Sola Scriptura (continued)

[hvg3akaek]

But which of Paul’s writings are Scriptures?

We know that Paul wrote at least 4 letters to the Church in Corinth. Which ones are Scriptural and which ones are not? Paul certainly didn’t indicate in his two that we accept as inspired that they are Scriptural.

All of them, by Peter’s claim. Peter did not say:

“He writes the same way in **three of **his letters, speaking in them of these matters. **Those three of **his letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

It was all. Peter claimed that in all of Paul’s letters, he is consistent in speaking in complicated ways (and what a relief that is to us, after we spend many hours struggling over what he is saying! ) . Peter then lumps in Paul’s letters with “other Scripture”, thus referring to the whole as “Scripture”.

No it isn’t and for the same reasons I’ve indicated. 2 Peter is part of the NT, which hasn’t yet been proven to be inspired. To prove Paul’s inspiration, you need to prove Peter’s inspiration.

so no, “Peter’s” word is not good enough. Prove that the NT is inspired.

…wow, you had to quote all that for just the small comment at the end? I think you should focus on the more meaty bits of my post, and leave the bits that we already agree on

 

[hvg3akaek]

((OK, I have spent some time throwing words into a searcher, but cannot find the example I was after…the one where someone is telling people the Gospel, and their response was to check what he was saying with what the OT said… will edit this if I find it later…))

Apparently, theres no editing on this forum

Here is the verse I was talking about:

Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

 

[NotWorthy]

All of them, by Peter’s claim.

It was all. Peter claimed that in all of Paul’s letters, he is consistent in speaking in complicated ways (and what a relief that is to us, after we spend many hours struggling over what he is saying! ) . Peter then lumps in Paul’s letters with “other Scripture”, thus referring to the whole as “Scripture”.

So, you’ve just shown that the NT Bible does not have all of Scripture, or you claimed that Peter is wrong. All of Paul’s letters (that you state Peter included as Scripture) are not in the NT Bible.

 

[porthos11]

…wow, you had to quote all that for just the small comment at the end? I think you should focus on the more meaty bits of my post, and leave the bits that we already agree on

Agree on what? We haven’t agreed on anything.

Just to be clear, I am addressing only the points related to the original post. The other issues can be spun off into other threads.

 

[hvg3akaek]

These facts can be easily deduced through reason and the senses.

Go on, then. Prove them I will wait, and when you have satisfactorily proven them to me, I will prove what you request to you.

Until that, I will move onto the more important issue of why it is only scripture that we should follow. That is, sola scripture is about saying “no” to the extras, and just taking on scripture.

For the sake of ending this part of the dance so we can continue…

hvg3akaek, our good and loyal Catholic friend Porthos is trying to get you to admit (and I have an inkling that you understand this, but prefer to dance…) that the reason you know that the NT is inspired is BECAUSE of Sacred Tradition.

That which you deny is one of the supporting structures of that which you believe.

I did think as much, but also fail to see the logic in that attempt. Did Jesus believe in the inspiration of the OT because of RCT? Did Peter believe in Paul’s inspired letters because of RCT? No in both cases. If they didn’t, why do I have to?

 

[NotWorthy]

Apparently, theres no editing on this forum

You’ve got 15 minutes to edit your posts. After that, you need to send a message to the mod’s.

 

[NotWorthy]

Go on, then. Prove them I will wait, and when you have satisfactorily proven them to me, I will prove what you request to you.

Until that, I will move onto the more important issue of why it is only scripture that we should follow. That is, sola scripture is about saying “no” to the extras, and just taking on scripture.

I did think as much, but also fail to see the logic in that attempt. Did Jesus believe in the inspiration of the OT because of RCT? Did Peter believe in Paul’s inspired letters because of RCT? No in both cases. If they didn’t, why do I have to?

Because, again, why are some of Paul’s letters considered inspired by all Christian Faiths, and some are not?

whistle:I got a song that ain’t got no melody, I’m a gonna sing it to my friends… Will it go 'round in circles?)

