Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[Per_Crucem]

In fact, it could be argued that only through the Church do we know that the scriptures are theopneustros, and so it is the witness of the Church (the Apostles and their successors) that we know of their authority.

But God is the one Who reveals it. We don’t need certainty in the Church. We need it in God.

 

[Nicea325]

But God is the one Who reveals it. We don’t need certainty in the Church. We need it in God.

Yes,but God is also the one chose and allowed His church to decide what constitutes Scripture…a fact of history. No way around it and no amount of denials will wish it away. If not the church,then tell us what other earthly factor decided for us? The Bible all by itself?

 

[Nicea325]

No, it doesn’t. The authority of the Scriptures is vested in the authority of the Triune God who inspired them.

Yes it does! Jesus gave oral instructions and teachings to the 12,nothing about the Bible-only.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Haha! So you are saying that the table of contents is inspired? When was it revealed and to whom?

To the church. The church simply recognizes what is inspired.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Well…can you show or provide the verse and chapter where Scripture claims it is the written word of God?

And is God limited to the written word?

Both our denominations claim that scripture is the written word of God, why argue with what we already agree with each other about.

No, God is not limited to the written word. But with the written word of scripture, we can be fully equipped for every good work. Is teaching correct doctrine a good work?

If so, what more do I need to become more full than fully equipped?

If I can be fully equipped with scripture, why should I need anything more?

 

[Nicea325]

Both our denominations claim that scripture is the written word of God, why argue with what we already agree with each other about.

No, God is not limited to the written word. But with the written word of scripture, we can be fully equipped for every good work. Is teaching correct doctrine a good work?

If so, what more do I need to become more full than fully equipped?

If I can be fully equipped with scripture, why should I need anything more?

How was every Jew **fully equipped **before the OT was ever written? How did Abraham manage using your argument? Your argument holds no validity in the greater historical context.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But God is the one Who reveals it. We don’t need certainty in the Church. We need it in God.

Wasn’t it God who said: “I will build My Church” and “Take it to the Church” and “The Church of the Living God is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth”?

You are a prime example to what some people will do to avoid at any cost the historical Church. The Church that is the Body of Christ and Christ as the Head. You are denying the teaching authority of the Apostles and those who succeed them. You say God and yet you deny His Body. If we don’t need certainty of the Church, Why did Gid give us a Church when He could have given us a handbook?

What you are saying is completely against Christ.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Both our denominations claim that scripture is the written word of God, why argue with what we already agree with each other about.

No, God is not limited to the written word. But with the written word of scripture, we can be fully equipped for every good work. Is teaching correct doctrine a good work?

If so, what more do I need to become more full than fully equipped?

If I can be fully equipped with scripture, why should I need anything more?

You agree with us, you have no remedy on your own. Your Church started in the 1,500’s. And really you don’t agree with us and you don’t agree with the Orthodox in what either one of us holds as Divenely Inspired.

Why should you need more? That’s the same attitude the servant with one talent had…

 

[House_Harkonnen]

How was every Jew **fully equipped **before the OT was ever written? How did Abraham manage using your argument? Your argument holds no validity in the greater historical context.

God told Abraham directly. The Jews were fully equipped because of the prophets.

No one claims that Sola Scriptura, at least no one I know, claims that Sola Scriptura was ALWAYS the practice of Gods people.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You agree with us, you have no remedy on your own. Your Church started in the 1,500’s. And really you don’t agree with us and you don’t agree with the Orthodox in what either one of us holds as Divenely Inspired.

Why should you need more? That’s the same attitude the servant with one talent had…

You agree with us, you have no remedy on your own.

Remedy for what? I am doing just fine.

Your Church started in the 1,500’s.

That’s silly. There is only one church and it started at Pentecost.

And really you don’t agree with us and you don’t agree with the Orthodox in what either one of us holds as Divenely Inspired

The scriptures that I hold to be inspired are the ones that all Christians have decided are inspired. The disputed books, there have been loads of arguments back and forth for centuries with no consensus. I simply hold them as valuable but not inspired. They really aren’t that great anyway except for Sirach.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s silly. There is only one church and it started at Pentecost.

Indeed. I wish it was still all one, not many

The scriptures that I hold to be inspired are the ones that all Christians have decided are inspired. The disputed books, there have been loads of arguments back and forth for centuries with no consensus. I simply hold them as valuable but not inspired. They really aren’t that great anyway except for Sirach.

