Protestant defense of sola scriptura

[mikeledes]

Mike>>Thank you! That just proves that you could not face my challenge, gave up, and instead will search for weaker prey. Too bad you won’t find weaker prey. If you won’t directly answer my questions, then I prefer not to waste ink on you. Oh… wait… I ain’t using ink. Well, you know what I mean.

You apparently believe that the Apostles had no teaching on what constitutes a valid marriage that they passed on to the early Christians. So a Christian can just “shack up” or have a “common-law” marriage and it is okay with you.

**This is an ad hominem attack. This is on the level of me saying since the Catholic Church indeed executed Protestants, then you apparently cannot wait to jump into the fray and execute me.

Actually, I don’t know what you mean. You have to explicitly spell it out. BTW, I actually know what you mean. I just want you to explicitly state it.**

You apparently did not read the posts he directed to me.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mrs_abbott]

Can you tell me where in the Bible does it say that a valid marriage is an exchange of vows? How do you define marriage, besides being between a man and a woman? When is a marriage a marriage before the eyes of God? Is it at the exchange of vows? Paul constantly talks about fornication and adultery, so he must have given a clear teaching on what constitutes a true marriage.

God Bless,
michael

No offense to all who are debating but changing the subject like that proves no point and makes the thread harder to follow. I was following this thread before lunch and I want to know how the topic of marriage got brought up???

 

[E.E.N.S]

How did the Jews know what marriage was without an infallible Tradition? However, this also shows what happens when Tradition creeps in. Their divorce was based on Tradition passed down from Moses. Sounds familiar?

Yes it does. Jesus tells them to listen to the Pharisees because they sit in the chair of Moses. Similar to when how the Pope sits in the chair of Peter. However there is a difference this time - Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to loose and bind, and also the promise that the Church would never fall into the gates of hell (through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.)

 

[mikeledes]

But your traditions are nowhere found in scripture…or more accurately, some of your traditions are nowhere found in scripture.

Okay… Did you forget we don’t believe in Sola Scriptura? That’s why we’re having this discusion.

God Bless,
michael

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Do you think that Christianity started 500 years ago? You sure act like it. Before that there was only one Church, the Catholic Church (and the EO after 1054A.D.)…seriously brother, you can’t have your argument taken seriously if you not only ignore, but twist history to fit you own preconceived ideas.

Timeline:

1st century - Catholic
2nd - Catholic
3rd - Catholic
4th - Catholic
5th - Catholic
6th - Catholic
7th - Catholic
8th - Catholic
9th - Catholic
10th - Catholic
11th - Catholic, Orthodox split
12th - same
13th - same
14th - same
15th - same
16th - same, Protestant split
17th - same, more division amongst protestants
18th - same, more division amongst protestants
19th - same, more division amongst protestants (this is where the first Baptists come on to the scene)
20th - same, more division amongst protestants
21 - same, more division amongst protestants (EO may be reuniting with the Catholic Church )

don’t ignore history Brian

Uh…I could just add “Christian” to every line on that list. Of which I am part of.

I won’t ignore history. I like history. I am also aware that history can be revised so one must be careful what he believes. I won’t ignore history but I will ignore the rude comments. Capiche?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

No offense to all who are debating but changing the subject like that proves no point and makes the thread harder to follow. I was following this thread before lunch and I want to know how the topic of marriage got brought up???

No problem. It got brought up because Mike couldn’t disprove Sola Scriptura. But we’re partly to blame. Instead of us reporting his violation of the rules by taking the thread off topic, we kept playing the game.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

You apparently did not read the posts he directed to me.

God Bless,
Michael

You apparently didn’t read 2Tim. 3:16,17 when you were reading your Bible. Scripture itself, including that verse, along with common sense to correctly interpret what it is saying, proves Sola Scriptura. Debate over. It’s been fun. Chow.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think the definition given in your paper is to general…it says to much.

Sorry to be jumping so far back in the thread but SolaScriptura’s challenge has led me to begin at the beginning and I can’t help making observations along the way.

Isn’t the issue of the definition(s) of sola scriptura symptomatic of the whole problem with the doctrine?

I’m not sure many evangelicals could give an accurate definition, and we Catholic apologists feel like we’re shooting at a moving target.

If the doctrine is so clearly taught in scripture, why is it that no one seems to be able to find it or articulate it consistently and correctly?

The Westminster Confession which you have alluded to states:“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them…The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself” (6,7)Perhaps the doctrine of sola scriptura does NOT fall into the category of things “known, believed, and observed for salvation” because it is not at all “clearly propounded and opened” within the pages of Scripture itself.

Where the heck are these verses you guys have found?

 

[mikeledes]

No offense to all who are debating but changing the subject like that proves no point and makes the thread harder to follow. I was following this thread before lunch and I want to know how the topic of marriage got brought up???

Mrs. Abbot, sometimes I wonder… Just kidding! Marriage is an element of Christian teaching. A clear teaching on marriage is not found in Scripture. Hence the challenge to Sola Scriptura.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Randy, does this help?

