Sola Scripturagreenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
Sola Scriptura
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004
Readers,
Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.
If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:
http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum
Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com
This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.
Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.
This thread is to discuss sola scriptura. The main reason this topic is the heart of the Roman "apologist" is because if they can prove there point against Sola Scriptura, all the Reformed doctrine is refuted. Please, no posting long articles (jeanie and mr. walker). If you have a article you would like to share, link it.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004.
if you don't mind Dave, i'll kick off with this one. it scratches the surface but i think it needs an answer from a SS-ist. i have posted a variation of this on this site many timres and never received a response on point. it is a theoretical question. it ignores, for example, the practical difficulties with SS.thanks.
1. "The doctrine of Sola Sciptura or Scripture Alone merely says that all doctrine must be based solely upon the Word of God alone." [definition agreed upon by the protestants (all 3 of them) that regularly post here].
2. but (i) sola scriptura is a "doctrine"; whereas (ii) nowhere in the Bible do you find such a doctrine.
the nearest you get is 2 Timothy 3:16 where we learn that the Bible is "useful"/ "profitable".
furthermore, 2 Thessolonians 2:15 & 2 Timothy 2:2 go in the other direction and stress the importance of the Apostolic Tradition.
in summary, SS is not scriptural. therefore, it is MAN-MADE.
2 secondly, even if the Bible were to validate and require SS, the grant to St Peter of the Keys to the Kingdom and the power to loose and bind, and the promises in Matthew 28:20 and John 14:16 - 17 which guarantee the accuracy of the Church's teaching through time, are Scriptural mandates. therefore, even if SS was prescribed by the Bible (which it isn't ), the Church has supreme teaching authority.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 05, 2004.
David, as Ian posted above about peter getting the keys to heaven, Many times before I have seen you post that this is 'jesus talking about himself' I would like to know how you come to this concluion when Our Lord used the word "you" not I or Me or God the Father, but "you".KeV
-- Kevin Wisniewski (Kez38spl@charter.net), January 05, 2004.
What? Sorry you lost me..
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004.
Arff... Well i dont have time to look anyof the posts up but on a few threads about the pope you said that when Christ said "peter you are the rock upon which i will build my church" That He was speaking of Himself. In the next line after that Christ gives Peter the keys of heaven and the power to bind and lose. What i would like to know if how do you come up with the meaning that Jesus was speaking of Himself?KeV
-- kevin Wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), January 06, 2004.
KeV,Peter was NOT the only apostle who was given the power to bind and loose for in Matthew 18:18 this same power was given to ALL of the apostles.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 06, 2004.
Yes true but they all got it at the same time. Then again after all the apostles got the power to bind and lose Our Lord gave it to peter by himself. This of course had meaning.KeV
-- Kevin Wisniewski (Kez38spl@charter.net), January 06, 2004.
KeV,Where do you get that the power to "bind and loose" was given to Peter by himself??? There is NO mention in the text of Matthew 16:19 that this power was ONLY given to Peter and not the other apostles also. If the power was given to ALL of the apostles (and it was), then how can you say that Peter was given this power by himself??? It makes NO sense for Jesus to first say to Peter in Matthew 16:19 that he ALONE had the power to "bind and loose" and then tell the other apostles in Matthew 18:18 that they also had the same power.
None of the apostles were of any higher rank than the others. Paul even stated in 2 Cor 11:5, "For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles." How can this be true if Peter was the first pope???
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 06, 2004.
Kevin, if you go back and read your bible again you will see that Jesus gave the power to bind and lose. Then when he instatd Peter as the Pope he again speaking to peter alone this time not all of the apostles, gave him the power to bind and lose. Its in the bible, read it once in a while and you will see.KeV
-- Kevin Wisniewski (Kez38spl@charter.net), January 07, 2004.
2 Cor 11:5, "For I suppose that I have done nothing less than the great Apostles."Paul is marketing himself to the Corinthians -- lest they fall under the spell of one of the false apostles. he is forced to "brag", and at see V.24 et seq.
context.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 07, 2004.
this is interesting:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 07, 2004.
i've just found this.it's a complete lie, isn't it?!?!
lying to protestants so that they can lie to Catholics. anyone know these people?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 08, 2004.
forgot the linkhttp://www.christianpatriot.com/evangelize.htm
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 08, 2004.
