The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[oat_soda]

You didn’t comment on the rest of my post. I was kind of anxious to hear what you had to say about general and divine revelation.

in the first chapter of romans paul talks about the natural law, which gives testimony to God. when pagans recognize and follow natural law, it is the Law for them. in this way, pagans may be justified. actually, romans completely trashes the protestant doctrine of sola fide, but that’s another topic.

when i say revelation, im speaking of revelation outside of natural law (trinity and incarnation). by the way, everything Jesus did and said from his birth to his death is the totality of revelation. natural law can tell you that there is a God, and that he is good, but not that he became man and died for us.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

in the first chapter of romans paul talks about the natural law, which gives testimony to God. when pagans recognize and follow natural law, it is the Law for them. in this way, pagans may be justified. actually, romans completely trashes the protestant doctrine of sola fide, but that’s another topic.

when i say revelation, im speaking of revelation outside of natural law (trinity and incarnation). by the way, everything Jesus did and said from his birth to his death is the totality of revelation. natural law can tell you that there is a God, and that he is good, but not that he became man and died for us.

I don’t understand what you mean by this “totality of revelation”, please explain.

how do you view salvation for old testament saints? how were they “saved”? That might clear up some confusion.

 

[ahimsaman72]

ahimsaman72:

I can tell you that Mormons and Universalists do not adhere to “scripture alone”. Mormons have a restored priesthood built on (you guessed it - papal succesion from Peter). Universalists (in general) believe most if not all religions will eventually lead to God. Therefore, I could definitively say that they are not sola scripturists. Again, as we have discussed before, my definition of sola sciptura is different (obviously) from yours.

.

OatSoda,

Does that answer your question which I was unable to answer?

 

[Greg_McPherran]

ahimsaman72:

Paul didn’t even go up to see Peter or any other apostle for years. He had his ministry and it was not offcially commissioned by anybody but God himself.

Agreed.

Matt and Ahimsaman,

I think the most important question is whether the Church of the original community of believers that included Peter, Paul, and the other apostles, is still in existence today. There is no question, that the Church of Peter, Paul, and the apostles is the true Church. The question is whether that same Church exists today. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[mayra_hart]

the doctrine of sola scriptura is not found in scripture. in fact, the bible tell us that we need more than just the bible alone. the bible confirms that not everything jesus said and did is recorded in scripture(john21:25) and that we must also hold fast to oral tradition, the preached word of god(1cor11:2;1pet1:25) god would have never have left a written document to be the only rule of faith without a living authority to guard and officially interpret it. in summary, the splintering of christianity into over 33,000 denominations is the direct fruit of the bible alone doctrine. this idea does not come from god and was unheard of for 1500 years before the reformation.

 

[fulloftruth]

Originally Posted by fulloftruth
*If, when the Canon was assembled, all of the apostles were dead, and Christ was in heaven, who or what was used infallibly to determine what was inspired and what was not. Since they did not use Scripture to assemble the list of Canon, doesn’t that kind of prove that scripture is not the only infallable authority. If that does not prove that to you, then when, and you must prove this from scripture, did the authority cease to be authoritative and when did Scripture become the only infallible rule of faith, and not the Church that assembled and Promulgated it.
By ahimsaman72:

I wanted to comment on this first paragraph from your post #1if I may. Many people miss some basic facts here.

First, the early church already had the old testament canon. They had a basis for faith in a coming Messiah.

Second, after Jesus left the disciples, he gave them the charge in Mt. 28 to “go ye into all the world”. They were to be missionaries and teachers of the gospel to the whole world. The gospel writers wrote their accounts for the early believers and for the purpose of evangelism. Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus. Paul wrote his letters to various “churches”. Those letters remained with the individual churches. To be frank, there was no need for canonization. Individual churches and the church leaders (elders, bishops, deacons) were not to validate those letters. There is no indication of that. The letters were used for edification and teaching, not to be lorded over and manipulated. They didn’t have to figure out if Peter, Paul, Luke or other apostle’s writings were valid and inspired. That would be a given.

My conclusion here is that the Scriptures didn’t need people to validate them. They were valid by themselves. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the Israelites didn’t wonder if it came from God. They knew God spoke to Moses and that was enough for them.

I’m glad that early believers assembled the New Testament Scriptures. But I reject the idea that they needed canonization from a group of people to say they were authentic.

