Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[Nicea325]

I disagree and the main problem with not holding scripture as the highest authority, is that the person must declare all those doctrines that are infallible that aren’t contained in the scriptures, and how we know.

Back in the day one could just go ask an apostle or a prophet.

Can you show us all the practices and doctrines of the first century church that are infallible on not contained in scripture?

After you show us where Scripture explicitly states Scripture is the highest authority?

Seriously? How do you believe these doctrines were transmitted before they were penned?

I really like to read the evidence of where Scripture is the highest authority?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

The entire New Testament to start with. For that which is written about inevitably comes after that which is being written about.

The New Testament is scripture. I am asking for something outside of scripture that’s infallible, that was practiced by the first century church, and how we know.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

After you show us where Scripture explicitly states Scripture is the highest authority?

Seriously? How do you believe these doctrines were transmitted before they were penned?

I really like to read the evidence of where Scripture is the highest authority?

They were transmitted orally. No one states that Sola Scriptura was always the practice of Gods people. Before that they could just go to the apostles themselves.

The scriptures are the highest authority because its Gods word, and there is no higher authority than God. Can you tell us what authority is higher than scripture?

 

[Nicea325]

They were transmitted orally. No one states that Sola Scriptura was always the practice of Gods people. Before that they could just go to the apostles themselves.

The scriptures are the highest authority because its Gods word, and there is no higher authority than God. Can you tell us what authority is higher than scripture?

AGAIN…FIRST SHOW US WHERE DOES SCRIPTURE (WRITTEN WORDS) TEACH YOUR POSITION? WHERE? SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS: SCRIPTURE IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY

If your position is orthodox…it will be backed up!

 

[Nicea325]

The New Testament is scripture. I am asking for something outside of scripture that’s infallible, that was practiced by the first century church, and how we know.

And care to show us where scripture explicitly discusses the deep theological complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The New Testament is scripture. I am asking for something outside of scripture that’s infallible, that was practiced by the first century church, and how we know.

There was no New Testament in the 1st century Church.

How do you know the New Testament is Scripture?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

There was no New Testament in the 1st century Church.

How do you know the New Testament is Scripture?

Sure there was. All the letters of the New Testament were written and circulated in the first century.

I am happy to accept consensus on the matter of the NT being scripture.

Can you show us a doctrine outside of scripture that the first century church held to be infallible and how you know?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

And care to show us where scripture explicitly discusses the deep theological complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine?

Sure.

There are many verses that enumerate the Trinity.

Would you like me to list them all?

 

[Nicea325]

Sure there was. All the letters of the New Testament were written and circulated in the first century.

I am happy to accept consensus on the matter of the NT being scripture.

Can you show us a doctrine outside of scripture that the first century church held to be infallible and how you know?

Nope! In circulation does not prove canonization. Many other letters were in circulation…why aren’t they in NT scripture?

Got my answer? Where does scripture (written words) teach it is the higest authority?

 

[Nicea325]

Sure.

There are many verses that enumerate the Trinity.

Would you like me to list them all?

Save them! The only reason why you use those verses is because we have nearly 2,000 years to help us understand those verses via the scores of information explaining the Trinty.Hence, precisely why we understand it using the verses in such a light. Not the case at first!

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Nope! In circulation does not prove canonization. Many other letters were in circulation…why aren’t they in NT scripture?

Got my answer? Where does scripture (written words) teach it is the higest authority?

The church recognized which scriptures were canon. There were others circulating but they were non canonical and the church recognized them as such.

I don’t have an answer that you are looking for. There is no verse that says “this collection of books is the highest authority”.

There are plenty of verses that appeal to scripture for authority. I am fine to do that.

Can you show us a doctrine of the first century, considered infallible by the church, that was outside of scripture, and how we know.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Save them! The only reason why you use those verses is because we have nearly 2,000 years to help us understand those verses via the scores of information explaining the Trinty.Hence, precisely why we understand it using the verses in such a light. Not the case at first!

If you already had your answer, why did you ask for bible verses enumerating the Trinity?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sure there was. All the letters of the New Testament were written and circulated in the first century.

You mean like:

The Shepherd of Hermas
The Epistle of Barnabas
The 1st Epistle of Clement
The Epistle to Seneca the Younger
The 3rd Epistle to the Corinthians
The 1st Apocalypse of James
The Didache

Because those were circulating as well.

 

[benjohnson]

And care to show us where scripture explicitly discusses the deep theological complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine?

