
By definition: anything that disagrees with the infallible/inerrant must be in error.

Sola Scriptura as explained here by Catholic,com
"Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized. "
web.archive.org/web/20100330002353/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

and NEWADVENT.org Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)
Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible,

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Just an FYI (not to derail this thread)

Paul quotes Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18,
For Scripture says,
“Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”
**and **
“The worker deserves his wages.”

Luke 10:7
Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

Deuteronomy 25:4
Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.

When he refers to written scripture that is what he is referring to.

Luke’s gospel was likely still in the from of oral tradition. And we know Paul most definitely had that memorized.

 

[alwayswill]

Is the Westboro Baptist church speaking authoritatively when they quote the bible in your opinion?

Everyone speaks authoritatively when they quote the bible .
Everyone speaks the Truth when they quote the bible .

It is the infallible inerrant word of God

The Protestant view is this
no denomination,
no organization
no council
no group
no person
no leader
no saint
no apostle
no Protestant
no Catholic
no believer
and no interpretation
is THE Truth

The TRUTH is
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life.

A church or denomination or interpretation can be correct if they agree with God and His Word.
but they are not the absolute standard upon which Truth is measured

 

[alwayswill]

When he refers to written scripture that is what he is referring to.

Luke’s gospel was likely still in the from of oral tradition. And we know Paul most definitely had that memorized.

point 1 yes the FIRST part was Deuteronomy 25:4 the second part was from Luke
point 2: I have never heard that Luke’s Gospel had existed as a oral tradition prior to being written: can you please point me any source that can confirm that?