Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[dronald]

So…to whom did the Holy Spirit give this table of contents?

Hmm…a historical question…was Gospel of Luke written before or after Paul’s execution?

Us Evangelicals like to point out the abrupt ending to the Acts as well as Luke coming first puts it at an early date. We believe all Scripture save what John wrote came before the temple fell.

 

[Nicea325]

Not exactly. Paul gave the reason such should be practiced within the Church, “to stop you from becoming puffed up.” Paul wanted his letters to be Scripture:

1 Thess 5:27 I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.

2 Thess 3:14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

And of course, Peter calling them Scripture. I assure you, Paul was speaking of his letters as well and anything else that would become Scripture.

Really? You are merely suggesting a position without any historical evidence to support St.Paul wanted SS or Scripture as the only or final authority or let alone a practice? I find it extremely at odds an Apostle pushing for such a practice and yet remains very silent, elusive, or implicit on such a huge practice?

And why wouldn’t Peter call them Scripture? It is another Apostle writing,but that alone does not present a smoking gun that Paul or Peter wrote in defense of SS.

BTW: Do you not find it odd if SS were such a core practice or belief vital to faith,not ONCE is it ever mentioned at any ecuemical councils? Such a core practice,praxis,doctine,etc and not a single word? Not one ECF ever writes exhaustively in its defense…not one!

 

[pablope]

I trust the Jews to do a solid job picking out which OT books belong in the Bible.

Just kidding. I’m not the greatest historian on OT books, but if the Jews did reject it can’t we assume that it should be left out? I know even Paul quoted an old (non-canonical) poem in Acts 17 but that doesn’t make it Scripture.

Also, why do the Ethiopian Orthodox accept it?

Question for you Dronald…what does the Jews have anything to do with what is binding to a Christian?

The Jews of the second century exluded books as a rejection of Christianity…so if you go by their decision on their canon…you are then also in effect, giving assent to their rejection of Christianity and Christ.

And as part of this action of the jews…this prayer of their was composed:

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html

…produced an ugly prayer called the Birkat haMinim, which cursed the Christians as sectarians, and prayed to God that for these “sectarians,” “let there be no hope, and may all the evil in an instant be destroyed and all Thy enemies be cut down swiftly; and the evil ones uproot and break and destroy and humble soon in our days. Blessed art You, LORD, who breaks down enemies and humbles sinners.” This prayer was to be prayed every Sabbath, and it forced the Jewish Christians to stop worshiping with the non-Christian Jews in synagogue…Of course, the irony here is staggering. Despite all the talk about Galatians, it’s Protestants here who are playing the Judaizers, attempting to force Christians to follow the dictates of an insular group of vehemently anti-Christian Jewish rabbis from the first century. To put it another way, if a Christian in the first century raised the argument that we should reject the Old Testament used by Christians in favor of the one being advanced in the Jamnia school, the followers of St. Paul would denounce them for their legalism. It’s just fundamentally not a Christian answer to the question of the canon of Scripture.

 

[pablope]

The church.

Which Church is that?

If he quotes from it, then it must have been written beforehand!

 

[pablope]

Us Evangelicals like to point out the abrupt ending to the Acts as well as Luke coming first puts it at an early date. We believe all Scripture save what John wrote came before the temple fell.

Okay…with Christians being hunted down and persecuted at this point in time…how could they produce copies of the writings and distribute them? And the Romans burning anything they could find associated with the Christians…how could the copies be distributed?

And how was the copying to be accomplished?

 

[dronald]

Question for you Dronald…what does the Jews have anything to do with what is binding to a Christian?

The Jews of the second century exluded books as a rejection of Christianity…so if you go by their decision on their canon…you are then also in effect, giving assent to their rejection of Christianity and Christ.

And as part of this action of the jews…this prayer of their was composed:

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html

…produced an ugly prayer called the Birkat haMinim, which cursed the Christians as sectarians, and prayed to God that for these “sectarians,” “let there be no hope, and may all the evil in an instant be destroyed and all Thy enemies be cut down swiftly; and the evil ones uproot and break and destroy and humble soon in our days. Blessed art You, LORD, who breaks down enemies and humbles sinners.” This prayer was to be prayed every Sabbath, and it forced the Jewish Christians to stop worshiping with the non-Christian Jews in synagogue…Of course, the irony here is staggering. Despite all the talk about Galatians, it’s Protestants here who are playing the Judaizers, attempting to force Christians to follow the dictates of an insular group of vehemently anti-Christian Jewish rabbis from the first century. To put it another way, if a Christian in the first century raised the argument that we should reject the Old Testament used by Christians in favor of the one being advanced in the Jamnia school, the followers of St. Paul would denounce them for their legalism. It’s just fundamentally not a Christian answer to the question of the canon of Scripture.