Ahem… if I’m reading this correctly, you’re sort of putting words unto our Lutheran mouths. We don’t deny other authorities, only that if there’s a conflict that God’s word would trump.

 

[benjohnson]

After you show us where Scripture explicitly states Scripture is the highest authority?

Perhaps:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Basically, this parallels how the church uses scripture to correct improper traditions.

 

[JonNC]

Perhaps:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Basically, this parallels how the church uses scripture to correct improper traditions.

Yep.

The point should not be missed that, from a Lutheran POV, we do not put scripture and the Church at odds with each other. It isn’t, for us, an “either/or”.

Even if one see the document “From Conflict to Communion” as painting a rosier picture than reality might reveal, this:

Scripture and tradition
209. Today, the role and significance of the Holy Scripture and tradition are
therefore understood differently in the Roman Catholic Church than
they were by Luther’s theological opponents. Regarding the question
of the authentic interpretation of Scripture, Catholics have explained,
»When Catholic doctrine holds that the ›judgment of the church‹ has a
role in authentic interpretation of Scripture, it does not attribute to the
church’s magisterium a monopoly over interpretation, which adherents
of the Reformation rightly fear and reject. Before the Reformation, major
figures had indicated the ecclesial plurality of interpreters … When
Vatican II speaks of the church having an ›ultimate judgment‹ (DV 12)
it clearly eschews a monopolistic claim that the magisterium is the sole
organ of interpretation, which is confirmed both by the century-old
official promotion of Catholic biblical studies and the recognition in
DV 12 of the role of exegesis in the maturing of magisterial teaching«
(ApC 407).
210. Thus, Lutherans and Catholics are able jointly to conclude, »Therefore
regarding Scripture and tradition, Lutherans and Catholics are in such
an extensive agreement that their different emphases do not of them-
76 Chapter IVselves require maintaining the present division of the churches. In this
area, there is unity in reconciled diversity« (ApC 448).82

lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf
Lutherans recognize and do not reject the role of the Church, the authority of the Church, even if our view of it is somewhat different than that of Rome.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Can you show us a doctrine outside of scripture that the first century church held to be infallible and how you know?

1st Infallible statement by the Bishop of Rome:

Pope Clement I - To the Corinthians, Ch. 32

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

:tiphat:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Perhaps:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Basically, this parallels how the church uses scripture to correct improper traditions.

Let’s look at that entire paragraph:

2 Tim 3:10 Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico′nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and[a] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,* 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.**

Paul says:

1. 
   *]You have observed my teaching.
   *]Continue in what you have learned.
   *]Knowing from whom you learned.
   
   It then says:
   
   Scriptures are profitable. Not the sole and single authority, not that it is exclusive, but that they are profitable to maintain teaching, learning — and more importantly: from whom you learned!
   
   So, who teaches Scriptures in a wrong way should be avoided and this bad teacher destroys any profitability that the Scriptures offer.
   
   And how do you know from whom you should learn?
   
   1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
   
   Paul understand clearly where to go for the truth. Alas, we should as well. And the Church is one, not many.*

 

[eddie_too]

there are many passages in sacred scripture that are interpreted differently by different christian sects and also by non-christians.

how do people know what is the correct (correct in the sense of being a divinely inspired interpretation) interpretation of a particular scripture verse?

also, it was an infallible act when the canon of sacred scripture was declared in the, i think, fifth century after Jesus.

sacred scripture does not declare itself infallible. sacred scripture does not even define which books should be part of its canon.

some people even took it upon themselves to remove books that had previously been declared divinely inspired. these people decided for themselves what is divinely inspired scripture but did it more than a thousand years after the original canon was established. these people removed books from the bible without any support from the bible that they should be removed.

sacred scripture, correctly interpreted, does establish limits for christian teaching. no RC disagrees with that concept. if that is what people mean by sola scriptura, than RCs agree.

it people mean something else, then RCs disagree.

it is baffling though to imagine a concept of sola scriptura that does not include the words “correctly interpreted”.

 

[eddie_too]

it is a nonsensical tautology to ask this question: show something in first century christian teaching that is infallible and also not contained in scripture?, when the person asking the question defines as infallible only that which is found in scripture.

it is also a little disingenuous to say that all infallible teachings are found in sacred scripture when the person really means that all infallible teachings can be supported by sacred scripture. these are two different concepts.

the trinity is an infallible teaching, but there is no explicit mention of it in sacred scripture. most certainly all Three Persons are mentioned. but nowhere is it said that the Three are One in Nature but totally distinct Persons.