Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[kaneata]

If all says all, it refers to all of mankind who are not conceived by the Holy Spirit and are the 2nd person of the Trinity. Scripture is a unit and must be interpreted as such. Since Christ did not need to be justified and he committed no transgression of the law, then He is an exception. Since Scripture gives no other exceptions, I have no reason to believe there are any.

There has been a lot to follow, but I go back to the question of the 6 month old, or let’s say a one day old baby. When did that child sin?

 

[Per_Crucem]

There has been a lot to follow, but I go back to the question of the 6 month old, or let’s say a one day old baby. When did that child sin?

They are born sinners. Otherwise, we wouldn’t baptize them.

 

[joe371]

Give an example of one thing taught by Jesus that is essential to your salvation that we can not read in Scripture?

Did the apostles or their successors e.g. early church fathers teach anything on essential and non-essentials? Does scripture or tradition ever discuss essentials and non-essentials?

 

[marywarfield]

The disabled may not commit actual sins due to their inability. They are, however, still conceived and born in sin.

But they have not in actuality sinned?
Your quote said nothing about being conceived
or born into sin . Just that "All have ( in fact) sinned.)
Yet you yourself just gave me an exception to that.

So are you admitting that there are exceptions to
“all HAVE sinned”?
There is a huge difference in saying all have sinned
which indicates an action and saying we are born
with a tendency to sin.
If born with a tendency or potential we can rightly
see there are those who will never exercise that
potential therefore we cannot then say there are no
exceptions to “all HAVE sinned”. Therefore in that phrase
either all is not literally meant or have is not
literally meant for if you take the entire phrase literally
it says everyone without exception has actually sinned.
But myself and now you have found exceptions to
that where it could not possibly apply.

And that is my point. We cannot convict all literally
of having in fact committed an actual sin.
The best we can say is we are all born with the tendency
and even then we must admit that there are some in
which their circumstances will not admit of actual
sin. In which case yes we CAN make a case for
people being saved by Christ who have never heard
of Him or His Bible.

 

[Nicea325]

Well, various parts of the NT do refer to other parts of the NT as Scripture. But no, I don’t write the church out of the equation of how we know that Scripture is Scripture. God works through means and He used the church as one of the means in the canonization process. The same way He used the prophets and the apostles to communicate revelation to man.

And yet it was still the church who decided. Does not matter how one hard tries to turn and twist around it,it is a fact of history.

So scripture all on its own gave us the criteria to determine what is inspired or not? Chapter and verse please…

If so,show me where scripture decided all on its own what constituted scripture as inspired, which led to the canon?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by GraceofGod31
Give an example of one thing taught by Jesus that is essential to your salvation that we can not read in Scripture?

Once you tell us where Jesus said it must be said and written only in the Bible in order to be legit.

 

[marywarfield]

They are born sinners. Otherwise, we wouldn’t baptize them.

Stay on topic Per Crucem. We are not discussing “born” into sin.
we are discussing
Sola Scriptura in so far as it relates to YOUR literal
translation of “all HAVE sinned”.

As in everyone everywhere has actually committed sin.
Because you have that bothersome “have” which implies
action and there does not appear to be the
counterpart of “what I really meant to say is that if
they have not actually sinned, well they were born into it
or would have.” correct?

Years ago I taught many special Ed classes in California.
At a time when all of my 14 year old students were
severely retarded and autistic because their Cambodian
mothers had been bombed with Agent Orange during their
pregnancies. And all of these 14 year olds were pretty
much vegetables. They could walk, climb trees, feed themselves
and the autistic ones could unravel their jeans in
ten minutes from one single thread. Yet they didn’t know
even the word Mama much less Jesus Christ.
And they most certainly could not read the Bible
or anything else and would not have understood
one word if it was read to them. I was in fact able in
a partnership with MacDonalds, vocationally train
the ones that didn’t drool to put all the toys in Happy
Meal bags which they were eventually hired to do.

What sin do you suppose these kids could actually
HAVE committed?
None of them were baptized as the parents were Buddhists.
Are they damned and not “eligible” for salvation?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Stay on topic Per Crucem. We are not discussing “born” into sin.
we are discussing
Sola Scriptura in so far as it relates to YOUR literal
translation of “all HAVE sinned”.

