1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Sola Scriptura

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by Uncertaindrummer, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    Gregory greatly increased and consolidated his Roman "Papacy's" kind of mixed religious-civil power and authority during his "reign." However well-intentionedly or however ambitiously-motivated he may have been. And was successful in that regard due to various other political circumstances, such as "barbarian" invasions and Justinian's related decrees and laws from "new Rome" (Constantinople). From this i date the rough emergence of Roman Catholicism, as we know her today. I never stated that there was no one called "popes," or who even called themselves that, before AD 600

    240 the historical problem that the Oxford dictionary of Popes gives you.
    To contrary: the Oxford Dictionary of Popes gives me no historical problem. It gives me no problem period

    You say the Papacy was started in the year 600.
    To the contrary: i said the Papacy as we know it today started with Gregory 1 around the year 600

    This dictionary proves historically that there were historical Popes before 600 A.D. In fact it shows that the concept of Popes goes back to the first century.
    "Popes" means "fathers." The word was used by Christians for various Christian leaders, great and small, centuries before 600. And after 600. It also came to be used for episkopos of churches some considered (or considered themselves) more important: Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and eventually Constantinople. Which thought contradicts the Lord Jesus' Mt 23 teaching and His apostles' pattern and teaching in His Scriptures: the NT. I said that Gregory 1 around 600 began the Papacy as we know it today. Through his successful consolidation and extension of his mixture of civil and religious power thoughout the west. However well-intentioned, or ambitiously-motivated he may have been. And aided by circumstances such as "barbarian" invasions of Italy and Justinian the emperor's recent laws and decrees from "new Rome," Constantinople. This also coincides, prophetically, with the GodMan's message to the church in Thyatira in chapter 2, in the successive messages to the 7 first-century churches in Asia, in John's Apocalypse

    these Popes(Which you say did not exist)
    To the contrary: i said that the Papacy as we know it today w/ its power-base, part of the great prostitute, Babylon, o' Revelation 17, didn't begin to exist till around AD 600, Gregory 1's reign

    responsible for recognizing and Declaring the canon of the new Testament to all Christians via apostolic tradition.
    To the contrary, as i mentioned before: Peter was no Pope and he (and others) knew Scripture--Paul's letters--when they saw it, from AD 67 (2 P 3:15-16). I'm glad even if Christians who called themselves, or whom others called "popes" recognized and appreciated what was Scripture and what wasn't. Anytime they did it. But as u seem to point out in your sentence above: the Scripture was apostolically, and traditionally, Scripture long before the men you're writing of even existed

    Can you discredit a well known protestant church historian such as Dr Kelly?
    I here discredit, and discredited, the statement u attribute 2 him

    Do you see what bankrupt system sola-scriptura is?
    U mean prima-Scriptura?
    In any case: no. I see rather the bankruptcy of both Roman Catholicism, generally; and your arguments in particular.
    Thanx
     
  2. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    writer said

    To the contrary: I said the Papacy as we know it today started with Gregory 1 around 600

    My answer

    You are correct that the word Pope simply means Father and was used by other bishops. As a matter of fact, we Catholics even respect the Title of Pope and use it for other Eastern Patriarchal Bishops today. But your avoiding the truth and missing the question.

    The OXford dictionary of Popes displays the Bishops of Rome who were the Popes. It shows that the Bishop of Rome had a universal and unique Authority OR PRESIDENCY over the other churches. This is what Kelly explains listing each Pope of Rome and giving a history for them.

    He shows that the Popes of Rome historically was the head bishop and list the history for each one. He starts with Peter. This would be very hard for you to ignore because the early fathers(SUCH AS IGNATIUS OR IREANEAUS , CYRPIAN OF CARTHAGE ,JEROME, AUGUSTINE,ETC) talked about this fact historically. So the Pope of rome always had universal spiritual authority over the church this was because he was the successor of Peter who held the office of the New davidic Prime minister.

