Sola Scriptura doesn't exist

  • Thread starter Thread starter SilentKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JTBT said:
all the knowledge that is necessary to be a Christian is contained in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Then what about the Christians before the late 4th century?

In Christ
:grouphug:

Thanks for the tip on Quotes đź‘Ť
 
jdevoir said:
Then what about the Christians before the late 4th century?

In Christ
:grouphug:

Thanks for the tip on Quotes đź‘Ť
Click to expand...
No Problem:D

I actually answered this question in another post but here it is:

all I am saying is that TODAY the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation.
 
JTBT said:
all the knowledge that is necessary to be a Christian is contained in the Bible.
Click to expand...
ok. the Oral Tradition that ST Paul spoke about. does it count or you dont believe they tought by word of mouth?
the Jews are also lying because they also claim to have OT?
 
And the mandatory response, of course, is to ask where the Bible says this, that today all that is necessary for salvation is listed in the pages thereof, though, this is not actually the focus of the OP…

SK
 
SilentKnight said:
And the mandatory response, of course, is to ask where the Bible says this, that today all that is necessary for salvation is listed in the pages thereof, though, this is not actually the focus of the OP…

SK
Click to expand...
SK I did respond to your post and I am waiting on your response,
I only responded to jdevoir out of respect for him/her,
I have no intention of playing ping pong with WS.
 
JTBT said:
Wow SK
that is interesting I thought the discussion was actually starting to get somewhere. We had; as a collective, defined Sola Scriptura, which is huge in my thinking, seeing how any productive conversation must start with the parties defining their terms. Which at this point we had done; the challenge was then put to the Reformers to defend our definition from scripture.
Click to expand...
The original challenge was to show that Sola Scirptura exists, functionally speaking (not just in theory), in the first place.

Defining terms is almost always good and necessary, yes. And that was the whole point of my post:
40.png
SilentKnight:
JTBT, I’ve misstepped. I apologize. Let’s back up a moment…

Your original statement was, “Read the scriptures for yourself and try to understand, if you don’t understand appeal to tradition.” Stop there. Why? Under the current definition of Sola Scriptura, where is there room to look to other sources than Scripture itself for final answers regarding the Christian faith? Are you putting Tradition on par with Scripture? (Horror of horrors ) Or are you simply saying that in non-essential matters one should look to Scripture for an answer and if one does not find that answer, then one should feel free to look to tradition for the answer?
Click to expand...
As you well know, there is more than one understanding of the concept of Sola Scriptura. Having done this type of thing for more than a decade now, I myself am well aware of this and wanted to ensure that I was understanding your own position as clearly as I could, rather than operate under assumptions that would have probably gotten us nowhere.

Rather than simply answer the question and clarify for me, this was what you posted:
Sola Scriptura is not me and my Bible,
your argument is tearing down the strawman of SOLO Scriptura which I and most mainstream Protestants do not hold to.
Sola Scriptura could really be called Scripture primacy, an order of importance if you will, that is
1st scripture (Scripture is suffent to guide one to Christ)
2nd tradition (being what did the church fathers say)
Click to expand...
I was neither making an argument nor tearing down anything, only asking you for light.
If the intent of this thread is actually to shed new light on the topic then actually defining what we are talking about seem to me, to be an important step in doing so.
Click to expand...
but by the tone of this post it seems your intent is simply to bash Reformers and what they hold to; ok so be it, this your thread, and you obviously don’t want anyone to actually debate your accusation that Sola Scriptura doesn’t exist.
perhaps I am miss reading you; if I am you have my apology, but please point out where I have brushed you off because I do not recall doing so.
Click to expand...
Is it clear now?

SK
 
JTBT said:
No Problem:D

I actually answered this question in another post but here it is:

all I am saying is that TODAY the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation.
Click to expand...
So do you feel that the early Christians did not have the means of salvation yes or no? If yes by what means?

In Christ
:grouphug:
 
trrocks03 said:
Good idea, lets tackle one idea at a time. 🙂

So within sola scriptura is the notion that “The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian (only after the canon was collaborated)” I added that parenthesis part cause I didn’t see it in there. Could you show me where Jesus (or anyone else in the bible) directed anyone to write a book and use it as the sole authority, at which point throw out tradition as an infallible authority? Jesus had to of known that the bible was going to take another 250 years to be compiled, so he must have said that somewhere in there, sort of like a disclaimer, right?
Click to expand...
 