Misconceptions on Sola Scriptura First of all, Sola Scriptura Does not:1. Deny that God communicated with humans in other ways
Romans 1:18-20 - For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 - But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2. Does not deny a local churchs authority to teach the revelatioin of God orally, as long as what they preach is consistant with scripture. They are not allowed to add doctrines that contradict God's Word.
Romans 16:17-18 - Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
1 Timothy 3:15 - But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth
1 Corinthians 12:28-29 - And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
Acts 17:10-11 - And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
3. Claim the Bible contains all knowledge, but "Tradition" does not contain all knowledge either. Give me one statement that Jesus said that comes from tradition.
John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
2 Timothy 3:15 - And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
4. Claim the Bible will always be interpreted correctly, but it is not some mysterious book that we need an "infallible" interpreter to tell us exactly what to believe because we are stupid and cannot understand it.
2 Peter 3:15 - And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2 Timothy 2:15 - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
1 Corinthians 2:13-14 - Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
What is Sola Scriptura?
It is the belief that Written Word of God is the sole infallible rule of faith and is sufficient to "equip" True Believers with the things necessary for justification and sanctification.
John 5:39-40 - Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
2 Peter 1:19-21 - And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.
I re-posted this because it is quite obvious that Roman Catholics DO NOT know what they are talking about when it comes to sola scriptura. And no, for you Roman Catholic lurkers, I did not make the forum private because "I couldn't answer the questions" - Grow up and stop being so arrogant or atleast try to find out the reasons before you make false accusations.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.
Dave.below, i will re-post the original post.
can you refute it in yr own words? using arguments that are cogent and compelling? or do i have to go through the next cycle of cut 'n' paste?
no offence intended. it just becomes a little tiresome after a while.
"1. "The doctrine of Sola Sciptura or Scripture Alone merely says that all doctrine must be based solely upon the Word of God alone." [definition agreed upon by the protestants (all 3 of them) that regularly post here].
2. but (i) sola scriptura is a "doctrine"; whereas (ii) nowhere in the Bible do you find such a doctrine.
the nearest you get is 2 Timothy 3:16 where we learn that the Bible is "useful"/ "profitable".
furthermore, 2 Thessolonians 2:15 & 2 Timothy 2:2 go in the other direction and stress the importance of the Apostolic Tradition.
in summary, SS is not scriptural. therefore, it is MAN-MADE.
2 secondly, even if the Bible were to validate and require SS, the grant to St Peter of the Keys to the Kingdom and the power to loose and bind, and the promises in Matthew 28:20 and John 14:16 - 17 which guarantee the accuracy of the Church's teaching through time, are Scriptural mandates. therefore, even if SS was prescribed by the Bible (which it isn't ), the Church has supreme teaching authority."
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 16, 2004.
Ian,I had to repost my post because it is OBVIOUS alot of people do not know what sola scriptura is. My last post was NOT meant to refute anything and was just to inform Roman Catholics was Sola Scriptura is NOT. Many people try using arguements like,"sola scriptura claims the bible contains all knowledge". then we waste time correcting that..
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.
granted Davehowever, how's 'bout an answer to the points that i have been making here for a very long time now.
IOW, would you condemn me for believing that you do not have an answer to these questions?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 16, 2004.
Ian's point number 1. "The doctrine of Sola Sciptura or Scripture Alone merely says that all doctrine must be based solely upon the Word of God alone." [definition agreed upon by the protestants (all 3 of them) that regularly post here].My belief: It (Sola Scriptura) is the belief that Written Word of God is the sole infallible rule of faith and is sufficient to "equip" True Believers with the things necessary for justification and sanctification
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.
Ian's point number 2. "but (i) sola scriptura is a "doctrine"; whereas (ii) nowhere in the Bible do you find such a doctrine."Sola Scriptura simply means Scripture is sufficient.
2 Timothy 3 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
And contrary to what you have said, it is found in Scripture.
