Sola Scriptura

[writer]

60 I'm not sure how saying it means "scripture only" is misrepresenting it.
Mebbe u should read your own post 62:
interpretations of how to understand and apply the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is subject to correction by the Scriptures, even by an individual member of the Church. a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it

62 No, it doesn't.
Yes it does

Have you ever heard of the Protestant Reformation?
That's what u partially misunderstand, and therefore misrepresent in part

Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures are not only the final authority, but also the complete authority. That is to say that the reformers believed that God no longer gives revelation to humanity,
To the contrary of your 2nd sentence: Martin Luther received the same revelation Paul got: the just shall have life, and live, by faith. Which was helped, based on, Joel's Scripture, God's word.
This is what i mean when i refer to either ignorant, or deliberate, distortion on Ms Llama's part.
Additionally, the Scriptures are neither for themselves, nor apart from His believers. As the Lord Jesus Himself said, "It's written. Man shan't live by bread alone, but on every word which proceeds out from the mouth of God" Mt 4:4

...the concept of ex cathedra authority in Roman Catholicism...
"I've something against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, she who calls herself prophetess and teaches and leads My slaves astray to commit fornication and to eat idol sacrifices...But I say to you---the rest in Thyatira, as many as don't have this teaching, who've not known the deep things of Satan, as they say---I put no other burden upon you" Rv 2:20, 24

60 ...Which also has nothing to do with this thread.
To the contrary: i got the reference to "Roman Catholicism and Eastern" and "Mormonism" from this very thread (post 5)

Yeah, ok, but where?
Different places. Judea, Jerusalem (Matthew). Rome perhaps, later (Mark). Greece (Romans)...

And, why was it that the church existed for years and nobody ever saw it?
What?
It sounds like u have little, if any, idea what you're writing about

65 Sola Scriptura is one of the silliest beliefs ever concocted by man in any field of study.
This comment sounds like one of the silliest blogs ever concocted by a blooger in any field of study

Sola Scriptura is the belief that the bible alone authoritatively speaks on issues of faith & morals).
No it isn't. This blogger's ignorant. And perhaps even purposely so to a large degree

How is it that a 15 or 16 year old can recognize this gross error, while grown men with advanced theological degrees can embrace such a fantastically impossible concept?
Cuz he's blind?

The number one reason why Sola Scriptura cannot possibly be true is that it is what is called a ‘self referential paradox’. Even if I were to write to you and say “what I’m writing is inspired by God” that wouldn’t make it so!
You're not writing Scripture. At least u haven't copied any so far. That's a self-referential fact

Without 3rd party endorsement, on what authority could you accept the truth of my statement? On it’s own?
I not only not acccept the 65's silliness. I contradict it with by a 3rd-party authority. Namely the Bible

After all, it says right there in plain English that it is inspired by God. Therefore it cannot be wrong...right?
No, God's not wrong

This logical fallacy is similar to what is happening with the bible in Protestant churches.
This straw-man, nonsensical creation, is what's happening in post 65

Protestants believe that the bible says “The bible is inspired” therefore it is.
65 believes it's not, therefore it isn't?
Actually, the Scripture was inspired before anybody read it, even it's author(s)

Let’s break this down and find out why this is quite possibly the stupidest thing anyone could ever say.
No, post 65's quote competes for that title

The bible doesn’t say that.
To the contrary: 2 Tim 3:16 reads "all Scripture's God-breathed"

The bible didn’t exist at the time of the writing of the bible
To the contrary: Paul wrote his portions of the NT when the OT existed

so we know for absolute certain that it didn’t say that and even if it said something similar it would be talking about something different than what we consider the bible.
My impression's #65 knows little of anything

Even if it did say that, remember above that it would need 3rd party endorsement to legitimize it’s authority.
To the contrary: God's Authority, Who is His Scripture's Inspirer (or Respirer), through His prophets and apostles. As He Himself, in the flesh, said when He was on the earth. "It's written..."