    This is what Kelly’s book historically reveals. And by the way what the Fathers of the church taught from the beginning. But you are right about the pope not always having political authority. This would take time to develop. especially considering that the early Popes were running for their lives in the catacombs.

    It wouldn’t be until after christianity was made legal that many things like this could happen. But what Kellys books does show, as well as the early Fathers, is that The Pope of Rome historically always had a special Authority and Presidency. Way before 600 A.d.

    The point Im trying to make to you is that the Bishop or Pope of Rome was seen with a Special Office of Authority or Presidency over the entire church. Just as he is today. He had spiritual Authority. Just like he does today! And as Kelly also shows in his other books, It was this Roman Pope of the Catholic church in the 4th century(damasus I) that was responsible for declaring the new testament canon, when the early Christians didn’t know what it completely was.

    If you want to deny historical fact go ahead and make up your own history. It is clear that Protestant and Catholic Scholars would dissagree with you. So unless your going to make up your own history(which it seems like you have no problem doing). then you owe your new testament to Rome and its Popes and Councils and Traditions. Hence Sola scriptura is a lie.




    You also said

    on the contrary, as i mentioned before: Peter was no Pope and he (and others) knew Scripture--Paul's letters--when they saw it, from AD 67 (2 P 3:15-16).

    My answer

    Again you do not really understand the history of the canon from a historical perspective. YOu are confused. I will explain again. Listen..think you problem is that you do not understand what Canon is. You are under the belief that everyone in the first century believed all the new testament books you have in your bible to be the inspired word of God.

    This is where you error. The immediate congregations that some of these books were written to did recognize them to be authoritative. For example, when Pauls wrote to the Hebrews, it of coarse was authoritative. He was a apostle. It is also true that some of the congregations may have been aware of his other letters, although not all of them were.

    But as history shows, the “CHURCH AS A WHOLE” outside of the Hebrew congregation that Paul wrote too(In his epistle to the Hebrews) did not know that his letters to the Hebrews were inspired scripture. History shows this as I have shown.

    That why before the 4th century Hebrews was not considered canonical for the vast majority of Christians in the universal church. Also 1 2nd 3rd John, 1 and 2nd Peter, James, and Revelation had the same problem.

    Also in the early church the early christians accepted books you do not. Like the Apocalypse of Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas or the didache. Some of these books were used in the early Liturgies and treated as scripture.

    So what had to happen was the early Church had to find out which writings go back to the apostles and which ones had apostolic authority and which ones didn’t. As historians like Dr Kelly have shown the early church did this by testing the books against apostolic Tradition and seen which books matched up.

    It took nearly 4 centuries to come to a conclusion what belonged int he canon and what didn’t. It was historically then that the Canon of the new testament was Authoritatively declared for christians(382, Rome, 393 Hippo, 397 Carthage) By the Catholic church under Pope Damasus I.

    What I am showing you is admitted by Catholic and Protestant historians alike. Unless you like to make up your own history, you must agree to this.

    My point is how can the scripture be the sole sufficient rule of faith when it took the Catholic Church, her councils , Popes and apostolic traditions to give us what the new testament even is. This fact alone disproves sola scriptura again if you want to ignore real history and make up your own go for it but your only making yourself look bad in front of the people here by doing so. either which way you have not historically proven me or other scholars Like Dr. Kelly or Rev Henry Graham wrong, you just make your self look like a foolish fundamentalist.


    You said

    Do u mean prima-Scriptura?


    again Show me where the early reformer s ever said “Prima”. They were called Solas! Not prima! Like sola fide, not prima Fide. Sola Scriptura not Prima scriptura. If you want to make up your own protestant history fine! Bu that's sad because Lutherans would really disagree with you as well as other traditional protestants who hold to the Solas.


    Post 214) ....Prima scriptura is not what the reformers said. Sola Scriptura or scripture alone is what they taught. Have you ever heard of the solas” Sola fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia etc. It wasn’t Prima Scriptura, Prima Fide etc. Catholics may teach prima scriptura. Hence scripture has a certain sense of primacy but not a ultimate one.

