Sola Scriptura contradicts Inspiration of the apostles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hapaxparadidomi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gaelic_Bard said:
Sorry…but I don’t equivocate the doctrine of the Trinity with Mary’s assumption, purgatory or papal infallibility.
Click to expand...
On what basis do you choose to believe in one and leave out the others?..yet all of these doctrines have as common not to have been clearly spelled out in scripture…
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
I am not cherry picking, Reuben. I am saying that the evidence in history and Scripture for the doctrine of the Trinity is not in any way comparable to the aforementioned teachings. The doctrine of the Trinity is not “implied.”

The others are not rejected because they are believed by Catholics. That is absurd, as that would mean we would reject the Trinity, the hypostatic union, et al. We reject the others precisely because they are not present or implied in either history or Scripture.
Click to expand...
oh!sorry G B.i saw your reply to my question after posting
 
G B what do you define as “purgatory” because IMHO there are more indications from scripture of the existence of what catholics call “purgatory” than the Holy Trinity…
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Sorry…but I don’t equivocate the doctrine of the Trinity with Mary’s assumption, purgatory or papal infallibility.
Click to expand...
You are not expected to. Yet, according to the exact same authority, all are equally true. One is central while the others are peripheral. Out of curiosity, have you read into their development?

Yet more rhetorical questions: If the early Church had the authority to declare the doctrine of the Trinity, when did that authority cease? Was it before, during, of after the compilation of the bible? Did it, in fact, cease? If so, how is such a belief any different from the restorationist sects, such as the LDS and JWs?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
I am not cherry picking, Reuben. I am saying that the evidence in history and Scripture for the doctrine of the Trinity is not in any way comparable to the aforementioned teachings. The doctrine of the Trinity is not “implied.”

The others are not rejected because they are believed by Catholics. That is absurd, as that would mean we would reject the Trinity, the hypostatic union, et al. We reject the others precisely because they are not present or implied in either history or Scripture.
Click to expand...
So where is the canon of Scripture mentioned? Implicit or explicit in the Bible?
 
Nicea325 said:
So where is the canon of Scripture mentioned? Implicit or explicit in the Bible?
Click to expand...
All Christians, at some point in the argument, must admit that the early Church had the authority. How does one honestly deny Acts 15, after all? Just when that authority supposedly ceased/failed and God’s word was turned over to individuals outside of the Church is the subject of much debate - specifically because nowhere in the bible does it say what the bible is. Someone had to say this.
 
po18guy said:
You are not expected to. Yet, according to the exact same authority, all are equally true. One is central while the others are peripheral. Out of curiosity, have you read into their development?

Yet more rhetorical questions: If the early Church had the authority to declare the doctrine of the Trinity, when did that authority cease? Was it before, during, of after the compilation of the bible? Did it, in fact, cease? If so, how is such a belief any different from the restorationist sects, such as the LDS and JWs?
Click to expand...
Because there is simply no comparison between something that is not only all over Scripture and appears in the earliest non-apostolic writings from the first century all the way to the present and something that is not all over Scripture (not even by implication) and doesn’t show itself for centuries in non-apostolic writings.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Because there is simply no comparison between something that is not only all over Scripture and appears in the earliest non-apostolic writings from the first century all the way to the present and something that is not all over Scripture (not even by implication) and doesn’t show itself for centuries in non-apostolic writings.
Click to expand...
On principle, perhaps without realizing it, what you are alleging is that: for nearly 2,000 years, each and every one of the Early Church Fathers, greatest Saints, Martyrs, Doctors of the Church, Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignors, Priests, Monks, Nuns, religious Brothers, religious Sisters, Deacons and laity, the 1.2 billion currently living members, among them some of the greatest theologians the world has ever known, combined with the greatest repository of documented Christian history extant, combined with the entirety of scripture and the authority to declare doctrine - all of them were and are clearly wrong - fooled, duped, mislead, plain old mistaken - and that your personal understanding of the faith is correct?
 
po18guy said:
On principle, perhaps without realizing it, what you are alleging is that: for nearly 2,000 years, each and every one of the Early Church Fathers, greatest Saints, Martyrs, Doctors of the Church, Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignors, Priests, Monks, Nuns, religious Brothers, religious Sisters, Deacons and laity, the 1.2 billion currently living members, among them some of the greatest theologians the world has ever known, combined with the greatest repository of documented Christian history extant, combined with the entirety of scripture and the authority to declare doctrine - all of them were and are clearly wrong - fooled, duped, mislead, plain old mistaken - and that your personal understanding of the faith is correct?
Click to expand...
That’s one long sentence, perhaps for maximum effect? I wish I have your gift. ;)👍
 
po18guy said:
On principle, perhaps without realizing it, what you are alleging is that: for nearly 2,000 years, each and every one of the Early Church Fathers, greatest Saints, Martyrs, Doctors of the Church, Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignors, Priests, Monks, Nuns, religious Brothers, religious Sisters, Deacons and laity, the 1.2 billion currently living members, among them some of the greatest theologians the world has ever known, combined with the greatest repository of documented Christian history extant, combined with the entirety of scripture and the authority to declare doctrine - all of them were and are clearly wrong - fooled, duped, mislead, plain old mistaken - and that your personal understanding of the faith is correct?
Click to expand...
If any of that applied to the assumption of Mary being de fide dogma that is required belief for all Christians to even half of the people you mentioned, your point would be taken.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
If any of that applied to the assumption of Mary being de fide dogma that is required belief for all Christians to even half of the people you mentioned, your point would be taken.
Click to expand...
It is as good as taken then. 😉
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
I am not cherry picking, Reuben. I am saying that the evidence in history and Scripture for the doctrine of the Trinity is not in any way comparable to the aforementioned teachings. The doctrine of the Trinity is not “implied.”