An entity cannot have authority (and certainly not devine authority) by merely claiming that it does.
Paul, like the Lord Jesus, was not writing, or claiming, authority alone

Protestants reject the 7 books of the Apocrypha considered by the Church to be inspired.
What "Church"? Roman Catholicism and "Eastern Orthodoxy" are not the church. Never have been. Never will be. At least not the Body of Christ.
Nor was the Apocrypha ever Jewish Scripture. Nor does "considering it" Scripture make what isn't, and wasn't Scripture, Scripture.
As Jerome and Luther realized

Since we know that Catholic Church in various councils predominately the ones at Nicaea (325 AD), the council of Hippo (393 AD) and the third council of Carthage (397 AD) selected the books, the books themselves cannot have sole authority.
What a joke.
A) that was not "the Catholic Church" as we know Jezebel aujourd'hui.
B) believes at those coucils, such as Augustine, "selected" the books because the NT books have authority. And were Scripture, and were accepted, and were read, and were received, and, most importantly, were written, LONG BEFORE (about 2.5 to 1.3 centuries) before those various councils

The bible doesn’t give the church authority; the church gives the bible authority.
As was mentioned earlier, the church wrote the NT. But the church didn't write the OT. The OT, and its prophecy of Christ and the church, existed a long time (even up to 2 millenia) before the church.
As Paul the apostle wrote: "being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone" Eph 2:20. Etc

If it weren’t for the Catholic Church there would be no bible
If it weren't for the Catholic Church, William Tyndale wouldn't be murdered for translating the Bible (excellently) into English

 

[athanasius]

If anyone would like to read how I clearly defeated Mr Writer in a debate on sola scriptura then please go to this link and read my post # 245 on this link.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16456&page=25

I believe you will clearly see how sola scriptura is a false man made tradition that was never taught in the early church. At least I kniow it has helped a few people out who have read it and gave me frubals for it.

Good luck.

 

[writer]

56 The The Canon of Scripture, monogamy, stem-cell, etc. But even if they were all there, people can get rather creative with interpretations. Surely God had a solution for this?
Yes. He became flesh. Lived, spoke, died, resurrected, and, in addition to ascending, became a life-giving Spirit to live inside His believers. As recorded in His apostles' inspired writings. 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:17; 1 Cor 6:17; 1 Jn 2:27

57 So then, if it isn't only His apostles works, but His prophets also, then that means that ANY book written by one of His prophets or apostles is God's teaching. Why shouldn't that be included in the Bible?
Why what, specifically?

Why shouldn't it be included in doctrine?
Why what, specifically?

What important teaching is not in the Bible? I do not possess the wisdom of God.
"we have the mind of Christ" wrote Paul to the church in Corinth.
If you're unsure what's important, i encourage you to read the apostles' teaching.

There could be more documents out there written by His prophets and apostles.
namely?
Then we could compare them w/ the apostles' and prophets' writings

If there is more out there, uncovered, and we reject those on the basis of Sola Scriptura...we are rejecting God's teaching.
Reject what, specifically?

45 I don't believe the Pope to be infallible so for me, his authority is questionable. I find the Roman Catholic hierarchical system only useful for governing the Church, not determining doctrine.
The Roman Catholic Church? I guess by definition it's "useful" for governin that, since it Is that

Nobody in that hierarchical system should be infallible. I don't believe there is biblical basis for that.
The NT in Rev 2 is against hierarchical "clergy." And of course there's no such thing as infallible offices or persons other than the Triune God. One shouldn't even need the Bible to know that

If God divinely inspired someone to write documents other than those in the Bible, than we are excluding them from our faith and therefore rejecting important doctrine.
If u can't specify what you're talking about, someone might suggest you don't know what you're talking about. Mebbe

The original church were the apostles?
The apostles were part of the original church. Si

Jesus said to Peter, 'You will be rock upon which I will build my Church'
Not exactly. He said "You're a rock, and on this rock I'll build My church" Mt 16:18.
"This rock" referring to "You're the Christ, the Son of the living God" 16:16, the blessed revelation blessed Peter received from the Father in heaven. Not from flesh and blood, 16:17