    Tradition is needed too and so is the Church because it took the church and tradition to give us Scriptura. Athanasius is a great example of a person who believed in prima scriptura(as Catholic may) but he also held to the authority of Catholic tradition and the Catholic church, hence not sola scriptura. Ok your confused.

    again Mr writer since you keep avoiding these questions(because they prove sola scriptura doesn’t work and is false)

    .

    If Sola scriptura is true, then what do you do with the Lutheran who adheres to the bible alone as their sole authority and disagrees with you over the nature of the eucharist.

    YOu do not believe that the real body of christ is present in the eucharist. YOu believe in a mere spiritual presence of his body but, the Lutheran does believe that the real Body of christ is present in the eucharist(along with bread and Wine).

    The Lutheran say s that when jesus Said this is my Body, he meant it. He gave us his actual body(along with bread and wine). But you do not agree. The baptist also take this one step further and say that the bread and wine are just symbolic.

    The Lutheran, the Baptist, and yourself all disagree about what communion really is. Who is right? Are you right? If so by what authority do you have to make that decision?

    By Biblical authority alone and the Holy spirit guiding you? The Lutheran and Baptist will say the same thing. Yet you all come to different conclusions. How can that be?

    also Again I asked you to honestly, If sola Scriptura is true:
    You said, that "Infant baptism" is both absent from the Bible and is counter-apostolic, counter-Scriptural. It's also not a matter of the faith

    My answer

    LoL, This sentence proves my point that sola scriptura does not work practically. Lutherans,and other Christians who go by the Bible alone would disagree with you. They would say that infant baptism is indeed in scripture and is a matter of faith. So who’s right? YOu said you go by Bible alone as your authority. They do too.

    Can’t the bible alone tell the man of God what is right doctrine? If you disagree with them, then on what authority can you? Scriptural? They say the same thing to you. And yet you both come to different conclusions.

    Do you see what bankrupt system sola scriptura is?? Thank God that Jesus left us a infallible Church and oral apostolic Tradition to be able to know interpret the scriptures correctly.


    again
    , You cannot answer why you believe that the 27 books of the new testament are scripture. You cannot answer why you accept the historical canon. You say that you do because those books say they are written by a apostle.

    Again, its very nice that these books state that they are from the Apostles, but so did many other writings that claimed to be scripture. I showed how you only know they were scripture because of Tradition and the Catholic decrees of councils.

    You said that You also knew they were scriptural because God gave you a spiritual insight. I showed that the muslim and mormon say the same thing. That argument goes out the door.

    Ultimately the way you know what the canon is is by reading your table of contents in the bible. That info was taken historically from the Catholic church and her traditions.

    Hence you rely on the Catholic Church and her apostolic traditions to even know what the canon of the new testament is.

    You still haven’t answered me. Have you read all the other books that were believed to be Christians scripture such as the epistle of Barnabus and decide for your self. Have you read all the other books? if so How did you come to your conclusion when the early church couldn’t? Therefore Sola scriptura is false.
     
  3. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    242 your avoiding the truth and missing the question.
    How so?

    the Bishop of Rome had a universal and unique Authority OR PRESIDENCY over the other churches.
    That's untrue both Scripturally and historically. Except maybe to ones later who themselves created or conceded such "authority," or were unrighteously compelled to do so

    the Popes of Rome historically was the head bishop and list the history for each one. He starts with Peter.
    This's inaccurate. For example: when and by the time of Gregory 1, and followingly; although eastern "patriarchs" were themselves antiapostolic to the extent they practiced hierarchy and lording over other churches and episkopos; they themselves resented and denied Roman bishops' insulting and unchristian claims which u mouth here. Leading, in time, to their and Rome's division around AD 1000. Although other pretexts existed, fundamentally it was because, and an example, of typically worldly, sinful, and political power struggle. This is not the church of Christ. This isn't Christ. It's not God. It's not the Truth. It's unholy. And it's unspiritual. Even antispiritual. Even today so-called Orthodoxy purports to practice a kind of collegiality among its 4 or so "Popes or Patriarchs." Which at least serves as an illustration and a reminder that there never was a headquarters church, city, or man (other than the Head of the Body Himself: Christ) set up by God, or His apostles, to rule His churches