You can choose to take all have sinned to actually mean not all have sinned. Not I.

As in everyone everywhere has actually committed sin.
Because you have that bothersome “have” which implies
action and there does not appear to be the
counterpart of “what I really meant to say is that if
they have not actually sinned, well they were born into it
or would have.” correct?

Eh?

Years ago I taught many special Ed classes in California.
At a time when all of my 14 year old students were
severely retarded and autistic because their Cambodian
mothers had been bombed with Agent Orange during their
pregnancies. And all of these 14 year olds were pretty
much vegetables. They could walk, climb trees, feed themselves
and the autistic ones could unravel their jeans in
ten minutes from one single thread. Yet they didn’t know
even the word Mama much less Jesus Christ.
And they most certainly could not read the Bible
or anything else and would not have understood
one word if it was read to them. I was in fact able in
a partnership with MacDonalds, vocationally train
the ones that didn’t drool to put all the toys in Happy
Meal bags which they were eventually hired to do.

What sin do you suppose these kids could actually
HAVE committed?
None of them were baptized as the parents were Buddhists.
Are they damned and not “eligible” for salvation?

Whether they are damned or not, we do not know. Neither does the Catholic Church, as they admit.

 

[joe371]

Well, various parts of the NT do refer to other parts of the NT as Scripture. But no, I don’t write the church out of the equation of how we know that Scripture is Scripture. God works through means and He used the church as one of the means in the canonization process. The same way He used the prophets and the apostles to communicate revelation to man.

The Catholic Church eventually defined what was already believed - the notion that God infallibly guides the CC fallible leaders into all truth. The various Eastern/Oriental Churches believe that God continues to infallibly guide their fallible church leaders into all truth, but they do not define it. Only one continued to be infallibly guided after the east-west schism, as per God’ promise of perpetuity: John 16:13 and John 14:16. My question: do any non-Catholic church fallible leaders (not including the churches that don’t believe in the Trinity e.g. Jehovah Witnesses) via sola scriptura, believe that they too, as fallible leaders, are infallibly guided by God in terms of all truth, as opposed to partial truth? This was a major problem for me as a former sola scriptura, for no one claimed to know truth i.e. they claimed that God did not infallibly guide their church leadership. Perhaps I am missing one…

 

[Per_Crucem]

The Catholic Church eventually defined what was already believed - the notion that God infallibly guides the CC fallible leaders into all truth. The various Eastern/Oriental Churches believe that God continues to infallibly guide their fallible church leaders into all truth, but they do not define it. Only one continued to be infallibly guided after the east-west schism, as per God’ promise of perpetuity: John 16:13 and John 14:16. My question: do any non-Catholic church fallible leaders (not including the churches that don’t believe in the Trinity e.g. Jehovah Witnesses) via sola scriptura, believe that they too, as fallible leaders, are infallibly guided by God in terms of all truth, as opposed to partial truth? This was a major problem for me as a former sola scriptura, for no one claimed to know truth i.e. they claimed that God did not infallibly guide their church leadership. Perhaps I am missing one…

On what do you base your belief that God continued to lead the western church as opposed to the eastern?

As to the second question, since Scripture is infallible, then yes, to a degree, we have an infallible guide.

 

[marywarfield]

You can choose to take all have sinned to actually mean not all have sinned. Not I.

Eh?

Whether they are damned or not, we do not know. Neither does the Catholic Church, as they admit.

Are you backtracking from your earlier post in which
you told me the idea that people could be saved
through natural law was universalism?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Are you backtracking from your earlier post in which
you told me the idea that people could be saved
through natural law was universalism?

Nope. An infant or disabled person who is saved would be saved by grace, not through the natural law.

 

[joe371]

They are born sinners. Otherwise, we wouldn’t baptize them.