The original church didn't see Sola Scriptura as desirable because certain books and documents are missing from the Bible.
What's "sola scriptura" suppose to b?
To the contrary of what u may be suggesting: the original church found God's Scriptures extremely desirable. As her Rock said: "it's written man shan't live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."
Cf also Lk 24 and Jn 5 and 10's statements on Scripture

That reason alone...do YOU think it would be wise to reject doctrine?
I'm not rejectin teachin. I'm teachin. As Paul writes Scrip's profitable for (2 Tim 3:5-17)

 

[zecritr]

Since i haven't seen anyone put this done yet Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Bible and the Bible alone is its own interpreter and and the Bible alone as the basis for all doctrines.

critr

 

[Quiddity]

Since i haven't seen anyone put this done yet Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Bible and the Bible alone is its own interpreter and and the Bible alone as the basis for all doctrines.

critr

I'd be interested in hearing out as to how any text can be self-interpreting?

 

[James the Persian]

To the contrary wrote Paul to the church in Rome:
"We account that a man's justified by faith apart from the works of the law"
Rm 3:28.
This is why it's fair to say that so-called Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as Catholicism and many other Christian, called-Christian, groups "Judaize" in many regards

Clearly you do not know the meaning of the word to Judaize and cannot tell the difference between works of faith and works under the law. Not that I'm surprised.

If a faith does not produce works it is dead, as James says.
That's for sure. But it doesn't mean it's not faith

No, but it means it doesn't save - even the demons believe remember?

What is "hunky dory"?

Americans might say A-OK.

That is just the beginning of faith and not its end.
very good. Though Paul also tells believers we walk by faith. Not just begin by it. And he enjoyed the Thessalonians' works of faith, and labour of love

This in no wise contradicts what I said. Are you sure that you can read English? Beginning of faith is not at all the same as beginning by faith.

Salvation is not possible to achieve in this life,
To the contrary: salvation is Christ's life, Whose entire point is to make available
His life to, and eventually one with, our life, in our life

Look, unless you accept OSAS you must admit either that slavation is not attained until the next life or salvation once attained can be lost, both of which mean, to all practical purposes the same. Nobody can have an assurance of salvation in this life.

for we must run the race and persevere to the end.
That "end" Paul refers to is the end of one's lifetime!

Never? You don't say? Which means that salvation cannot be attained in this life, doesn't it? Or do you think there's a point when we are simultaneously in this life and dead?

God helps us in this by pouring out His grace on us but we still must do something in return, which is why we see salvation as a process of man and God in synergy.
"This is the work of God, that you believe into Him whom He has sent" Jn 6:29.
Then: "If anyone builds on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, stubble, the work of each shall become manifest; for the day will declare it, because it's revealed by fire, and the fire will prove each one's work, of what sort it is. If anyone's work remains, he'll receive a reward. If anyone's work's consumed, he'll suffer loss, but he himself'll be saved, yet so as through fire" 1 Cor 3:12-15.
James, as in the 2nd para abuv, wuz not referring to justification and faith in the first sense (Jn 6:29; Rm 3:28).
He was referring to works, justification, salvation, in the 2nd sense (1 Cor 3:12-15; 2 Cor 5:10; Rm 14:10; Mt 25:1-30). Christ's judgment of His belivers re either reward or punishment, only

What on earth are you talking about?

In any case, sola fide is directly contradicted by the New Testament,
This is an either deliberate, or ignorant, distortion, on Mr James the poster's part.
I prefer "ignorant."
And's contradicted directly by Paul in Romans 3:28 which's in the New Testament

Not ignorant at all. Sola fide is completely inconsistent with James for a start. Christ separates the sheep and goats based on what they have done and spits out lukewarm believers, we're told we must run the race and persevere to the end etc. etc. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that contradicts our view (which is that we are saved by Grace alone but that a true faith must produce works), but tons that contradicts sola fide.