    This would be very hard for you to ignore because the early fathers(SUCH AS IGNATIUS OR IREANEAUS , CYRPIAN OF CARTHAGE ,JEROME, AUGUSTINE,ETC) talked about this fact historically.
    Cyprian, for example, wrote that there is no bishop of bishops

    So the Pope of rome always had universal spiritual authority over the church
    The Pope o' Rome never has or had any universal spiritual authority over the universal church. Nor was or is any man other than the God-Man infallible in his teaching. To claim otherwise is to mimic David Koresh, Jim Jones, Brigham Young, or others. And to deceive the gullible

    the New davidic Prime minister.
    My goodness

    not always having political authority. This would take time to develop.
    'Z shame. My kingdom's not of this world, said the real David, real King, to Pilate the politician
     
  4. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Is this the same church that oversaw the Spanish Inquisition, had some dealings with Hitler, and plunged us into the Dark Ages?
     
  5. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Hello and welcome to everybody who has been reading my debate with Mr writer. I would like to thank you for your patience and bring to your attention that Mr writer in his response to me, very conveniently, as always, has ignored the real topic “Sola Scriptura.

    For the past 7 times has avoided answering the 4 real questions I have asked him. He does this because he cannot answer them. Answering them would show how FALSE the concept of sola scriptura is.

    I am happy to answer any of the questions on the Papacy he may have in another forum, however this forum is about Sola Scriptura not the Papacy. I have tried to briefly correct his false historical understandings(Which Protestant and Catholic historical scholars alike have shown) of the Papacy and the Authority of Apostolic tradition in its relation with the development of the new testament canon.

    The reason being is because as historical evidence proves, our understanding of the new testament canon relies on the authority of Apostolic tradition and the Catholic church and its Papacy and councils(Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, And Carthage 397 AD).

    He has, as I am confidently sure your aware of, ignored such historical resources and simply said they are false because he thinks the bible teaches the opposite. He has not even once began to engage in showing why he thinks Dr Kelly’s and Reverend Grahams books are historically wrong. All he can say is “The bible says” and then he will quote scriptures that he thinks debunks it. But as I, and historical Church scholars have shown, this argument doesn’t work for several reasons.

    The first reason is because the very scripture he quotes to argue against the authority of the Catholic Church and her traditions clearly was given to you by the Catholic church and her Apostolic traditions. In other words the only reason why he can quote you the new testament and even know what books make up the new testament is because the Catholic church and her traditions decided in the 4th century what made up the canon and what didn’t.

    He may argue that Peter says that all of Pauls writings are scripture and he will quote(2 Peter 3:15) But as I have shown historically that argument doesn’t work because the vast majority of Christians did not even consider 2nd Peter to be inspired scripture or canonical until the early 4th century as almost all the earliest canons will show ie..the Murtorian Canon of 180 A.D. and others. Also even if Peter did mention that all of Pauls writings are inspired, this would still not help poor Mr writer. Why? Simply because Peter never made a list of all Pauls inspired writings. Peter doesn’t name each book ie..Romans, Galatians etc. Peter doesn’t give a complete list of all the books in the bible either? What about Johns epistles?

    Peter never mentions them in this passage? what about James epistles? does Peter mention James and his epistle is this passage? What about the book of Revelation? Ahh It may not have even been written yet. So how could Peter mention that book? How could Mr Writer know it was inspired? Peter never mentioned it. The bible has no divinly inspired table of contents. No one author ever list all the books that would make up the bible.

    Even hypothetically if there were a book that list all of the books, how would we know that the book that list them was inspired to begin with? He under the false belief that everyone in the first century believed all the new testament books you have in your bible to be the inspired word of God. This is his error. The immediate congregations that some of these books were written to did recognize them to be authoritative.