I see here that you seem to think that the inspired works were apparent to the first 4 centuries of believers but the truth is quite to the contrary. There were many writings that were circulated as inspired such as the gospel of Thomas, the Sheperd of Hermas, and many others that were not defined as inspired by the Councils of Carthage and Hippo at the end of the 4th century. It took the Church armed with the promise of Christ to be with them always and that what the successor to Peter in conjuction with the successors of the other 11 Apostles bound on earth would be bound in heaven, therefore guarding it from error, to infallibly define what was inspired and what was simply profitable.

I also think that the writers of the NT did not know they were writing inspired words, and I don’t even know if those who recieved the writings considered them the Word of God or “God Breathed” Scripture either. I do think the letters were used for edification and teaching, and not to be lorded over and manipulated. And I think Christ knew of that risk if he did not leave an authority on earth to guard and interpret the Scriptures the way He wants them to be interpreted in very generation. As seen in the Protestant Church, without such an authority, Scripture is manipulated by greedy pastors who are in it for the money and who claim to have genuine interpretations of Scripture. How does the average Christian know for sure what is the write interpretation. So many Pastors teach different necessities for being saved. The Bible cannot be the final infallible authority, There must be a church with direct lineage and successorship to the Apostles and Peter, that can say for sure “this is Heresy, and this is truth.” What do you think Binding and loosing meant and where do you get the idea that it ended with the Apostles.

 

[ahimsaman72]

fulloftruth:

Originally Posted by fulloftruth
*If, when the Canon was assembled, all of the apostles were dead, and Christ was in heaven, who or what was used infallibly to determine what was inspired and what was not. Since they did not use Scripture to assemble the list of Canon, doesn’t that kind of prove that scripture is not the only infallable authority. If that does not prove that to you, then when, and you must prove this from scripture, did the authority cease to be authoritative and when did Scripture become the only infallible rule of faith, and not the Church that assembled and Promulgated it. *

By ahimsaman72:

I see here that you seem to think that the inspired works were apparent to the first 4 centuries of believers but the truth is quite to the contrary. There were many writings that were circulated as inspired such as the gospel of Thomas, the Sheperd of Hermas, and many others that were not defined as inspired by the Councils of Carthage and Hippo at the end of the 4th century. It took the Church armed with the promise of Christ to be with them always and that what the successor to Peter in conjuction with the successors of the other 11 Apostles bound on earth would be bound in heaven, therefore guarding it from error, to infallibly define what was inspired and what was simply profitable.

I also think that the writers of the NT did not know they were writing inspired words, and I don’t even know if those who recieved the writings considered them the Word of God or “God Breathed” Scripture either. I do think the letters were used for edification and teaching, and not to be lorded over and manipulated. And I think Christ knew of that risk if he did not leave an authority on earth to guard and interpret the Scriptures the way He wants them to be interpreted in very generation. As seen in the Protestant Church, without such an authority, Scripture is manipulated by greedy pastors who are in it for the money and who claim to have genuine interpretations of Scripture. How does the average Christian know for sure what is the write interpretation. So many Pastors teach different necessities for being saved. The Bible cannot be the final infallible authority, There must be a church with direct lineage and successorship to the Apostles and Peter, that can say for sure “this is Heresy, and this is truth.” What do you think Binding and loosing meant and where do you get the idea that it ended with the Apostles.

Just a couple of points here. First, interpretation is not the root of all evil. In reality, each of us interprets many things every day. You watch tv, read a book, speak with people and “interpret” all those things in your mind. Some of this goes back to salvation and what is required. My belief on salvation would be much different from yours, therefore it leaves the topic of this thread.

The “greedy pastors” comment is true to an extent. But then, like priests who have sexually abused children, you can’t say all priests are sexual abusers.

The salvation message is proclaimed throughout Scripture and is sufficient for salvation. That’s where our roads would fork. We both claim authority, only you claim it is through one apostle, whereas I claim it is solely through the Master of the apostle apart from any man.

I’m going to start a thread soon on “binding and loosing” and will be commenting on Mt.16:18 and other “proof texts” catholics use to justify their theology. And again, this is going away from the topic.

 

[ahimsaman72]

fulloftruth:

Originally Posted by fulloftruth

I see here that you seem to think that the inspired works were apparent to the first 4 centuries of believers but the truth is quite to the contrary. There were many writings that were circulated as inspired such as the gospel of Thomas, the Sheperd of Hermas, and many others that were not defined as inspired by the Councils of Carthage and Hippo at the end of the 4th century. It took the Church armed with the promise of Christ to be with them always and that what the successor to Peter in conjuction with the successors of the other 11 Apostles bound on earth would be bound in heaven, therefore guarding it from error, to infallibly define what was inspired and what was simply profitable.

