Scripture alone proponents, please provide just the verse, or verses that explicitly illustrate the following?

[joe370]

Scripture alone proponents, please provide just the verse, or verses that explicitly illustrate the following:

Scripture is the Christians sole authority?

There is no other authority for learning about God and/or salvation outside the pages of sacred scripture? By the way, I believe that all scripture is inspired but that doesn’t answer the question.

Salvation is attainable through faith alone? I see just the opposite so far: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

The revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle, which of course I believe, but am looking for a scriptural basis?

The list of the canonical books of the Old Testament?

The list of the canonical books of the New Testament?

The Holy Spirit being one of the three Persons of the Trinity? Comparable to John 17 regarding the Father and the Son.

Scripture contains the name of the author of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews and the Acts of the apostles?

Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man from the moment of conception, something doubted by some Christians?

The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son?

Would the following be an explicit enough example in your opinion? "He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit…”

Thanks…

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;8490108]Scripture alone proponents, please provide just the verse, or verses that explicitly illustrate the following:

Gosh, Joe, there’s a lot here.

Scripture is the Christians sole authority?

There is no other authority for learning about God and/or salvation outside the pages of sacred scripture? By the way, I believe that all scripture is inspired but that doesn’t answer the question.

Well, Joe, Lutherans recognize the teaching authority of the Church, but we believe that those teachings are accountable to scripture as the final norm for those teachings. Without looking up verses, I think you and I agree that the Church has teaching authority, as per scripture

Salvation is attainable through faith alone? I see just the opposite so far: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Eph. 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”
Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Rom. 5:1, “therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,”
Rom. 10:9-10, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”
Eph. 1:13, “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.”

The list of the canonical books of the Old Testament?

The list of the canonical books of the New Testament?

None, of course. But then, neither is there a list in the Lutheran Confessions.

The Holy Spirit being one of the three Persons of the Trinity? Comparable to John 17 regarding the Father and the Son.

Mark 1: 9-11

Scripture contains the name of the author of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews and the Acts of the apostles?

Oddly, authorship is/was the main concern regarding the disputed books of both testaments.

Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man from the moment of conception, something doubted by some Christians?

John 1:1

The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son?

Would the following be an explicit enough example in your opinion? "He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit…”

In this sense of “proceeds”, yes.

Jon

 

[joe370]

JonNC;8490936]Gosh, Joe, there’s a lot here.

Well, Joe, Lutherans recognize the teaching authority of the Church, but we believe that those teachings are accountable to scripture as the final norm for those teachings. Without looking up verses, I think you and I agree that the Church has teaching authority, as per scripture

Eph. 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”
Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Rom. 5:1, “therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,”
Rom. 10:9-10, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”
Eph. 1:13, “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.”

Of course but nowhere does scripture imply that salvation is attainable through faith alone? “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

As a former fringe Lutheran, I always found it difficult to accept the fact that there is no list of the canonical books of the OT and NT. We have to take it on faith that the CC got it right.

I know that the HS is God, but Mark 1: 9-11 seems rather silent regarding the oneness of the holy spirit and the Father as well as the HS and the Son.

The odd part is that all non-catholics accept the decision of the teaching office of the CC regarding the disputed books of the NT as well as the authorship of the NT but reject other decisions made by the CC. Hard to understand.

John 1:1 of course is a great proof-text verse illustrating that Jesus was always God prior to His incarnation but it doesn’t say too much about Jesus being both fullyGod and fully man from the moment of conception until His birth (of course it seems like a no-brainer) - which was why it was challenged by some in the early church and continues to be doubted by some Christians today?

Nestorianism for example claimed that Mary did not give birth to God, but only to the human side of Jesus using scripture as their buttress and some went so far as to claim that Jesus didn’t even become God until His Baptism.

I have always wondered:

If SS is the final authority via private judgment (something you and I don’t believe) - for discerning truth, what authority did the CC rightfully exercise to dispute and refute Nestorianism and call it a heresy?

I agree Jon regarding the filioque. I wonder why Eastern orthodox don’t? Your thoughts? Boy this thread was a real bust. LOL…

 

[Tony888]

Hi Joe
quote=joe370;8495476]

Of course but nowhere does scripture imply that salvation is attainable through faith alone? “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
Not true - I urge you to read up on Calvinism and their arguments! I concede this debate cannot be won, since both camps have their favorite "proof-texts"

As a former fringe Lutheran, I always found it difficult to accept the fact that there is no list of the canonical books of the OT and NT. We have to take it on faith that the CC got it right.
In general, yes - the early Christians did a good job. But it’s fairly certain that they also made mistakes.