 

[hvg3akaek]

Good point. My logic flowed from the following.

Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Greek Septuagint. The Greek Septuagint included the Deuterocanonicals.

Ah, but did they quote from the apocrypha? More to the point, did they only quote from the Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew OT too?

I do not believe they did quote from Apocrypha (but please post verses if I am mistaken). Additionally, I believe that they also quoted from the Hebrew version of the OT. I was reading an article on that the other day…I will see if I can re-find it.

Agree on what? We haven’t agreed on anything.

Your profile would say otherwise

Just to be clear, I am addressing only the points related to the original post. The other issues can be spun off into other threads.

Ooh! You can edit! …how did I miss that button before??

Anyway, yes, I am sure they can spin out to other threads. The problem is, it too would be cyclic, for in each topic, a point arises where those discussing it have to ask themselves “Am I going to follow the Roman Catholic Traditions, or what the Bible teaches?”. Naturally, with such as Tim and myself, the choice is what the Bible teaches. With yourself and others like you, it is what Roman Catholic Tradition teaches. Thus we come back to Sola Scripture, and the other threads are just a waste of electrons

 

[porthos11]

Go on, then. Prove them I will wait, and when you have satisfactorily proven them to me, I will prove what you request to you.

Smart. Since you can’t prove what I ask, you now ask me to prove existence. Since I’m not a philosopher, I don’t know how to do this. So I’ll grant you this point. I exist, and you exist. So does the Bible. For this I accept the evidence of reason and the senses.

But for even more fun, I will concede one more point. I will admit to the existence of God, no arguments.

Until that, I will move onto the more important issue of why it is only scripture that we should follow. That is, sola scripture is about saying “no” to the extras, and just taking on scripture.

However, you have not shown me proof of the inspiration of Scripture from reason and the senses. You have not shown what books ought to constitute Scripture.

If I were an atheist or a Jew, you would not be doing a very great job converting me. You’re pre-supposing that I already accept your Scriptures when I don’t.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ah, but did they quote from the apocrypha? More to the point, did they only quote from the Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew OT too?

I do not believe they did quote from Apocrypha (but please post verses if I am mistaken). Additionally, I believe that they also quoted from the Hebrew version of the OT. I was reading an article on that the other day…I will see if I can re-find it.

If I spend time finding quotes from the Deut’s, would it convince you? If so, I"ll find them. If not, why waste the time.

Your call.

 

[hvg3akaek]

You’ve got 15 minutes to edit your posts. After that, you need to send a message to the mod’s.

Ah, that’s how it works! Thanks

So, you’ve just shown that the NT Bible does not have all of Scripture, or you claimed that Peter is wrong. All of Paul’s letters (that you state Peter included as Scripture) are not in the NT Bible.

I am quite happy to accept that the Bible may well be missing letters of Paul’s. After all, Peter does say “all”, and I will accept that as true. I am not going to call God’s inspired word a lie

But then, maybe Peter only knew of those letters that are in the NT? I don’t know.

Do you know of other letters of Paul’s?

Because, again, why are some of Paul’s letters considered inspired by all Christian Faiths, and some are not?

Such as? (I am not aware of this…)

 

[NotWorthy]

I did think as much, but also fail to see the logic in that attempt. Did Jesus believe in the inspiration of the OT because of RCT? Did Peter believe in Paul’s inspired letters because of RCT? No in both cases. If they didn’t, why do I have to?

Because One was God and the other was Inspired by God to write his Epistles.

If you fit in any one of these categories, then I’ll buy your argument.

If not, then I’d trust the Church that these two left to carry on.

 

[porthos11]

Your profile would say otherwise

Ok, I’ll change it to atheist.

Anyway, yes, I am sure they can spin out to other threads. The problem is, it too would be cyclic, for in each topic, a point arises where those discussing it have to ask themselves “Am I going to follow the Roman Catholic Traditions, or what the Bible teaches?”. Naturally, with such as Tim and myself, the choice is what the Bible teaches. With yourself and others like you, it is what Roman Catholic Tradition teaches. Thus we come back to Sola Scripture, and the other threads are just a waste of electrons

See? The problem is you accept the Bible as an authority without any basis for that assertion whatsoever. It’s just “the Bible says” but why should we believe you when you say that?