    For example, when Pauls wrote to the Hebrews, it of coarse was authoritative. He was a apostle. It is also true that some of the congregations may have been aware of his other letters, although not all of them were. But as history shows, the “Church as a whole” outside of the Hebrew congregation that Paul wrote too(In his epistle to the Hebrews) did not know that his letters to the Hebrews were inspired scripture.

    History shows this as I have shown. that why before the 4th century Hebrews was not considered canonical for the vast majority of Christians in the universal church. Also 1 2nd 3rd John, 1 and 2nd Peter, James, and Revelation had the same problem.

    Also in the early church the early christians accepted books he and all protestants do not. Like the Apocalypse of Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas or the didache. Some of these books were used in the early Liturgies and treated as scripture. It wasn't until much later that Athanasias in 367 gave his list of the 27 books of the new testament that we all have and only then it wasn’t until 382 at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I that we are offcially given this canon for all Christians. This was ratified by other councils such as Hippo 393 and Carthage 397 and florence 1439.

    The second problem with the type of arguments that Mr Writer uses is the heretics of the early church use the same principle and kind of arguments he implores(By just quoting Scripture and ignoring the Sacredtradition of the Church and church history). Dr Kelly in his book called “Early Christian Doctrines” explains that the heretics would just quote scripture and say they were right. Just like Mr writer does. The heretics would use the same kind of argument that Mr writer is using.

    As historian Dr Kelly shows on Pages 40, 43, 49, and 50 of his book, in order to know the real truth of any true Christian doctrine the ancient fathers such as Athanasias would not just look to Scripture alone but would also look to apostolic tradition and the Authority of the Catholic church to decide weather something was truly of the apostolic faith or not. This process is historically how the fathers and the Church came to believe in the canon of New Testament we have today.

    And it is through this process that we have in our bible the canon we do today thanks to the Catholic church, her Popes ,and her Tradition. In this way then Sola scriptura proves itself to be a false doctrine because the doctrine of the canon which all Christians hold to is dependent on the Catholic church and her traditions.

    Mr Writer as you all may have noticed hasn’t really answered the historical problems for himself. He has not disporved Dr Kelly or reverend Graham. He is also refused to answer the questions I gave to him. I asked him 7 times, this question;

    ou said, that "Infant baptism" is both absent from the Bible and is counter-apostolic, counter-Scriptural. It's also not a matter of the faith

    My answer

    LoL, This sentence proves my point that sola scriptura does not work practically. Lutherans,and other Christians who go by the Bible alone would disagree with you. They would say that infant baptism is indeed in scripture and is a matter of faith. So who’s right? YOu said you go by Bible alone as your authority. They do too.

    Can’t the bible alone tell the man of God what is right doctrine? If you disagree with them, then on what authority can you? Scriptural? They say the same thing to you. And yet you both come to different conclusions.

    Do you see what bankrupt system sola scriptura is?

    Also if Sola scriptura is true, then what do you do with the Lutheran who adheres to the bible alone as their sole authority and disagrees with you over the nature of the eucharist. YOu have the same problem as you do with Baptism here.


    again if sola scriptura is true, then where does the bible teach it? Nowhere in Scripture does any passage say that "only" scripture alone and no tradition is to be used as a authority for Christians. On the contrary Paul say exactly the opposite that we must hold to Traditions both written(Scripture) and oral spoken ones( oral apostolic)Tradition(2 thess 2:15).

    Writer asked me to give him one tradition outside of the bible that all Christians must rely on. I did. I gave him the tradition of the new testament Canon, which is nowhere mentioned in scripture and which he accepts on the Catholic churhes Authority.

    I have done my job here. I will not debate Mr Writer anymore because I believe he is incapable of being historically honest. Let the reader now judge for himself. You have read my arguments and you have read his arguments. Who do you think makes more sense? Is sola scriptura true? think about the questions I have posed that Mr writer hasn’t answered(Communion and Baptism for Lutherans). Are these arguments the nail in the coffin of the false doctrine of sola Scriptura? I will let you be the judge.