I know that the HS is God, but Mark 1: 9-11 seems rather silent regarding the oneness of the holy spirit and the Father as well as the HS and the Son.
Great example of scripture that doesn’t support the Nicean Trinity

The odd part is that all non-catholics accept the decision of the teaching office of the CC regarding the disputed books of the NT as well as the authorship of the NT but reject other decisions made by the CC. Hard to understand.
Not really. Much of it is related to timing of the decisions. For example, the “95 theses” and in particular, the practice of selling indulgences came long after the ECF had collected the texts which became the New Testament.

John 1:1 of course is a great proof-text verse illustrating that Jesus was always God prior to His incarnation but it doesn’t say too much about Jesus being both fullyGod and fully man from the moment of conception until His birth (of course it seems like a no-brainer) - which was why it was challenged by some in the early church and continues to be doubted by some Christians today?
Not to derail, but I though “proof-texts” were examples of quoting “out of context”, of being misleading. Anyway, scripture leaves many gaps that will remain unfilled, at least until we pass this life.

Nestorianism for example claimed that Mary did not give birth to God, but only to the human side of Jesus using scripture as their buttress and some went so far as to claim that Jesus didn’t even become God until His Baptism.
Seems like a complext topic. What does one mean by "giving birth? Their argument has merit if giving birth means creating, since Jesus was God before he assumed a mortal body. Again, the scriptures leave much room for speculation.

I have always wondered:

If SS is the final authority via private judgment (something you and I don’t believe) - for discerning truth, what authority did the CC rightfully exercise to dispute and refute Nestorianism and call it a heresy?
I agree that the SS crowd has a set of core traditions they follow, many taken from the CC. They follow traditions without the central control (by enlarge)

I agree Jon regarding the filioque. I wonder why Eastern orthodox don’t? Your thoughts? Boy this thread was a real bust. LOL…

 

[Nicea325]

I know that the HS is God, but Mark 1: 9-11 seems rather silent regarding the oneness of the holy spirit and the Father as well as the HS and the Son.
Great example of scripture that doesn’t support the Nicean Trinity

WRONG! On the contrary,plenty of verses proving the LDS and Jehovah Witnesses are dead wrong.

 

[BrianH]

When anyone argues that certain Christian tenets are not in scripture you might convince some people of that. You* might* convince them that they in fact should follow the Catholic Church.
Now, I have never seen that occur in around 15 years discussing these things on the internet.
I have however seen people convinced and join Sola Scriptura groups that do not support these views like the JW, Christadelphians, and others.
BH

 

[JonNC]

WRONG! On the contrary,plenty of verses proving the LDS and Jehovah Witnesses are dead wrong.

And the cumulative nature of those verses clearly points to the correct assessment of the council regarding the Trinity.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;8495476]
Of course but nowhere does scripture imply that salvation is attainable through faith alone? “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

IOW, faith cannot be alone. This is true. Charity and hope clearly must accompany faith.
The argument that faith alone means no necessity of charity is a false argument. We access justification by grace alone through faith in Christ, but true faith, a saving faith is a faith that works.

As a former fringe Lutheran, I always found it difficult to accept the fact that there is no list of the canonical books of the OT and NT. We have to take it on faith that the CC got it right.

I think the Lutheran position has always been that the undsiputed books are clearly canon, and the disputed books are, well, disputed, since Eusebius and Jerome. And it seems to me evidence of this that the reformers, at least technically, left the canon open by not listing them in the confessions.

I know that the HS is God, but Mark 1: 9-11 seems rather silent regarding the oneness of the holy spirit and the Father as well as the HS and the Son.

then there must be another explanation of who the Spirit in Mark 1 is, and who that Spirit received by the apostles on Pentecost is, and why we are told to Baptize in the Spirit’s name, along with the Father and the Son. Why would we be told to Baptize in the Spirit’s if He were not God?

The odd part is that all non-catholics accept the decision of the teaching office of the CC regarding the disputed books of the NT as well as the authorship of the NT but reject other decisions made by the CC. Hard to understand.

Not so hard to understand. At least for Lutherans, our roots are deep within the western Church, in the early councils and creeds.

John 1:1 of course is a great proof-text verse illustrating that Jesus was always God prior to His incarnation but it doesn’t say too much about Jesus being both fullyGod and fully man from the moment of conception until His birth (of course it seems like a no-brainer) - which was why it was challenged by some in the early church and continues to be doubted by some Christians today?

Nestorianism for example claimed that Mary did not give birth to God, but only to the human side of Jesus using scripture as their buttress and some went so far as to claim that Jesus didn’t even become God until His Baptism.

Hope it helps that I don’t understand this from a scriptural POV either.

