sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter tweetiebird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isaiah45_9 said:
Major premise: Protestants believe that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
Minor premise: Protestants can’t prove that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
Conclusion: Scripture is not the only rule of faith.
Click to expand...
These are false premises in regards to Sola Scriptura.

Here is a more accurate representation:

Major premise: Only Scripture has been declared from the mouth of God to be Theopneustos (2 Tim 3:16).
Major premise #2: Sola Scriptura adherents believe only that which has been* breathed out by God *(Scripture) is infallible.
Conclusion: Sola Scriptura adherents believe only that which is God breathed (Scripture) to be the only infallible rule of faith for the Church.
 
PRmerger said:
The division argument is the best indictment for the Protestant paradigm of, “Me, the Bible and the Holy Spirit.” It speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
Greetings, PR.

“Me, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit” reflects a view of SOLO Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura.

Peace be to you,

Ron
 
Arizona_Samson said:
These are false premises in regards to Sola Scriptura.

Here is a more accurate representation:

Major premise: Only Scripture has been declared from the mouth of God to be Theopneustos (2 Tim 3:16).
Major premise #2: Sola Scriptura adherents believe only that which has been* breathed out by God *(Scripture) is infallible.
Conclusion: Sola Scriptura adherents believe only that which is God breathed (Scripture) to be the only infallible rule of faith for the Church.
Click to expand...
Would you agree that Jesus is God?

[bibledrb]John 20:21-22[/bibledrb]

😃
 
Arizona_Samson said:
Greetings, PR.

“Me, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit” reflects a view of SOLO Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura.

Peace be to you,

Ron
Click to expand...
What in the world? Solo Scriptura? That’s something I know I’d never encountered prior to coming to the CAFs, and I am guessing that no one before this generation had ever heard of this made up concept.
 
PRmerger said:
What in the world? Solo Scriptura? That’s something I know I’d never encountered prior to coming to the CAFs, and I am guessing that no one before this generation had ever heard of this made up concept.
Click to expand...
Aw, C’mon, PR! You’re never too old to learn sumthin’ new!😃
 
batman1973 said:
Aw, C’mon, PR! You’re never too old to learn sumthin’ new!😃
Click to expand...
Yep. Solo Scriptura is definitely an innovation. Never ever was it proclaimed by anyone who knew Jesus, his Apostles, or the successors of the Apostles.
 
Arizona_Samson said:
These are false premises in regards to Sola Scriptura.

Here is a more accurate representation:

Major premise: Only Scripture has been declared from the mouth of God to be Theopneustos (2 Tim 3:16).
Major premise #2: Sola Scriptura adherents believe only that which has been* breathed out by God *(Scripture) is infallible.
Conclusion: Sola Scriptura adherents believe only that which is God breathed (Scripture) to be the only infallible rule of faith for the Church.
Click to expand...
How do you know “that which is God breathed”? There are 27 books in the New Testament. How do you know that each of them are “God Breathed”?

Also, if you are trying to say Apostles said each book was God breathed, doesn’t it strike you as odd that a bunch of Apostles are saying that a set of books are God breathed when CLEARLY, Christ had never said anything about Apostles being able to “speak the Word of God”?

So this is just a variation of the Protestant argument against Catholics that “That is NOT in the early Church”. I am just taking the ante a bit more further. The idea of Apostles being able to speak/write the WORD OF GOD was never mentioned by Christ!!! Oh… is that not a… problem?
 
Eufrosnia said:
The idea of Apostles being able to speak/write the WORD OF GOD was never mentioned by Christ!!! Oh… is that not a… problem?
Click to expand...
Great point I’d never considered!

It does appear that the criterion for the Word of God to have been written by an apostle is, well, not Scriptural. That’s a tradition that is man-made.
 
PRmerger said:
Yep. Solo Scriptura is definitely an innovation. Never ever was it proclaimed by anyone who knew Jesus, his Apostles, or the successors of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Well, to be honest, I’ve learned all kinds of new terms I never knew exsisted at all before joining CAF and the LCMS.
 
batman1973 said:
Well, to be honest, I’ve learned all kinds of new terms I never knew exsisted at all before joining CAF and the LCMS.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Solo Scriptura has been around since the earliest days of Christianity?
 
PRmerger said:
Are you saying that Solo Scriptura has been around since the earliest days of Christianity?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. Again, it’s a new term for me. So was Sola Scriptura. Like i said,I learned all kinds of new words.
 
PRmerger said:
What in the world? Solo Scriptura? That’s something I know I’d never encountered prior to coming to the CAFs, and I am guessing that no one before this generation had ever heard of this made up concept.
Click to expand...
I completely agree, PR.

Solo Scriptura is not a practice or doctrine but rather a phrase coined to describe the mischaracterization of the tenets of **Sola **Scriptura. Namely the false belief that all we need for faith and practice is a Bible and the Holy Spirit apart from the church.

The tenets of Sola Scriptura do not deny that;
  1. The church plays no role in our faith and practice.
  2. Prior to inscripturation the Gospel was not at one time proclaimed orally.
What Sola Scriptura does proclaim is;
  1. All one needs to be a follower of Christ is found in Scripture alone.
  2. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian Church.
 
PRmerger said:
Yep. Solo Scriptura is definitely an innovation. Never ever was it proclaimed by anyone who knew Jesus, his Apostles, or the successors of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Aside from the “successors of the Apostles” portion of this statement I completely agree.

It’s great we’ve finally found some common ground. 🙂
 
batman1973 said:
I have no idea. I learned new words. Like salvific. I never knew words like that before joining CAF.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so new nomenclature is always good to learn.

Innovations in theology, while interesting, need to be given the boot if they have divorced themselves from the kerygma. Like Solo Scriptura, which is, frankly, a made up concept never proclaimed by the apostles or their successors.
 
Eufrosnia said:
How do you know “that which is God breathed”? There are 27 books in the New Testament. How do you know that each of them are “God Breathed”?
Click to expand...
Simply put Eufrosnia because I believe the words proclaimed by a *self-attesting *God.
 
Arizona_Samson said:
Simply put Eufrosnia because I believe the words proclaimed by a *self-attesting *God.
Click to expand...
How do you know something is God’s word to begin with? You do realize that the Muslim argues that his book is the word proclaimed by the self attesting God, yes?

All I see here is an arbitrary excuse to defend your position regarding the book you had picked up and accepted blindly as the word of God. You never bothered to ask how you can accept that. If you had, you might have realized that you cannot do so without the Catholic Church.

But as things have happened, you have blindly accepted it and now want to use it as you please and interpret it in your own way against the Church 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top