By what authority do you make those claims? Why should I believe the Bible and not the Koran (claims to be inspired) and the Book of Mormon (also claims to be inspired)?

 

[hvg3akaek]

Smart.

Thankyou

However, you have not shown me proof of the inspiration of Scripture from reason and the senses. You have not shown what books ought to constitute Scripture.

If I were an atheist or a Jew, you would not be doing a very great job converting me. You’re pre-supposing that I already accept your Scriptures when I don’t.

Did you miss the earlier posts of mine? I know there has been some lag with replies (i make a post, and then see two-three posts made before mine )

Anyway, back here, I commented:

Personally, I thought it was more of seeing which were historically accurate, which were written by eye witnesses and apostles, and which matched up to scripture. Not really any need for revelation.

This is from reason and from senses. As a Jew (if you were), the comparison to the scriptures could be made, the proof of how Jesus fulfils them, the arguments in Romans and in some of the gospels and Hebrews to show how they are the working out of what the OT Jew hoped for.

If you were an Atheist, I would have to take an entirely different direction - I would first start by showing you that there is a God, before trying to introduce you to that God. The Bible would not come into it until much later - unless you felt like attacking me, and I was using it to show that my belief is at least internally consistent.

However, in both cases, it would not be me who was doing any job converting you 1 Corinthians 3:6 shows us that even if it is us planting or watering, it is only God that makes it grow That is, I can only tell you the truth. It is up to God to “do the job” of conversion.

But all the above can be ignored, for you are not a Jew, nor you an Atheist. And indeed, it is good - for this topic is not one for an Atheist or a Jew. It is about Protestants and Roman Catholics, both of who already accept that the Bible is inspired.

Do a Soccer fan and a Football fan, arguing over what to call “Soccer”, have to start with proving the foot? Or the leg? Or “sport”? Are not these common things already?

So, I ask again, as I did in my first post: with 2 Timothy 3:16, why do we need Roman Catholic Traditions, which are, after all, traditions of men? (Matthew 15:2-6, Colossians 2:8)

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Well said! Fortunately, we do not have to read it simply with our “low-context” 21st C glasses on. People do know a lot about the culture back then, historians and scholars are continually delving deeply into the rich, “high-context” culture, and we can learn from this. Does that make their findings inspired? No, but they can still be accurate!

And to be “deep in history,” through these studies, can often have a surprising result. This has been my experience, anyway, though I haven’t reached the end of the journey yet.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Because One was God and the other was Inspired by God to write his Epistles.

Fair enough - I like that answer!

So both of them had good reasons to believe it. And so because I know they have these good reasons, can I not believe the same as they did, and not have to work it out for myself? I mean, if God said the OT was His word, can I not have faith that it is? If God inspired Peter to acknowledge God’s writing through Paul, can I not have faith that it is so?

If not, then I’d trust the Church that these two left to carry on.

With that, what reason is there to require anyone else to OK them for me?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

With that, what reason is there to require anyone else to OK them for me?

No reason at all. The Church “that these two left to carry on” will be quite sufficient.

 

[hvg3akaek]

See? The problem is you accept the Bible as an authority without any basis for that assertion whatsoever. It’s just “the Bible says” but why should we believe you when you say that?

I have basis, you just so far have not liked it. Or, more correctly, have liked it, but for the sake of discussion (and hiding from the second point in the original post?) have ignored.

By what authority do you make those claims? Why should I believe the Bible and not the Koran (claims to be inspired) and the Book of Mormon (also claims to be inspired)?

For starters, you will have to pick ‘better’ examples than them Both are not internally consistent, which is something that God’s word should be. In addition, the BoM does not agree or fit in with what we already have in the Bible, so as an ‘addition’, it fails.

No reason at all. The Church “that these two left to carry on” will be quite sufficient.

Great!