I have always wondered:

If SS is the final authority via private judgment (something you and I don’t believe) - for discerning truth, what authority did the CC rightfully exercise to dispute and refute Nestorianism and call it a heresy?

All the patriarchs - together.

I agree Jon regarding the filioque. I wonder why Eastern orthodox don’t? Your thoughts? Boy this thread was a real bust. LOL…

Speculating that it was done without the benefit of a general council, for one.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

IOW, faith cannot be alone. This is true. Charity and hope clearly must accompany faith.
The argument that faith alone means no necessity of charity is a false argument. We access justification by grace alone through faith in Christ, but true faith, a saving faith is a faith that works.

So many protestants, right here on this thread have accused me (and other catholics) - of attempting to work out our salvation. I wonder why they don’t understand it the way you do…

BTW, I like that ML quote at the end of all your posts:

“Faith must…be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. …To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith.” - Luther

I

think the Lutheran position has always been that the undsiputed books are clearly canon, and the disputed books are, well, disputed, since Eusebius and Jerome. And it seems to me evidence of this that the reformers, at least technically, left the canon open by not listing them in the confessions.

From a Lutheran perspective as I have learned it from you and other Lutherans (as opposed to my former LC) - it makes sense.

then there must be another explanation of who the Spirit in Mark 1 is, and who that Spirit received by the apostles on Pentecost is, and why we are told to Baptize in the Spirit’s name, along with the Father and the Son. Why would we be told to Baptize in the Spirit’s if He were not God?

I think my approach was faulty. From a Christian perspective, it seems rather obvious that the HS is God and therefore must be one with the Father and the Son; no doubt about tha! But from a non-Christian perspective, I have had people say:

From a scriptural standpoint Joe it looks like the Father and the Son are one, comprising one God and the HS is another God, for nowhere in scripture does scripture claim that the HS is one with the Father and the Son, to which I quote the following: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” as proof that all three are one."

They persist by saying: I know scripture does indeed claim that the HS is God, but where does it say the HS is one with the God-head of Jesus and the Father? To which I say, hmm…

Not so hard to understand. At least for Lutherans, our roots are deep within the western Church, in the early councils and creeds.

Agreed. I am of course referring to those who reject the roots within the western Church, as well as the early councils and creeds and view scripture alone via private interpretation as their only authority.

All the patriarchs - together.

From a Catholic and Lutheran standpoint, I agree.

From a non-Catholic, non-Lutheran standpoint, scripture alone is the Christians one and only authority as opposed to all those catholic patriarchs - together, comprising the CC! If they’re right and SS is the final authority via private judgment (again, excluding the Lutheran belief for they defer to church authority) - for discerning truth, then the CC did not have the right to flex their authoritative muscles to dispute and refute Nestorianism and call it a heresy, because the bible alone, as believed by many today, should have been, at the time of Nestorian, the Christians one and only authority as opposed to the CC leaders, meaning that Nestorian simply did what he should have done, which was disregard the teaching office of the CC and take it it right to scripture. Follow me?

Speculating that it was done without the benefit of a general council, for one.

The CC acted alone? Makes sense. I just wonder why they don’t see it in scripture when it seems pretty obvious in the following verse:

"He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit…”



.

 

[Ginger2]

Scripture alone proponents, please provide just the verse, or verses that explicitly illustrate the following:

Scripture is the Christians sole authority?

There is no other authority for learning about God and/or salvation outside the pages of sacred scripture? By the way, I believe that all scripture is inspired but that doesn’t answer the question.

Salvation is attainable through faith alone? I see just the opposite so far: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

The revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle, which of course I believe, but am looking for a scriptural basis?

The list of the canonical books of the Old Testament?

The list of the canonical books of the New Testament?

The Holy Spirit being one of the three Persons of the Trinity? Comparable to John 17 regarding the Father and the Son.

Scripture contains the name of the author of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews and the Acts of the apostles?

Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man from the moment of conception, something doubted by some Christians?

The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son?

Would the following be an explicit enough example in your opinion? "He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit…”

Thanks…

Hello Joe, I am sorry to say I cannot answer these quesions because they are what Catholics mistakenly think Protestants believe. So the question in my mind is, "Why do Catholics think Protestants believe this when they have been told many times, we don’t - with the exception of a couple.

For example: I have never heard a Christian claim “Scripture is the sole authority” God Almighty is our sole authority!

I have however, heard it said. “the Holy Scriptures are the rule of faith” meaning a measure for truth.

The Scriptures support this idea saying we should test everything and if someone speaks "not according to the Word, there is no truth in them. and the Bereans, etc. there are so many, but I haven’t the tim e to look them up.