There is a consensus. You just happen to not agree with any.

Nice chatting with you, let me know when you’d like to have a serious conversation.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

There is a consensus. You just happen to not agree with any.
.

Not really, you already said that your denomination and the Orthodox Church cannot agree on what is scripture, at least these two ancient churches have different canons of scripture. Yet the vast majority of Protestant denominations have totally agreement about what is scripture. Seems like Protestants are the consensus on the matter. Why would I want to accept a unique canon, only held by one denomination, when the vast majority of denominations hold to a different one?

Nice chatting with you, let me know when you’d like to have a serious conversation.

We are having a serious and enlightening conversation. Please don’t back out now.

 

[benjohnson]

Yes it does! Jesus gave oral instructions and teachings to the 12,nothing about the Bible-only.

Indeed - the paper isn’t important at all. It’s God’s word that’s important. The message, not the medium.

 

[pablope]

But God is the one Who reveals it. We don’t need certainty in the Church. We need it in God.

If you do not need certainty in the church…then why be part of a church? Or why did Jesus bother saying He will build a church upon Peter the rock? Why don’t you just go your merry way?

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

Aquinas believed that faith in Christ necessarily involves trusting the Church, because Christ cannot fail to guide and protect the development of His Church.

I came to see that I did not fully trust Christ, not because I thought Him untrustworthy, but because I had not understood that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head, and which He has promised to protect and preserve until He returns. I had not apprehended the ecclesial organ Christ established through which the members of His Body are to trust Him. I came to see that faith in Christ is not something to be exercised invisibly, from my heart directly to Christ’s throne, as though Christ had not appointed an enduring line of shepherds. Inward faith was to be exercised outwardly, by trusting Christ through those shepherds Christ sent and established. Jesus had 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.”29

This is the sacramental conception of faith, not simply belief that, but belief through. This is the sacramental conception of the Church, the basis for the priest speaking in persona Christi.

 

[pablope]

Both our denominations claim that scripture is the written word of God, why argue with what we already agree with each other about.No, God is not limited to the written word

Okay…if scripture is the written word…and God is not limited to the written word…why do you make Scripture the sole rule of faith?

. But with the written word of scripture, we can be fully equipped for every good work. Is teaching correct doctrine a good work?

If I can be fully equipped with scripture, why should I need anything more?

2Tim3:

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,

[/QUOTE]

 

[pablope]

Not really, you already said that your denomination and the Orthodox Church cannot agree on what is scripture, at least these two ancient churches have different canons of scripture. Yet the vast majority of Protestant denominations have totally agreement about what is scripture. Seems like Protestants are the consensus on the matter. Why would I want to accept a unique canon, only held by one denomination, when the vast majority of denominations hold to a different one?

We are having a serious and enlightening conversation. Please don’t back out now.

Is the Canon of Scripture dependant on the majority vote of protestant denominations?

Or, is it you do not trust the actions of the Church in determining the canon starting in AD382 to 403 or so?

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11754656]True. As it is the servant of ALL of God’s Word.

From the Catechism:
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

Amen, as does our leadership.

Citation?

From: bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

Yes, by some.

From the New World Encyclopedia:

The text is possibly the first written catechism, with three main sections dealing with Christian lessons, rituals such as baptism and eucharist, and Church organization. It was considered by some of the Church Fathers as part of the New Testament[2] but rejected as spurious by others,[3] eventually not accepted into the New Testament canon with the exception of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church “broader canon.” The Roman Catholic Church has accepted it as part of the collection of Apostolic Fathers.

Although the Didache was excluded from the canon of scripture because it could not be clearly linked to any one specific Apostle, the text remains immensely valuable and instructive as a window into the early Christian community and their struggles to adapt to a predominantly Hellenistic climate and world.

Yes, indeed! Enough to give it weight, for us to make use of it, in understanding practices held in the early Church. Not for canon status, however.

For something this important?
Why? Do you believe that they were guided by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised?

If you believe so, then do you believe this also regarding some of the other beliefs professed by the Early Church that you seem to reject?

Of course they were guided by the Holy Spirit. In many ways, all of the regenerate are.
I can’t think of anything, off hand, that I reject from the early Church. In fact, if all of us returned to the teachings of the 7 councils, we’d probably be in unity.