However, how does one find “the church” in the multiple-church society of today? Or, do you mean “the church” as in the actual body of Christ, not a mere earthly thing, but something bigger and better than what we have here on earth?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

However, how does one find “the church” in the multiple-church society of today?

That is the big question, isn’t it? And it is one I am in the midst of trying to answer myself. However, as a start, I would recommend trying to find the Church whose beliefs and practices most closely match those of the Early Church. Then, I would see if this Church showed a clear link with this Early Church and was not just a modern group trying to create a Church based on their new interpretations of what they *think *the Early Church was like. That should narrow it down a bit…

Of course, one could ditch the concept of a visible Church entirely and move on to your next question…

Or, do you mean “the church” as in the actual body of Christ, not a mere earthly thing, but something bigger and better than what we have here on earth?

Yes. And, could it be that this “actual body of Christ, not a mere earthly thing, but something bigger and better than what we have on Earth” could be all of this and be a visible Church at the same time? I imagine that you probably would agree that this was true of the Church during the days of the Apostles? If so, is it conceivable that this ancient visible Church could have maintained its “visibility” down through the centuries? And, if it has done so, would not its traditional interpretation of Scripture be more reliable than my own? And, if this Church says that there is an authoritative Tradition of which Scripture is a part, though not the entirety, is that not at least worth considering?

Some things to think about, anyway. It is always good to ask questions. That’s how I came here in the first place. For anyone who’s curious, here’s the link to my very first post:

Questions from your friendly neighborhood Protestant…

 

[hvg3akaek]

That is the big question, isn’t it? And it is one I am in the midst of trying to answer myself. However, as a start, I would recommend trying to find the Church whose beliefs and practices most closely match those of the Early Church. Then, I would see if this Church showed a clear link with this Early Church and was not just a modern group trying to create a Church based on their new interpretations of what they *think *the Early Church was like. That should narrow it down a bit…

Indeed! Great thoughts!
I am reminded about the warning: “If you ever come across the perfect church, do not join it. You will wreck it.”


Naturally, this is speaking of only earthly churches!

Yes. And, could it be that this “actual body of Christ, not a mere earthly thing, but something bigger and better than what we have on Earth” could be all of this and be a visible Church at the same time? I imagine that you probably would agree that this was true of the Church during the days of the Apostles?

It could well be, apart from the idea that Christ’s body - The church - would not be filled with sinful people, but with forgiven and washed-clean people. I think the “now-but-not-yet” idea gets into that well.

I would say that the church right after Jesus was definitely part of this “church”, but it was in no way limited to those of the day. It was always more than that - for Abraham and Moses etc were as much members of that church as we today are.

So, did the 1st C church = the “body of Christ” church? No. But it was a subset of said church.

Which is why today I am happy to say that the Roman Catholic church =/= the “body of Christ” church, and nor does any protestant church. The body of Christ is made up from all those who belong to God from today, from the past, and from the future.

If so, is it conceivable that this ancient visible Church could have maintained its “visibility” down through the centuries?

Well, my answer above was more “no”, but still - no. Yes, we still have people who are members of that church, but we are still sinful and fallen, and thus there will always be false doctrines and heresies taught. We should be on guard against this, so that we may stamp out the false teachings. But a single church still existing down through the centuries? No. The major splinters that has happened, the smaller fractures, the internal strife all show that this is just an earthly church.

And, if it has done so, would not its traditional interpretation of Scripture be more reliable than my own?

If it had dome so? Absolutely! And there would be no problems, no issues, no false teaching, no abuse within it, no leaders who were sinful, no members who were “non-practicing”…

Clearly, there is no such church on earth

And, if this Church says that there is an authoritative Tradition of which Scripture is a part, though not the entirety, is that not at least worth considering?

If there were such a church. Which, from the beginning of these questions, I have said “no” to.

For anyone who’s curious, here’s the link to my very first post:

Questions from your friendly neighborhood Protestant…

Interesting Would you want to continue that discussion? I can have a read through and offer my thoughts, but it seems to have been quiet for a while now…?