which is why Luther was actually an advocate for the expunging of James from the canon (so much for sola scriptura).
So much for James the poster's silly comment. Martin Luther, who translated the Bible into German, didn't exclude James. Altho James, in Acts and in his own epistle, evidenced at least some degree of negative Judaizing.
I get the impression our James knows neither Luther, nor Scripture, extremely well, yet. Lord Jesus, grant him, and all of us, grace

So much for writer's grasp of history and ability to comprehend English. I suggest you do some more research in both areas. Being an advocate for something does not mean that you do it only that you wish to. I'm well aware that Luther didn't eventually expunge James but he did wish to, he simply didn't dare (and probably realised what doing such would do to his claims of sola scriptura, though that didn't stop him expunging OT books). I was raised Lutheran and know full well what I'm talking about, and I dare say I know more of both him and Scripture than you. Luther considered Revelation to be uninspired and James to be an 'epistle of straw', to use his words.

James

PS

PLEASE learn how to use the quote feature. Your posts are an absolute pain to reply to.

 

[Gentoo]

I'd be interested in hearing out as to how any text can be self-interpreting?

Book on tape?

 

[writer]

105 I'd be interested in hearing out as to how any text can be self-interpreting?
By interpreting, and carrying the interpretation of, other parts of the text within itself.
Eg "The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, 'The Spirit of the Lord...' And when He rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant, He sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say, Today this Scripture's been fulfilled in your hearing..." Luke 4.
As a 4th century Christian shared "the NT's contained in the Old, and the OT's fulfilled in the N." Or something like that.
The Bible's unique also in that its ultimate Author's God, who is omnipresent, available, and's purpose is to interact w/ man, as the Spirit of His Son Jesus Christ

 

[writer]

106 Clearly you do not know the meaning of the word to Judaize
To the contrary: like James the son of Mary and brother of Christ, u also Judaize to an extent

and cannot tell the difference between works of faith and works under the law. Not that I'm surprised.
I'm not surprised you're inspecific

No, but it means it doesn't save -
your "faith" may not. That's possible.
"But He said to the woman, Your faith's saved you" Lk 7:50

- even the demons believe remember?
"Believe that God is one" Jm 2:19. So does Mohammed Atta.
That's not believing into the one, triune, God's one Son

Americans might say A-OK.
What might u mean by that, exactly, in regard to "salvation"?

This in no wise contradicts what I said.
That mite've been why i wrote "very good"

Are you sure that you can read English?
"very good" means "very good." Meaning i agree w/ that sentence o' yours

Beginning of faith is not at all the same as beginning by faith.
Yes it is. Since the beginning of faith begins by faith

Look, unless you accept OSAS you must admit either that slavation is not attained until the next life or salvation once attained can be lost, both of which mean, to all practical purposes the same. Nobody can have an assurance of salvation in this life.
To the contrary of your teaching, the apostles taught
"I've written these things to you that you may know that you have eternal life, to you who believe into the name of the Son of God"
1 Jn 5:13.
If having eternal life's what u mean by "salvation"

Never? You don't say?
No. I didn't write "never"

Which means that salvation cannot be attained in this life, doesn't it?
"He said to the woman, Your faith's saved you. Go in peace"
Lk 7:50.
"Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved"
Acts 2:21; Rm 10.
If "your faith's saved you" is what u mean by "salvation"

Or do you think there's a point when we are simultaneously in this life and dead?
We're dead in this life without God who is Christ
Eph 4:18

What on earth are you talking about?
What u were talking about.
It's pretty self-explanatory. The Bible doesn't use that many big words.
Maybe i should just ask u what your Lord means when He spoke Jn 6:29;
and Paul in Rm 3:28?
As a start.
Unless you feel that would be paying too much attention to the Scriptures

Not ignorant at all.
Blind

Sola fide is completely inconsistent with James for a start.
U misunderstand "sola fide."
Martin Luther's primary "recovery" or reform was to realize and appreciate Paul's truth of justification by faith.
James in Jm 2 was not speaking of unbelievers becoming believers. He was speaking of Christians being judged on their works.
Which's what the paragraph u asked:
What on earth are you talking about?
talks about also