It was actually a bit of a joke; but I trust that they would be knowledgeable of which OT books belong.

Or perhaps you don’t think they would be smart enough to work out their own history?

 

[dronald]

Okay…with Christians being hunted down and persecuted at this point in time…how could they produce copies of the writings and distribute them? And the Romans burning anything they could find associated with the Christians…how could the copies be distributed?

And how was the copying to be accomplished?

Quite a miracle eh? It surely was tougher for us than early Islam.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Which Church is that?

There is only one.

You are conjecturing…how about the actual scholastic dating?

I am not conjecturing. I am making a statement of logic. If Paul refers to the gospel of Luke, then it stands to reason the gospel of Luke was written before Paul’s death, no?

Scholastic dating? Which scholars are we talking about?

 

[dronald]

Really? You are merely suggesting a position without any historical evidence to support St.Paul wanted SS or Scripture as the only or final authority or let alone a practice? I find it extremely at odds an Apostle pushing for such a practice and yet remains very silent, elusive, or implicit on such a huge practice?

And why wouldn’t Peter call them Scripture? It is another Apostle writing,but that alone does not present a smoking gun that Paul or Peter wrote in defense of SS.

BTW: Do you not find it odd if SS were such a core practice or belief vital to faith,not ONCE is it ever mentioned at any ecuemical councils? Such a core practice,praxis,doctine,etc and not a single word? Not one ECF ever writes exhaustively in its defense…not one!

I admire your passion. What stuck out the most to me is your acknowledgment that Peter recognized Paul’s letter as Scripture. Paul was also silent on the importance of Mary, never mentioning her once; and he seemed completely against Peter being so much more important than anyone else if we’re just going by Scripture.

All I’m saying is that Paul did say don’t go beyond what is written or you will become puffed up. That’s it, he said it and I accept it.

 

[pablope]

There is only one.

Which one?

I am not conjecturing. I am making a statement of logic. If Paul refers to the gospel of Luke, then it stands to reason the gospel of Luke was written before Paul’s death, no?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Which one?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Well, the two are not particularly linked. SS isn’t intended to determine the canon. That’s the job of the Church. How much of clamor was there in the early Church to have the Didache as part of the NT?

Jon

That’s the thing I do not understand. You do not trust the church to be an authority equal to scripture when it comes to practice and tradition and yet you trust the church to establish the highest authority when you necessarily have to consider tradition and the church lesser than scripture. I do not think I have misrepresented Sola Scriptura here either, if we take it to mean that the scripture is the highest and final authority.

That being said, while the texts aren’t linked in theme or style, they are linked to the discussion of sola scriptura. What text are we more likely to consider scripture if we did not have the tradition of the church in this regard? 3rd John, a very short letter containing little of doctrinal value (I am not saying it is valueless, God forbid) or the Didache, a fairly comprehensive early catechism giving instruction and doctrine on many items for the community of the faithful. I confess that I think the didache of more value when it comes to knowing key elements of the faith than 3rd John alone.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And of course, Peter calling them Scripture.

Funny, I don’t remember St. Peter listing which epistles and purported epistles were genuine.
I guess the Church had to sort that out. Good thing that Christ founded a Church to do that!

I assure you, Paul was speaking of his letters as well and anything else that would become Scripture.

Again, begging the question, since apart from the Church, we wouldn’t know which letters were genuinely Pauline, and which of the other documents were actually theopneustos.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Not exactly. Paul gave the reason such should be practiced within the Church, “to stop you from becoming puffed up.”

The why is stated. The what is very unclear, and most likely reflects a rabbinic idiom that has been lost to time.

Also unclear is what writing St. Paul is referring to.

It can’t mean what you seem to be saying, else it would be contradicting itself.
But could you spell out exactly what you think it is saying, so I won’t be accused of putting words in your mouth?