I see in the early Catholic Church, councils e.g. Nicaea, Ephesus etc., convoking and using sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to resolve doctrinal differences. It was this system that worked when quashing heresy. Clearly this system, (which began in Acts 15, in Jerusalem, when the church was in its infancy) was part of Gods authoritative plan so that heresies such as Marcionism, Donatism, Gnostcism, Montanism, and Pelagianism, to name a few, could be quashed i.e. God infallibly guided these councils. Should this paradigm continue today? If not then why not? Sola scriptura (16th century invention, for lack of a better word) seems to have taken the place of these critical Ecumenical Councils…

 

[Per_Crucem]

I see in the early Catholic Church, councils e.g. Nicaea, Ephesus etc., convoking and using sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to resolve doctrinal differences. It was this system that worked when quashing heresy. Clearly this system, (which began in Acts 15, in Jerusalem, when the church was in its infancy) was part of Gods authoritative plan so that heresies such as Marcionism, Donatism, Gnostcism, Montanism, and Pelagianism, to name a few, could be quashed i.e. God infallibly guided these councils. Should this paradigm continue today? If not then why not? Sola scriptura (16th century invention, for lack of a better word) seems to have taken the place of these critical Ecumenical Councils…

What’s that got to do with baptism?

 

[joe371]

On what do you base your belief that God continued to lead the western church as opposed to the eastern?

As to the second question, since Scripture is infallible, then yes, to a degree, we have an infallible guide.

Question One: the Petrine office explicitly mention in scripture (keys were given to Simon alone) and the early church fathers in the east and west. No one in the history of the CC in either the east or the west ever said that the keys were given to the other apostles; I learned this after an exhaustive investigation on the matter i.e. I gathered a lot of early church quotes on the Petrine office. It became an obsession… If I am wrong please provide a quote…

Question two: Either God infallibly guides the church leaders of a specific church or God does not i.e. God does not infallibly guide to a degree; that would mean that God fallibly guides in some cases…If God only infallibly guides to a degree, perhaps you could flesh that out a little bit for me? I have been trying to understand this particular topic for some time…One thing I think we agree on: God does not infallibly guide each and every Christian for obvious reasons?

 

[joe371]

What’s that got to do with baptism?

I am trying to stay on topic: “Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?” I think it applies more so than a discussion on baptism…

 

[Per_Crucem]

Question One: the Petrine office explicitly mention in scripture (keys were given to Simon alone) and the early church fathers in the east and west. No one in the history of the CC in either the east or the west ever said that the keys were given to the other apostles; I learned this after an exhaustive investigation on the matter i.e. I gathered a lot of early church quotes on the Petrine office. It became an obsession… If I am wrong please provide a quote…

Why should I trust your fallible interpretation of Matthew 16?

Question two: Either God infallibly guides the church leaders of a specific church or God does not i.e. God does not infallibly guide to a degree; that would mean that God fallibly guides in some cases…If God only infallibly guides to a degree, perhaps you could flesh that out a little bit for me? I have been trying to understand this particular topic for some time…One thing I think we agree on: God does not infallibly guide each and every Christian for obvious reasons?

The only ones He doesn’t guide are the Baptists.

 

[joe371]

Per Crucem;11833116]Why should I trust your fallible interpretation of Matthew 16?

You shouldn’t! Only Jesus’ established church circa AD 33, on Pentecost, is infallibly guided by God; not me. That’s my point vis-a-vis doctrinal truth. However, grammatically speaking, it seems pretty straightforward. You are cephas and on this cephas…It’s not: you are cepha but on this cephas…

The only ones He doesn’t guide are the Baptists.

God infallibly guides all the other churches?

 

[joe371]

Why should I trust your fallible interpretation of Matthew 16?

The only ones He doesn’t guide are the Baptists.

What is your response to this:

I see in the early Catholic Church, councils e.g. Nicaea, Ephesus etc., convoking and using sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to resolve doctrinal differences. It was this system that worked when quashing heresy. Clearly this system, (which began in Acts 15, in Jerusalem, when the church was in its infancy) was part of Gods authoritative plan so that heresies such as Marcionism, Donatism, Gnostcism, Montanism, and Pelagianism, to name a few, could be quashed i.e. God infallibly guided these councils. Should this paradigm continue today? If not then why not? Sola scriptura (16th century invention, for lack of a better word) seems to have taken the place of these critical Ecumenical Councils…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They are born sinners. Otherwise, we wouldn’t baptize them.

Not the same as to have sinned. Their baptism is not because they have sinned but to remove the stain of original sin and to introduce that life into the Christian life and the graces of God.

But I see you are changing the meaning of “to have”, kinda like “sola” not really meaning “alone”.