Christ separates the sheep and goats based on what they have done...
The sheep and goats in Mt 25 are neither Christians nor people becoming Christians.
They're people alive at the end who are judged on how they treated Christians, the Lord's people, during the Antichrist's persecution

...and spits out lukewarm believers, we're told we must run the race and persevere to the end
That's what James 2 and
"If anyone builds on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, stubble, the work of each shall become manifest; for the day will declare it, because it's revealed by fire, and the fire will prove each one's work, of what sort it is. If anyone's work remains, he'll receive a reward. If anyone's work's consumed, he'll suffer loss, but he himself'll be saved, yet so as through fire" 1 Cor 3:12-15
talks about

There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that contradicts our view (which is that we are saved by Grace alone but that a true faith must produce works),
Neither i nor "sola fide" contradicts that either

but tons that contradicts sola fide.
U misunderstand, or deliberately distort, "sola fide."
I prefer "misunderstand."
"Your faith's saved you" Lk 7:50

 

[Quiddity]

Book on tape?

Exactly..... . It can't...

 

[writer]

106 So much for writer's grasp of history and ability to comprehend English.
Doamne Iisuse Hristoase, Fiul lui Dumnezeu, miluieşte-mă pe mine păcătosul
's not English

I suggest you do some more research in both areas.
I suggest u pray.
And take your advice to me

Being an advocate for something does not mean that you do it only that you wish to. I'm well aware that Luther didn't eventually expunge James but he did wish to,
To the contrary: actions speak louder than words.
But u don't even supply Luther's words on wishing to "expunge."
Which may be what u mean by "grasp of history."
James is "strawy" in many respects. Judaizing. That's a simple, and historical, fact. Visible both in his letter, and in Acts, and in Galatians.
"Before some came from James, he continually ate with the Gentiles, but when they came, he began to shrink back and separate himself, fearing those of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also joined him in this hypocrisy"
Galatians 2:12-13.
"Paul went in with us to James...And they said: You observe, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed; and all are zealous for the law"
Acts 21:18-26

he simply didn't dare
More factually and historically: he simply didn't

(and probably realised what doing such would do to his claims of sola scriptura, though that didn't stop him expunging OT books).
The Jewish Apocrypha, as Jerome realized (and wrote if you want his quotes),
wasn't OT.
It's still not

I was raised Lutheran and know full well what I'm talking about,
No, you don't, to some degree. Its sounds like you're journeying. But, to some extent, trading one blindness for another

and I dare say I know more of both him and Scripture than you.
then please respond to my Scriptures.
If u have time

Luther considered Revelation to be uninspired and James to be an 'epistle of straw', to use his words.
Revelation's inspired, and James isn't all straw

PLEASE learn how to use the quote feature. Your posts are an absolute pain to reply to.
U did well, on the mechanics. Iz it the colors that give u trouble?
Thanks

 

[MaddLlama]

PLEASE learn how to use the quote feature. Your posts are an absolute pain to reply to.
U did well, on the mechanics. Iz it the colors that give u trouble?
Thanks

It's much easier to follow what you're saying when you use the quote feature instead of just color coding it.

And, frankly, I can't anybody who doesn't take the time to spell properly seriously.
"Is" is not spelled with a "z".
"You" has three letters, not one.

Really, how many tenths of a second are you saving by using shortcuts like "u" instead of "you"? It just looks stupid.

On the subject of Luther, support for him baffles me sometimes. He was a horrible anti-semetic. I don't understand how any Christian, let alone the founder of an entire branch of Christianity can gain so much support when he had such disregard for the religion that birthed his.

 

[SoyLeche]

And, frankly, I can't anybody who doesn't take the time to spell properly seriously.

[irony]Did you mean to put a "take" in there somewhere?[/irony]

 

[writer]

It's much easier to follow what you're saying when you use the quote feature instead of just color coding it.
Then thank you for taking the time to try to read and respond to my response.
I will try to accomadate u soon. Sorry i'm not doing so this second.
But if i may ask u also: how so?