The others are not rejected because they are believed by Catholics. That is absurd, as that would mean we would reject the Trinity, the hypostatic union, et al. We reject the others precisely because they are not present or implied in either history or Scripture.
Click to expand...
Sorry brother, but you are cherry picking.

You pick the Bible, the Trinity and those things that align with your own interpretation. It is your choice. Yet, it is this same Church that received the above from the Holy Spirit of God. And to echo po18’s post, you are indeed claiming that this same Church is wrong in the other matters which you don’t agree with.

And your last sentence is a bit extreme. To say that you reject all the other doctrines because they are not implied in history or Scripture is just not a fair statement from someone who is a student of Scripture and history. As these doctrines are implied (Notice I am not saying explicit) in Scriptures and History is obviously against you, unless you are cherry picking History ;).
 
hapaxparadidomi said:
I hope to receive an informed answer regarding this question. How are protestants able to maintain that the bible taught “It is the sole infallible authority in matters of faith and morals” and maintain the idea that the authors of the bible were teaching new revelation orally? The protestant view would in effect have an inspired author saying ‘There are no other inspired sources except this bible’. If that is the case, then that would negate that author from being inspired. How do you address that contradiction?
Click to expand...
The early Protestants acknowledged the inspiration of the Bible, but did not properly understand its nature. The Bible was taken to be the sole rule of faith, to possess supreme authority and to enjoy unrivalled pre-eminence, and inspiration and revelation were held to be one and the same thing. External proofs or criteria for the existence of inspired books of the Bible were rejected and only internal criteria based on one’s personal experiences, religious feelings or sociological spiritual effects were substituted
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
The first article you gave went over what tradition means to Roman Catholics and then made assertions that this tradition is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. The second was a complete misrepresentation of private judgment. Those are not answers, nor evidence. I already know the assertions. They are assertions that any other church body that claims to be the one and only makes.

I did.

Taking it to the church is fine. It properly describes church discipline. What i reject is “take it to the church” actually means “take it to the magisterium.”

A congregation of Christians.

Because only a church can exercise church discipline.
Click to expand...
Which leads to more question, G.B.

Where is this congregation of Christians? Where may one find them? Are they a visible or invisible group of believers? Where do they get the authentic authority to exercise discipline? Could this particular group of Christian’s differ in discipline from a separate group of Christians? If this were so, which disciplining group would be correct and the other false? If I were to personnaly submit myself to their discipline how could I be sure that their discipline was Bible based, because going by the Protestant tradition of Sola Scriptura, I would have the right to reject their discipline if I felt that the Bible and their discipline did not coincide . And when doing so wouldn’t I be subjecting myself to this particular church’s magisterium? How would this church’s magisterium differ from, say, the magisterium of the Catholic Church?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
The first article you gave went over what tradition means to Roman Catholics and then made assertions that this tradition is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. The second was a complete misrepresentation of private judgment. Those are not answers, nor evidence. I already know the assertions. They are assertions that any other church body that claims to be the one and only makes.

I did.

Taking it to the church is fine. It properly describes church discipline. What i reject is “take it to the church” actually means “take it to the magisterium.”

A congregation of Christians.

Because only a church can exercise church discipline.
Click to expand...
G.B.,

One final hypothetical for today.

What if I presented myself to a Baptist pastor and told him that I wanted to come aboard and enter his Church. What if I told him that I firmly believe all that the Baptist Church teaches except, after searching the Scriptures on my own, I have determined that infant baptism actually regenerates the soul of the newborn child. What do think his response would be?

Would I be granted full fellowship in that Church? Or would I be rejected for my personal belief which I based on Scripture alone?

If I was rejected for that one belief, could it be said that the pastor exceeded his authority over my right to private judgment based on Sola Scriptura?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaelic Bard
I am not cherry picking, Reuben. I am saying that the evidence in history and Scripture for the doctrine of the Trinity is not in any way comparable to the aforementioned teachings. The doctrine of the Trinity is not “implied.”
Click to expand...
The others are not rejected because they are believed by Catholics. That is absurd, as that would mean we would reject the Trinity, the hypostatic union, et al. **We reject the others precisely because they are not present or implied in either history or Scripture. **
Click to expand...
So where is the canon of Scripture mentioned? Implicit or explicit in the Bible?
 
Tomster said:
G.B.,

One final hypothetical for today.

What if I presented myself to a Baptist pastor and told him that I wanted to come aboard and enter his Church. What if I told him that I firmly believe all that the Baptist Church teaches except, after searching the Scriptures on my own, I have determined that infant baptism actually regenerates the soul of the newborn child. What do think his response would be?

Would I be granted full fellowship in that Church? Or would I be rejected for my personal belief which I based on Scripture alone?

If I was rejected for that one belief, could it be said that the pastor exceeded his authority over my right to private judgment based on Sola Scriptura?
Click to expand...
You would not be admitted. You have the right of “private judgment” inasnuch as those things are between your conscience and God. That doesn’t mean your judgment can disagree with what the congregation believes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top