Paul wanted his letters to be Scripture:

1 Thess 5:27 I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.

2 Thess 3:14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

Interestingly enough, 2 Thess is one of the books whose Pauline authorship is disputed.

But not by the Church.

 

[Per_Crucem]

You do not trust the church to be an authority equal to scripture when it comes to practice and tradition and yet you trust the church to establish the highest authority when you necessarily have to consider tradition and the church lesser than scripture.

I don’t see how the knowledge of the church, via the reception of the Scriptures, makes the church equal to Scripture in authority. We wouldn’t know about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus if the disciples didn’t preach it, either. This doesn’t make the disciples equal in authority to Jesus, does it?

 

[Nicea325]

dronald:

I admire your passion.

What stuck out the most to me is your acknowledgment that Peter recognized Paul’s letter as Scripture.

Yes,but did Peter accept him as an Apostle based on first what Paul wrote or Peter had heard about Paul? Hhhhhmm? Did not Paul meet Peter in person-before writing?

Paul was also silent on the importance of Mary, never mentioning her once;

Because Paul was writing in defense of the Incarnate God,not Mary. Paul is also silent on the deep and complex explanation of the Trinity,Incarnation,Hypostatic Union-right? But guess what my friend? All those core doctrines were explained and developed as time progressed via the Holy Spirit-right? Not the case for the Sola Scriptura,

and he seemed completely against Peter being so much more important than anyone else if we’re just going by Scripture.

Sorry,but you are in error here. So against Peter that Paul founded his own denomination?

All I’m saying is that Paul did say don’t go beyond what is written or you will become puffed up. That’s it, he said it and I accept it.

Sorry,but it is pure conjecture and again,not a single shred of evidence exist proving St.Paul practiced and let alone believed in Sola Scriptura. SS advocates love to fabricate history which tends to support their distorted view of genuine history. That is not how history is presented.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I trust the Jews to do a solid job picking out which OT books belong in the Bible.

Just kidding. I’m not the greatest historian on OT books, but if the Jews did reject it can’t we assume that it should be left out?

Perhaps if it was rejected BEFORE the Christian era; i.e. before they had an agenda.

But some books (actually, at least the 7 books that are in Catholic but not Protestant Bibles) were not rejected until afterwards.

Interesting that one of the Feasts that figures prominently in the life of Jesus is the Festival of Lights (Hanukkah), which is chronicled (scripturally) ONLY in Maccabees.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I don’t see how the knowledge of the church, via the reception of the Scriptures, makes the church equal to Scripture in authority. We wouldn’t know about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus if the disciples didn’t preach it, either. This doesn’t make the disciples equal in authority to Jesus, does it?

It DOES make the Apostles equal in authority to Scriptures, at the very least!

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dronald
I trust the Jews to do a solid job picking out which OT books belong in the Bible.

Just kidding. I’m not the greatest historian on OT books, but if the Jews did reject it can’t we assume that it should be left out?

So much trust they did not even have a canon prior to or during Christ lifetime. Again,another blow to SS. I once had a Protestant tell me that the Jewish historian Josephus names 22 books in a list of OT books;hence it proves the current Jewish/Protestant OT canon.

Yet amazingly he could not tell me which Jewish sect (Pharisees,Sadducees,Essenes) had the authority to make such a decision? When did it take place? Where did it take place? Names of those men who approved it? Never heard from him again. I wonder why?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Paul was also silent on the importance of Mary, never mentioning her once;
Nicea325;11754260:

Because Paul was writing in defense of the Incarnate God,not Mary. Paul is also silent on the deep and complex explanation of the Trinity,Incarnation,Hypostatic Union-right?

Exactly. So, if you are going to use this logic to show that the Blessed Virgin is “unimportant,” you must also argument that the doctrines that Nicea325 mentioned are also unimportant.

and he seemed completely against Peter being so much more important than anyone else if we’re just going by Scripture.

Not so.

After meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus, after his conversion, and his time in the desert, what did St. Paul do?

Ga 1:16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood,
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

He went to St. Peter and met with him for 15 days BEFORE preaching the gospel.
Why? Small talk?

All I’m saying is that Paul did say don’t go beyond what is written or you will become puffed up. That’s it, he said it and I accept it.