So you would have to correct your list if you want Protestants to show verses for what we believe. We cannot show verses to support things we do not believe.

 

[joe370]

Ginger2;8498647]Hello Joe, I am sorry to say I cannot answer these quesions because they are what Catholics mistakenly think Protestants believe. So the question in my mind is, "Why do Catholics think Protestants believe this when they have been told many times, we don’t - with the exception of a couple.

Hey Ginger, I thought you had left CAF. Glad I was wrong!

For example: I have never heard a Christian claim “Scripture is the sole authority” God Almighty is our sole authority!

Of course God is the sole authority, but God is not here to speak authoritatively, settle disputes etc., when they arise.

You are the first SS proponent I have ever met who didn’t believe that scripture is the Christians sole authority regarding Christian faith.

I have however, heard it said. “the Holy Scriptures are the rule of faith” meaning a measure for truth.

Ginger, where can that visible earthly authority be found if not in scripture alone?

The Scriptures support this idea saying we should test everything and if someone speaks "not according to the Word, there is no truth in them. and the Bereans, etc. there are so many, but I haven’t the tim e to look them up.

So, scripture alone was, in the early church, and continues to be the Christians sole rule of faith for testing everything as opposed to the CC teaching office back then or any other church teaching office today. Right?

If you’re right and scripture alone via individual interpretation was, in the early church, the Christians sole rule of faith for testing everything, (as opposed to the teaching office of the CC) - then the CC, logically speaking, never had the right to flex their authoritative muscles to dispute and refute heresies such as Nestorianism, Arianism, etc., because the bible alone, as you are suggesting, should have been, at the time of such heresies, the Christians (eg Nestorius and Arius) - sole rule of faith for testing those particular doctrinal difference, as opposed to the teaching office of the CC, meaning that both Nestorius and Arius simply did what they should have done, which was disregard the teaching office of the CC and take it it right to scripture, which was their sole rule of faith for testing everything. Correct?

 

[babylonsfalling]

Scripture alone proponents, please provide just the verse, or verses that explicitly illustrate the following:

Scripture is the Christians sole authority?

There is no other authority for learning about God and/or salvation outside the pages of sacred scripture? By the way, I believe that all scripture is inspired but that doesn’t answer the question.

Salvation is attainable through faith alone? I see just the opposite so far: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

The revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle, which of course I believe, but am looking for a scriptural basis?

The list of the canonical books of the Old Testament?

The list of the canonical books of the New Testament?

The Holy Spirit being one of the three Persons of the Trinity? Comparable to John 17 regarding the Father and the Son.

Scripture contains the name of the author of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews and the Acts of the apostles?

Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man from the moment of conception, something doubted by some Christians?

The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son?

Would the following be an explicit enough example in your opinion? "He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit…”

Thanks…

Here’s the Scripture that the Scripture only crowd ignores:

2Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Great Irony: Scripture calls for tradition.

Mental Gymnastics: A person has to reject Scripture in order to believe in Scripture alone.

 

[jlhargus]

Hello Joe, I am sorry to say I cannot answer these quesions because they are what Catholics mistakenly think Protestants believe. So the question in my mind is, "Why do Catholics think Protestants believe this when they have been told many times, we don’t - with the exception of a couple.

For example: I have never heard a Christian claim “Scripture is the sole authority” God Almighty is our sole authority!

JL: Then maybe the term used should be SOLA PRAXIS instead of sola scriptura. The definition has changed from a few years ago when I first debated sola scriptura. I suspect it has changed, because it’s now realized sola scriptura, as practiced by most, CAN’T be defended or found in scripture. As a former non-denominational Protestant it seems to me you have spoken to few outside some mainline Protestant Denominations. In the last few years debating the subject I have noticed a definite shift in the definition of sola scriptura. You are the first Protestant I have ever heard claim God is your sole authority. While God is the SOLE authority, how does He make known to you his will? How do you know it’s His will?
As a Catholic I know God’s will on faith and morals thru the authority He SENT to teach the whole world till the end. We call it the magisterium or Church. God’s will is discerned thru Tradition whether BY word OR epistle.

I have however, heard it said. “the Holy Scriptures are the rule of faith” meaning a measure for truth.

JL: Another authority must interpret that rule of faith. That makes at least two authorities.

The Scriptures support this idea saying we should test everything and if someone speaks "not according to the Word, there is no truth in them. and the Bereans, etc. there are so many, but I haven’t the tim e to look them up.

JL: Yes test everything according to the WORD whether BY word OR epistle. [2Thes2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2Thes3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.] Unless you can post from your rule of faith telling us ALL Tradition is now found in scripture you are following a tradition of men outside your own rule of faith. That would mean you have more than one rule of faith.