I also think that the writers of the NT did not know they were writing inspired words, and I don’t even know if those who recieved the writings considered them the Word of God or “God Breathed” Scripture either. I do think the letters were used for edification and teaching, and not to be lorded over and manipulated. And I think Christ knew of that risk if he did not leave an authority on earth to guard and interpret the Scriptures the way He wants them to be interpreted in very generation. As seen in the Protestant Church, without such an authority, Scripture is manipulated by greedy pastors who are in it for the money and who claim to have genuine interpretations of Scripture. How does the average Christian know for sure what is the write interpretation. So many Pastors teach different necessities for being saved. The Bible cannot be the final infallible authority, There must be a church with direct lineage and successorship to the Apostles and Peter, that can say for sure “this is Heresy, and this is truth.” What do you think Binding and loosing meant and where do you get the idea that it ended with the Apostles.

I believe the churches Paul wrote to believed they were authoritative. He told them so in the letters.

Your whole reasoning and theology are based on ONE Scripture, Matt. 16:18. Out of the whole Bible, you have picked one verse and built an empire out of it. Read the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke. There is little evidence of the primacy of Peter.

In fact, while reading through the first 12 chapters of Acts of the Apostles last night, I found several distinct things.

1. Paul and his companions and Peter, James and John agreed to go to different people - Paul to gentiles, Peter, J & J to Jews. There was no, “Peter, what do you want us to do? We will do whatever you say.” It’s not there.
2. Paul didn’t even see any apostles for three years. Where did he find them? They were in Jerusalem. And again, he didn’t ask permission from any apostle for his ministry.

I encourage anyone to read this book as it really sheds some light on the subject of the early church.

 

[p90]

Greg_McPherran:

There is no question, that the Church of Peter, Paul, and the apostles is the true Church. The question is whether that same Church exists today. What are your thoughts on this?

Yes, it exists today, although we would differ on the nature of that church. How do you intend to relate this to the Papacy as the answer to Sola Scriptura?

~Matt

 

[ahimsaman72]

Greg_McPherran:

Agreed.

Matt and Ahimsaman,

I think the most important question is whether the Church of the original community of believers that included Peter, Paul, and the other apostles, is still in existence today. There is no question, that the Church of Peter, Paul, and the apostles is the true Church. The question is whether that same Church exists today. What are your thoughts on this?

Greg,

I believe the “church” is what the new testament greek says it is, a “called out assembly” of believers in Jesus Christ as Messiah. The idea of a “true church” is a rabbit trail. The catholic church, mormon church, church of christ churches, all claim “true churchness”.

The most important concept in the Christian faith is simply, “What do I do with Jesus Christ?”. Everything else is secondary.

Hope that helps.

 

[oat_soda]

I believe the “church” is what the new testament greek says it is, a “called out assembly” of believers in Jesus Christ as Messiah. The idea of a “true church” is a rabbit trail. The catholic church, mormon church, church of christ churches, all claim “true churchness”.

“The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth (CCC)”.

if there is no true church, than God is calling out no one. God who is truth can’t contradict himself. if God has a people, then they must testify to Truth which doesn’t contradict itself like the protestants do.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

The most important concept in the Christian faith is simply, “What do I do with Jesus Christ?”.

Right. What we do is believe in Him and obey His commands, meaning also obeying His apostles: *He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. * Yes, many churches claim trueness, but only one is authortatively apostolic, and when Scripture, early fathers, history, archeology, and simple aprehension are considered, no one has a better case than you-know-who.

Scott

 

[ahimsaman72]

Scott Waddell:

Right. What we do is believe in Him and obey His commands, meaning also obeying His apostles: *He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. *Yes, many churches claim trueness, but only one is authortatively apostolic, and when Scripture, early fathers, history, archeology, and simple aprehension are considered, no one has a better case than you-know-who.

Scott

I might be persuaded by your answer if the catholic church viewed authority in that order. As it is, the roman catholic church goes by 1.history, 2. early fathers, 3. Scripture. Priorities seem a little mixed up.