SilentKnight said:
The original challenge was to show that Sola Scirptura exists, functionally speaking (not just in theory), in the first place.
Click to expand...
Ok;
1st are people in Reformed Churches Christian?
it is my understanding that the RC church now recognizes the Baptism of the Reformers.
If so then, I charge that the Roman Catholic Church also recognizes that Sola Scriptura does work because the practice of it produces Christians.
 
JTBT said:
Ok;
1st are people in Reformed Churches Christian?
it is my understanding that the RC church now recognizes the Baptism of the Reformers.
If so then, then I charge that the Roman Catholic Church also recognizes that Sola Scriptura does work because the practice of it produces Christians.
Click to expand...
i garanty you it is not because she accepts your theology of sola scripture.

some of you even reject this belief. for what i read here.
 
JTBT said:
Ok;
1st are people in Reformed Churches Christian?
it is my understanding that the RC church now recognizes the Baptism of the Reformers.
If so then, I charge that the Roman Catholic Church also recognizes that Sola Scriptura does work because the practice of it produces Christians.
Click to expand...
what is the formula of the reformed churches for Baptism?

In Christ
:grouphug:
 
JTBT said:
Yes, I don’t deny other authorities.
Click to expand...
I feel like I’m missing your point:) so you are saying that it is NOT by the Bible alone that I can find salvation.

In Christ
:grouphug:
 
jdevoir said:
I feel like I’m missing your point:) so you are saying that it is NOT by the Bible alone that I can find salvation.

In Christ
:grouphug:
Click to expand...
no it is by Christ alone that you are saved.
The Bible contains all that you need to know about Christ in order to be saved.
 
JTBT said:
you really should look up the word Irenic
Click to expand...
: favoring, conducive to, or operating toward peace, moderation, or conciliation.

where here does it refer to sole scripture been accept by the CC?

yes the CC wants to gather all christian into the CC, but is no where because she wants to accept your theology that is contrary to what the Church teaches.

the three pillars of the Church are SS, OT, Magisterium. this is in no way negotiable.

as far as i know talks has been only with Methodists, lutherans, anglicans and orthodox churches. i am not sure if these teach sola scripture.

all who are coming to talks in ecumenism must state what they believe and they teach. this way the CC can have a better understanding of their theology.
 
wisdomseeker said:
: favoring, conducive to, or operating toward peace, moderation, or conciliation.

where here does it refer to sole scripture been accept by the CC?

yes the CC wants to gather all christian into the CC, but is no where because she wants to accept your theology that is contrary to what the Church teaches.

the three pillars of the Church are SS, OT, Magisterium. this is in no way negotiable.

as far as i know talks has been only with Methodists, lutherans, anglicans and orthodox churches. i am not sure if these teach sola scripture.

all who are coming to talks in ecumenism must state what they believe and they teach. this way the CC can have a better understanding of their theology.
Click to expand...
you do know who founded the Lutherans right? (Martin Luther)
but I was refering to the tone of the post I have seen you make here, they could be more Irenic.

but here I go again down another rabbit trail. sorry SK
 
JTBT said:
no it is by Christ alone that you are saved.
The Bible contains all that you need to know about Christ in order to be saved.
Click to expand...
Gotcha:) now because I am Catholic I don’t find anything wrong with that statement, because in scripture it says…“So then, brothers, stand firm, and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word, or by letter. " …And that Jesus said to Peter, “I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.” So to me whatever the Pope says on Earth is said in Heaven and so if there are Traditions that may not be explicitly spelled out in Scripture(The word Trinity and the Canon of Scripture for example) then I can know that they are true and we should follow what the Bishops of today (the predecessors of the Apostles) teach us. For as Christ said The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

In Christ
:grouphug:
 
JTBT said:
you do know who founded the Lutherans right? (Martin Luther)
but I was refering to the tone of the post I have seen you make here, they could be more Irenic.

but here I go again down another rabbit trail. sorry SK
Click to expand...
yes i know. but i believe that lutherans has changed some of the theology started by luther.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top