Jon

 

[dronald]

Is the Canon of Scripture dependant on the majority vote of protestant denominations?

Or, is it you do not trust the actions of the Church in determining the canon starting in AD382 to 403 or so?

I think he’s saying that we can absolutely, without a doubt know that 66 books belong in the Bible. There are some (although the argument is a bit faulty because the Orthodox all accept the books the Catholics do) books however that the Orthodox do accept and yours does not.

 

[JonNC]

=IgnatianPhilo;11754735]Sola scriptura would necessitate the church be lesser than the scripture in authority. I am not saying the Church can contradict scripture, do not get me wrong, but I would not relegate it a secondary status. When you say however the church is not lesser than scripture I would ask, “How is this demonstrated?” For the protestant cannot believe anything is binding, anything is forced on the believer to accept, except that it be found in the scripture.

The Church determines the doctrines confirmed by scripture, and witnessed by Tradition.
The role of scripture in the practice of SS is to hold doctrine accountable to scripture. So the Church uses scripture in this way.

Certain traditions may be helpful yes, I know you accept that, but it is not binding on the individual like scripture is binding on the individual. So when you say the church is not of lesser authority than scripture, how is that brought into practice when one believes in sola scriptura? I know what you will say, that you accept the fathers, you accept the creeds (some of them),

Not exactly. For example, on the creeds, our confessions say:

1. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

We pledge ourselves to them because they are," *the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of **the orthodox and true Church ***".
Which creeds are we missing, by the way?

you accept the traditions, but you do not accept them because of any inherent authority in of themselves (something Orthodox, Catholics and Orientals I think take much more seriously than all Protestants). It’s not that they are the church and are to be trusted, but rather because they are coherent with the scripture and only on that reason you accept some of the traditions and reject others.

We actually accept them as authoritative for the Church, at least from a Lutheran perspective. The early Church did not accept it as canon, with a few exceptions. Hence, it is not in the canon. Again, while the Lutheran confessions do not technically close the canon, we would not consider canonical any book not considered such in the early Church. However, that does not mean it should be ignored, or not referenced.

This the crux of our disagreement and why asking the question of the Didache is important because it really has nothing against it in terms of potentially being in the canon, although I might add these rules are not from the bible.

The Didache is not alone in this category, in the western Church. The Prayer of Manasseh, which Luther and his colleagues included in his 1534 translation, also has nothing in it that would keep it from being in the canon, but that’s not the way the western Church has handled it. Even so, it is a wonderful resource for Christians.

It was written at the end of the first century or at the beginning of the second century. It contains (so far as I can tell) nothing false. It is orthodox in its content. Some of the fathers include it on their lists of the canon. We might not know the author but we do not know the author of the letter to the Hebrews as well and it seems impossible to verify apostolicity (direct connection with an apostle) with any absolute certainty. What prevents this from being scripture? What makes 3rd John Scripture? If the answer is in tradition why is not binding on the beliefs of the individual Christian? If the tradition which establishes the scripture is not binding on the scripture it proclaims the great authority for the Christian, what are we left to stand on? In my view nothing.

From the Christian Cyclopedia cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=c&word=CANON.BIBLE:

The classification of Origen* into homologoumena (universally recognized), antilegomena* (not universally recognized), and spurious (mostly uncanonical gospels; the newly discovered Coptic Gospel of Thomas qualifies for this category) is paralleled substantially by Eusebius* of Caesarea. But Eusebius includes under the category antilegomena (1) disputed books (James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude) and (2) spurious (Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, Didache). Eusebius expresses no personal doubts about Hebrews, which he classifies as a homologoumenon; but he is not sure whether Revelation belongs among the “spurious” books. Eusebius’ doubts about Revelation reflect the more conservative attitude of the Syrian churches. which have generally adhered to a shorter canon of 22 books (lacking 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation).

I will add this note to what I am saying, I do not intend to offend, I only intend to give my view as it seems to me.

Why would I be offended? You present your views with courtesy.

Jon

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Is the Canon of Scripture dependant on the majority vote of protestant denominations?

Or, is it you do not trust the actions of the Church in determining the canon starting in AD382 to 403 or so?

The canon of scripture is dependent on the church recognizing what was inspired. There were disputed books that there was no consensus on, I regard them as useful but uninspired.

Can you tell us why, if the church was united in 382, do the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and other branches all have their own unique canons?