 

[ahimsaman72]

“The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth (CCC)”.

if there is no true church, than God is calling out no one. God who is truth can’t contradict himself. if God has a people, then they must testify to Truth which doesn’t contradict itself like the protestants do.

Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life…no man comes unto the Father but by me.” You don’t have any truth and neither do I outside of the central truth - the person Jesus Christ. There is a true church and the definition from CCC is pretty good. Problem is that your source (the CCC definition) is quite different from your explanation.

 

[Philthy]

A. Naivity is in the eye of the beholder. this goes into the salvation question which is not meant for this thread.** What we do now is obey what Christ taught as the most important.** He said the two greatest commandments were: 1) love the Lord thy God (paraphrased) 2)love your neighbor as yourself. EVERYTHING in life can be summed in those two commandments. Yes, it really is very simple. If simple is naive, then I guess I’m naive.
B. No apostles creed I ever saw said anything about baptism. You are referring to the Nicene Creed. The apostles creed is a limited summary but one that was accepted by Christians way before the Nicene Creed and indeed is sufficient for its purpose of summarizing the Christian faith.
C. It’s also good to have the Bible to guide us, something often placed as secondary with Catholics

A) Yes it is true that the essence of Christianity can be very simply stated. However just because it can be stated simply doesn’t mean its application is always simple - in fact it can be quite complicated. Example: is cloning OK? Euthanasia? War?

B) Mea culpa! Yup I was thinking of the Nicene creed…

C) Catholics? Surely you don’t mean the Church. Unlike in other religious entities, individuals do not have the authority to speak for the Catholic Church. Do you mean some individual Catholics? If so, your statement is pretty meaningless. I’m gonna guess you just meant to throw in there that the Catholic laity should read the bible more than they do - and I would agree. That last meaning, however, would nullify your prior points in A.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Matt,

p90:

Yes, it exists today, although we would differ on the nature of that church.

What in your mind is the Church today that is the Church of Peter, Paul, and the other apostles?

p90:

How do you intend to relate this to the Papacy as the answer to Sola Scriptura?

To Matt and Ahimsaman,

There seems to be a movement today among non-Catholics to redefine Sola Scriptura to have a less black-and-white meaning. I see this as possibly an adjustment based on the greater publicity of the Scriptures that support authority outside of Scripture. I really don’t know - it just seems that way from what I have been exposed to about Sola Scriptura. I don’t know how you view Sola Scriptura or if you even believe in it. Therefore I would not attempt to answer your question without more information. Also, I do not care to discuss it because I don’t see such a discussion as beneficial. I say this because I think it would be more beneficial for non-Catholics to consider that God does not have to “prove” Himself to us or “prove” to us that we should unite with Him in His Church. Catholics believe that His Church, His Body and presence in communion, and His offer of life in Heaven with Him are His gifts to us. We accept and believe in these gifts as a matter of faith. If a non-Catholic doesn’t believe in this, I don’t know what amount of “proving” is ever going to satisfy or convince. A gift is to be accepted.

To me, it seems obvious that the Catholic Church is the Church of the apostles and continues their practices and teachings according the will of God. Do either of you propose that some other Church has existed since the time of the apostles and this “other Church” continued the apostolic Church and replaced the Catholic Church? I consider it may be a blasphemy to say that. I think it could be an insult to God to refuse to accept His Church. If you love Him as I’m sure you would say you do, then why not unite with His Church according to His plan. His will is more important than yours or mine. Submit to His will if He calls you to the Catholic Church.

As a teen and young adult, I had fallen away from Church. I began reading Scripture and I was deeply moved and inspired by Jesus’ words. What was my response to this? I immediately wanted to return to Church. I didn’t even stop to consider that there was some Church other than the Catholic Church. It was just obvious to me. I believe that this is God’s will that it be simple and obvious. A Christian should never have to “decide” what is the Church of God. I think it may be Satan that has made it so confusing. St. Paul warned about divisions.

Open your heart and see where God leads you. I invite you join us in the Body of Christ, the Church of the apostles. Welcome! Come unite with us in the ultimate communion of the living bread come down from Heaven.