    I would recommend Protestant cnad Catholic historical sources to show that the new testment Canon relied on Tradition and the Catholic faith.

    I would highly recommend “Where we got the bible, our debt to the catholic church” by Rev Henry Graham. Rev Grahahm is a convert to the Catholic faith. He was a protestant minister until he studied the formation of the canon of scripture and it helped himn realize the that sola scriptura was false.

    I also recommend a protestant work called “Early Christian Doctrines” by Dr JND Kelly Kelly’s book does well in documenting that Tradition and not just scripture alone was the norm of faith for a Christian.

    Good luck on your studies and God bless you all in Jesus through Mary his queen Mother,
    Athanasius
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    245 our understanding of the new testament canon relies on the authority of Apostolic tradition and the Catholic church and its Papacy and councils(Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, And Carthage 397 AD).
    To the contrary: NT Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and was NT Scripture;
    and was written by the apostles and sent to, and received by, the saints as the churches, the Body of Christ; long before 382 AD.
    From 332 to 282 years before, to be precise.
    Equivalent to the gap between 2006 and 1724, when the colonial economy in the Americas was growing.
    Which is not to diss the Christian councils to which Mr A refers. But which is to point out that they relied on the 382-397 years, and Christians, preceding them. Not vice versa. i guess that another way of saying that would be: apostolic tradition precedes both the 3 councils you refer to, and what i call the Roman Catholic church and its Papacy.
    Thanks
     
  7. cardw

    cardw Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20
    Ratings:
    +3
    If you want to get a good overview of this problem of only the Bible Bart D Ehrman has a great book called, "Misquoting Jesus" where he goes over the difficulty of establishing an official translation.

    The major difficulty is that we have a whole lot of early versions of the Bible in Greek that differ from each other. In fact there may be as many as 20 to 30 thousand differences in the texts. Many are minor, but there are a number that are quite significant.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg so to speak.
     
  8. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    per Jesus Christ (God incarnate)s' teaching, church and State should be separated, during His New Testament age of grace; and since His Body is His Body and not an hierarchical religious bureauocracy; by definition there's no need for official translations.
    i'd say
     
  9. KPereira

    KPereira Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    215
    Ratings:
    +24
    The Roman Catholic Church, back in the day, was a tad corrupt. In the present, not so. It was one of the causes of the Protestant Reformation. But seeing as the Roman Catholic Church isn't corrupt in the present...that leaves the Protestant Reformation, in my opinion, pretty much useless.

    Back on topic: I disagree with Sola Scriptura 100%. There were books left out of the Bible and other religious documents have been found. We should take them into account as well, not just the Bible. For any Protestants here, if there was a book of Jesus uncovered, written by Jesus Himself, giving us an incredible insight into His life...giving us a 100% reliable doctrine, by Sola Scriptura, you'd have to disregard a document written by Jesus. There have been other documents found and perhaps more yet to be uncovered. It makes perfect sense to take these documents into account. In fact, it would be foolish not to.

    However, I agree with Sola Fide 100%. Catholics believe that doing good things will erase your wrongs in the eyes of God, but I believe that only through repentence are we able to obtain forgiveness. I could murder someone and help a few old ladies across the street...does that mean my sin is forgiven? That would be incredibly stupid. We should obtain forgiveness from God if we truly repent, truly never mean to sin, truly want to stop sinning, and doing something about it all. Thats just my opinion, though.
     
  10. astarath

    astarath Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,825
    Ratings:
    +84
    Faith without works is nothing for by your works you prove the value and will of the spirit to be conditioned to forgiveness. Same to however unless the works are performed to the will and for the glory of Yahweh they are merely hollow actions. Rather you need both, you need the desire to be pleasing to God and cleansed of a sinful nature and you need the acts that show a commitment to the will. It wasn't enough for Jesus to want us to all be saved he had to get up on that cross and prove his will through his works
     
Loading...