Christ and the Apostles always refered to Scripture
The Devil quoted scripture
The Bereans are commended for searching the Scriptures
etc.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.
An example of a straw man argument: From Gail :)Our rule of faith is scripture AND tradition. So saying, "The Bible says this, and the Bible says that," really doesn't mean much to us. The Bible doesn't contain everything concerning EVERYTHING
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.
No one who believes in Sola Scriptura believes that the bible contains "everything concerning EVERYTHING".
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.
Straw man number 2. Again, from Gail :)I see the havoc that "sola scriptura" has lead to; the millions of heretics running rampant, the endless divisions
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.
This fault is not because "Sola Scriptura", it is in the human heart. The reason we have so many (Note: If you can't prove the bolstered number of "thousands of Protestant sects", don't use it. And simply listing different church names is not enough either.) denominations is because people pick and choose what to believe out of the bible. And Rome does this with the church fathers too. Do you believe that Jesus was 50 years old? Do you believe in the Satan ransom theory?
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.
DOread this again: "2 Timothy 3 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
then read what you (now) believe:
"It (Sola Scriptura) is the belief that Written Word of God is the sole infallible rule of faith and is sufficient to "equip" True Believers with the things necessary for justification and sanctification "
these are two different things.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2004.
(A) Let me clarify this, DO.you say: "It (Sola Scriptura) is the belief that Written Word of God is the sole infallible rule of faith and is sufficient to "equip" True Believers with the things necessary for justification and sanctification "
if i might summarise the germane aspects of what supporting Scripture you have provided, the key statements are these:
a) ... the holy scriptures ..... are able to make thee wise unto salvation ….......
b) All scripture is .... profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness....
just how is this –“ …that Written Word of God is the sole infallible rule of faith….” – equivalent with 2 Tim 3: 15 – 16??
SOLE??
INFALLIBLE??
where does Scripture actually say that "that Written Word of God is the sole infallible rule of faith". this is a complete tautology.
(B) Whilst you are at it, would you also be so kind as to tell me which “holy scriptures” St Paul was referring to? Did St Paul have a Bible at this point in time? Did Timothy have a Bible that he could read?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2004.
Haven't these questions been answered by another person on this forum? I feel as if we are arguing in a circle.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.
no Davidi have been asking the SAME question for ages, without getting a substantive reply.
we are not going in circles. we are just not movingat all (in the direction of an answer).
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2004.
my point being -- see the plethora of other posts -- that, until you demonstrate that Sola Scriptura is Scriptural, it isn't.Scripture does not prescribe Sola Scriptura.
that's my contention #1.
my contention #2 is that, even if it does, the Church has supreme teaching authority.
and as i have said before, i haven't even started on the practical absurdities of sola scriptura.
all i'm asking for is an answer.
i have also, thusfar, pursued this using Scripture alone, ie on your terms.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2004.
Hmm..about the "Church having ultimate authority in teaching", what is your definition of the "Church" and is there any support in the bible?
If "Church" refers to church leadership, then the stand of the Roman Catholic church is there is still belief in purgatory (Creed of the Council of Trent), as is veneration of the saints, as is "infallible teaching authority" of the "Roman Pontiff".
So, the church hasn't always been right through history, right?
-- Jen (eph3_10@hotmail.com), January 25, 2005.
'The word “church”meant (and still means) the body of believers. Back then, there was only one way to believe, the Roman Catholic Church. They knew what to believe because the Apostles knew Jesus personally and learned from him. This knowledge remains unchanged to this day. But somewhere along the line, Pride reared its ugly head, and humans started their own “churches” with their own beliefs. You see, “church” started out meaning “The Roman Catholic Church” because it was the one instituted by Jesus, and the only one around. You can’t broaden the meaning to include all churches after the fact. Humans made their own churches and broadened the meaning of Jesus’ words to justify their new churches. If you are such a champion against “manmade-ism” then you would realize that. '[yes church meant the body of believers,but there was no RCC in the time jesus spoke about 'his church'!!!,there were only people that believed in him,and you said it yourself that church mean the body of believers,so when jesus was talking about 'his church' (the rock upon which he would build his church=>peter) he meant church metaphorically=>the body of believers like you said;but later ppl from the RCC saw these writings(if these writings are true? but i am not going to discuss this...)and they thought he was talking about them ?or what i think just took this from the scriptures and misintrepeted it so that they can say that jesus established their church and ppl believe and attend their church]-sdqa
"The word “church”meant (and still means) the body of believers"
A: That definition is insufficient because it is incomplete. The word "Church" meant (and still means) the body of believers "in the truth". It doesn't mean the body of all who hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ. There is no such body, for a body cannot be composed of believers in conflicting and contradictory doctrines, for such conflicts in belief divide a body and create new bodies, as we plainly see in denominational religion. Therefore, inherent in the term "the Body", or its synonym "the Church", is the necessity of uniformity of belief, without which there cannot be fullness of truth.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2005.