Greg

 

[mayra_hart]

jesus actually commanded the jewish people of his day to obey the pharisees’ traditional teachings,orally transmitted"the teachers of the law and the pharisees sit in moses’seat. so you most obey them and do everything they tell you"(mt23:2-3). but the seat of moses itself is not to be found anywhere in the old testament! the seat of moses was a product of that historic oral tradition so important to the israelite faith. jesus gives the authority of tradition his unqualified approval and commands his contemporaries to obey tradition’s precepts. they are not given the option of obeying only those traditions they could justify with a “chapter and a verse”.jesus explicitly includes “everything they tell you”. nor are there any “ifs,ands,or buts” to qualify the obligation to obey.the main problem jesus had with the pharisees is evidence in the rest of the passages;they did not obey their own teaching. the authoritative nature of tradition is expressly taught here by jesus himself…god bless you all

 

[p90]

Greg_McPherran:

What in your mind is the Church today that is the Church of Peter, Paul, and the other apostles?

That church is composed of anyone who has at one point trusted in Christ’s work alone to justify them completely before a God who calls their sin into account. This church crosses denominational boundaries and is found in every class, from the poor and mentally ill, to the rich and sound of mind.

There seems to be a movement today among non-Catholics to redefine Sola Scriptura to have a less black-and-white meaning. I see this as possibly an adjustment based on the greater publicity of the Scriptures that support authority outside of Scripture. I really don’t know - it just seems that way from what I have been exposed to about Sola Scriptura.

Of many discussions, plenty of articles, and a few books on the subject, I am only aware of two definitions of Sola Scriptura. What you’re probably noticing is that the general, popular form (the one that most Catholics understand and the one that the vast majority of Catholic apologetics attempts to interact with) is being critiqued and that some Protestants are calling for a return to the classical expression of the doctrine.

If a non-Catholic doesn’t believe in this, I don’t know what amount of “proving” is ever going to satisfy or convince. A gift is to be accepted.

The amount of evidence required to change someone’s mind is different and unique for each case. For me, for example, it would require substantial historical and Scriptural evidence and solid argumentation beyond that which I currently hold to. For someone else, it may just be the emotional component of the Eucharist that draws them. Each case should be judged individually and responded to accordingly.

Do either of you propose that some other Church has existed since the time of the apostles and this “other Church” continued the apostolic Church and replaced the Catholic Church?

The body of believers I mentioned above has been with us since the beginning. However, where it existed is largely independent of the institutional structure terms that we think in today. Add to that the fact that I don’t think the Catholic Church is either to be completely equated with the body of believers I keep mentioning or seen as beginning with the early church, a question of replacement doesn’t make sense in my view of church history.

~Matt

 

[ahimsaman72]

Greg_McPherran:

To me, it seems obvious that the Catholic Church is the Church of the apostles and continues their practices and teachings according the will of God. Do either of you propose that some other Church has existed since the time of the apostles and this “other Church” continued the apostolic Church and replaced the Catholic Church? I consider it may be a blasphemy to say that. I think it could be an insult to God to refuse to accept His Church. If you love Him as I’m sure you would say you do, then why not unite with His Church according to His plan. His will is more important than yours or mine. Submit to His will if He calls you to the Catholic Church.

Greg

I had to edit for length, sorry.

There is much here that time does not permit for me to finally reply to. Church is “ekklesia” strong’s concordance number 1577. I am neither a hebrew or greek scholar, but from my personal study using concordances and translations of Scripture I can tell you that the roman church definition is quite different from the Scripture’s definition. The church is wherever two or three believers are gathered together as can be seen by Romans 16:5 where Priscilla and Aquila had a “church” in their house. Sorry, I believe the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ who has sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in all believers in Him and that wherever two or three are gathered together in His name as Matthew 18:20 states.

A person should decide on where the truth is being preached and taught as to where to attend a church service, not based on who has been around the longest. A perfect example in the workplace here: a man has been on his job for 35 years. he’s old, slow, dishonest, lazy, inefficient and a liability to his employer (this is all hypothetical). a younger man comes in, works hard, good work ethic, honest and efficient. He is obviously an asset to his company. I’ve seen this from personal experience.

If this is all blasphemy to you I cannot help that. That’s my conviction based on evidence from Scripture, reasoning and conscience. We all have to answer for the truth shown to us in our lives. God is the righteous judge. Let God be true, but every man a liar.

Peace…

 

[Scott_Waddell]

ahimsaman72:

I might be persuaded by your answer if the catholic church viewed authority in that order. As it is, the roman catholic church goes by 1.history, 2. early fathers, 3. Scripture. Priorities seem a little mixed up.

No, they form a body of a cumulative argument. Please proove your assertion that there is some kind of mix up of priorities.

Scott