**All things in scripture are not equally plain in themselves, nor equally clear to everyone, yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and revealed in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the educated but also the uneducated may attain a sufficient understanding of them by the due use of ordinary means. ** LCBF 1689

Maybe, just maybe there is room for Tradition. I am not concluding that right now. But this makes it clear that everything one needs to know, believe, and observe for salvation are most definitely revealed in Scripture, and Scripture would be the only authority on this matter.

 

[mikeledes]

No problem. It got brought up because Mike couldn’t disprove Sola Scriptura. But we’re partly to blame. Instead of us reporting his violation of the rules by taking the thread off topic, we kept playing the game.

Being that you believe all Christian truth is found explicity in Scripture, please point to me where in the Bible does it define such a crucial institution like Christian marriage? I’m sure you believe in Christian marriage. On what do you base that belief?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Mrs. Abbot, sometimes I wonder… Just kidding! Marriage is an element of Christian teaching. A clear teaching on marriage is not found in Scripture. Hence the challenge to Sola Scriptura.

God Bless,
Michael

This is false. Marriage is an institution for all of humanity. The reason there is not a clear teaching is due to this fact. All people get married, not just Christians.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Being that you believe all Christian truth is found explicity in Scripture, please to to me where in the Bible does it define such a crucial institution like Christian marriage? I’m sure you believe in Christian marriage. On what do you base that belief?

God Bless,
Michael

I don’t understand what you’re saying. It seems you are playing games. There is no such thing as Christian marriage. There is only marriage. Christians get married and God wants Christians to only marry other Christians but apart from that, marriage is an institution open to all of humanity, provided it’s a man and woman of course.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Uh…I could just add “Christian” to every line on that list. Of which I am part of.

I won’t ignore history. I like history. I am also aware that history can be revised so one must be careful what he believes. I won’t ignore history but I will ignore the rude comments. Capiche?

But you are ignoring history! The Catholic Church has always been there (and it would’ve seemed even more “Catholic” than it is today, because, unfortunately, the “protestant mentality” and much liberal action has taken place in the last 40 years)…Cardinal Newman (who is also a convert to the Catholic Church) said, “To immerse oneself in history, is to cease to be Protestant.”

This is very true.

I came to two conclusions: Catholic or Orthodox, and the weight put on the primacy of Peter (and his successors) throughout history (and Scripture) played the major role in my choice of Catholicism.

 

[E.E.N.S]

You apparently didn’t read 2Tim. 3:16,17 when you were reading your Bible. Scripture itself, including that verse, along with common sense to correctly interpret what it is saying, proves Sola Scriptura. Debate over. It’s been fun. Chow.

This has been addressed several times in this thread already:

Okay let’s take a look.

13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

v.14 … It says here to hold fast to the things that he has learned because knowing who it came from.
“All scripture,”… Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.

“profitable,”… this says it is profitable, not that it is sufficient.

This in no way supports your argument for sola scriptura.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think you read too much into 2Timothy 3:16-17. Paul’s intention is to discuss the nature of scripture, not the extent of scripture. Also, at this early point in salvation history, there was already the beginnings of a canon.

From post #41

---

Paul was not speaking of the extent of scripture but only the nature of scripture. Nowhere in this passage or any passages close by will you find Paul discussing the canon.

Also there was some knowledge, even at this early stage of what was to be the NT canon.

See 2 Peter 3:16 “…as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

With the wording of this passage there is no doubt that Peter considered Paul’s letters scripture since he uses the phrase “…as they do the OTHER scriptures.”

Additionally, Paul sees that the gospel of Luke is scripture. This is evident from 1 Timothy 5:18 "For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

The “laborer deserves his wages” is a reference to Luke 10:7.

So, as you can see, the canon of the NT was beginning to form even from the beginning.

---

Reformed-

Are you saying that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not adequate for defending sola scriptura?

 

[mikeledes]

I don’t understand what you’re saying. It seems you are playing games. There is no such thing as Christian marriage. There is only marriage. Christians get married and God wants Christians to only marry other Christians but apart from that, marriage is an institution open to all of humanity, provided it’s a man and woman of course.

So, Muslims and several African tribes practice polygamy. Jews and Muslims and our own society allows divorce. Now we have the issue of gay marriage. So how do we determine God’s definition of marriage?

And no… I’m not playing games. I just wish people would stop using baseless accusations to evade answering my questions.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

This is false. Marriage is an institution for all of humanity. The reason there is not a clear teaching is due to this fact. All people get married, not just Christians.

Indeed all people get married. You have polygamy, polyandry, and now even same-sex unions. Monogamy is not universally practiced, not even by the Old Testament patriarchs. Can a Christian have more than one wife if the law allows it?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

But your traditions are nowhere found in scripture…or more accurately, some of your traditions are nowhere found in scripture.

Reformed1-

You should know that we’ll object to this statement. EVERY tradition of the Church can be found either explicitly or implicitly in scripture.

But you’d have to ask your questions in another thread.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

**“profitable,”… this says it is profitable, not that it is sufficient.

This in no way supports your argument for sola scriptura.**

I already addressed this. It does more than support my argument, it proves it.