'The word "Church" meant (and still means) the body of believers "in the truth". It doesn't mean the body of all who hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ.'
[out of this definition that we all do agree on we can conclude that jesus wasen't talking about the RCC when he talked about 'his church',he was talking about the body of believers "in the truth"]-sdqa
michael,i don't think you got what i've meant;the catholics claim the jesus established the RCC en refer mostly to the passage when jesus says simon would be the rock on which he would build his church and other passages when jesus is talking about his church
well i posted that that is a misinterpretation and that that is supposed to be taken metaphorically and that the meaning of church is 'body of believers' and everyone here agreed with that,if church means body of believers,then jesus wasen't talking about the RCC in the passages,nor he established it,in fact he wasen't talking about any church as a religious institution,he was talking about his followers,the body of believers
one other thing:
peter did not establish the catholic church,nor was he a pope
peter was the leader of the community of the early christians before the RCC even existed,later other people established the RCC which certainly is NOT the same thing as peter's community of christians
and peter was no pope,he didn't came with the title of pope,nor jesus did,the later establishers of the RCC did and gave peter the title of the first pope because he was the first leader of christians after jesus's death]-sdqa
THESE ARE MY ARGUMENTS----SDQA
catholics claim that their church is the only right one,that jesus christ established their church and that their church is the original christian church and that she has been given full authority...etc
they base these statements on verses in the new testament where jesus spoke about 'his church'
people on the forum(paul m,cameron...)told me that church means the body of believers "in the truth" ...like i always thought
now if church means the body of believers in the truth,then jesus was talking about the body of the believers in the truth instead of the roman catholic church
this means that jesus didn't establish the catholic church,and neither was peter the rock upon the RCC would be built
this we can also see later,that peter's COMMUNITY of christians wasen't called the catholic church and wasen't even close to what the catholic church will be
peter wasen't a pope,he was a leader;he can't be the pope if that title has come to use many years after him,it doesn't mean if the pope's function is to be the leader and peter had also that same function that he's automatically a pope
now for you catholics these things don't really matter,but for us non-catholics and non-catholic christians it does matter;it is direct proof that jesus didn't establish the RCC,that he never even talked about it! he only talked about the body of the believers in the truth,and to be part of that body,you don't have to be part of the RCC;i'm not refering now to certain forms of protestantism that are in conflict with the bible,i'm just denying all the catholic statements with which i have started this post
the body of the believers in the truth doesn't equal the RCC,i know that this is very difficult for the most of you to understand,cos i assume that you all are devouted catholics
everyone who trully accepts and believes in jesus and lives by the way he taught it is part of this body,NOT everyone who is catholic
AND ONCE AGAIN I REPEAT:
JESUS DID NEVER TALK ABOUT THE RCC,NOR ABOUT ANY OTHER CHURCH IN A LITERAL WAY,SO YOU CAN'T SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO BE CATHOLIC TO HAVE TRUE FAITH
actually catholicism hasen't the true interpretations of the scriptures
because they are telling that jesus gave them the authority to make their own commands
because they are telling that jesus established their church and that they are the only true church
WHEN JESUS DID NEVER TALK ABOUT THEIR CHURCH
-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 07, 2005.
-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 25, 2005.
Jenif you accept contention #1, you are going the wrong way about challenging contention #2!!
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 25, 2005.