And, frankly, I can't anybody who doesn't take the time to spell properly seriously.
"Is" is not spelled with a "z".
Then please, take that as your good reason not to respond to me anymore.
If you'd like.
Cuz i can little take the content of your posts seriously.
Seriously

"You" has three letters, not one.
Thank u

Really, how many tenths of a second are you saving by using shortcuts like "u" instead of "you"? It just looks stupid.
I'm sorry. If i do it more, i'll try to add the translation to help you.
"U" = "you."
"i" = "I."
"i'll" = "I'll."
Unless all those little stick marks bother u too

On the subject of Luther, support for him baffles me sometimes. He was a horrible anti-semetic.
My support for Luther in preceding posts is support of the teachings of Luther i specified. In preceding posts. It's not support for antisemitism, or his written antisemitism at the end of his life.
I support his published prosemitism from his younger years.
His, or Catholicism's, or anyone's, antisemitism's inexcusable

I don't understand how any Christian, let alone the founder of an entire branch of Christianity can gain so much support when he had such disregard for the religion that birthed his.
Luther didn't "found" what we know as Lutheranism. That hopefully is evident from even James the poster's comments that he was raised in it.
"Lutherans" is originally Catholicism's term of derision or categorization of those who were helped by, or took, his teachings of God and Scripture.
Luther didn't disregard Judaism. He studied Hebrew. He translated, with help, the OT directly from Hebrew to German. He, like the Jews, held forth the truth that the Jewish Apocrypha isn't, and never was, Scripture.
This too was part of the Reformation. A broad return to roots, truth, scholarship, and the beginning. As in translating directly from Hebrew. Going directly to Scripture for authority. And comparison. Studying ancient sources, and more finely so.
He was clearly, and enlightenedly, and even sharply prosemitic in his early writing concerning loving Jews, especially as Jesus Christ is a Jew, and they're eternally God's chosen people.
His ending-life diatribe against Jews is inexcusable, horrific, and something, if he never repented for it: he'll have to give account of to his Lord King of the Jews

 

[SoyLeche]

But if i may ask u also: how so?

It's pretty easy. Start by clicking on the "Quote" button at the bottom of the post you want to quote. That will bring up an area to type your reply. At the top will be the text of the post you are quoting. It will be surrounded by "tags". The first tag will look like

with the person's username that you are quoting. The "=soyleche" part isn't necessary, but it's nice. At the end you will see a similar tag, but with a "/" in front of the "quote" (If I type it out, it will actually put a quote, so I'm not going to do that).

You can split up a quote by inserting ending and beginning tags and typing your reply in between them.

Play with it a little bit - you'll get the hang of it soon enough. It does make reading your replies much easier.

 

[MaddLlama]

[irony]Did you mean to put a "take" in there somewhere?[/irony]

At least I don't spell terribly on a consistent basis. We've all had moments where the hands work slower than the brain. There's a difference between that and a blatant disregard for the written word. Which, I think is an even worse irony considering his name is "writer".

 

[SoyLeche]

At least I don't spell terribly on a consistent basis. We've all had moments where the hands work slower than the brain. There's a difference between that and a blatant disregard for the written word. Which, I think is an even worse irony considering his name is "writer".

I didn't mean to offend you in any way. I agree with pretty much everything you said in that post. I just thought it was kinda funny

 

[writer]

it's probably easier than discussin content.
And you're rite. No serious writer would misspell a word.

115 It does make reading your replies much easier.
If the other kind poster doesn't know, could i try askin u real quick:
how so?
Thanx

 

[SoyLeche]

118 It's probably easier than discussin content.
And you're rite. No serious writer would misspell a word.

115 It does make reading your replies much easier.
118 If the other kind poster doesn't know, could i try askin u real quick:
how so?
Thanx
119 Boxes and different colored background makes it easier to distinguish which are your words and which are the person you are quoting's words - especially since EVERYONE else on this forum does it that way. If everyone adopted your method, then it would be easier. That's not going to happen though.

 

[writer]

That's not going to happen though.

i like how the writing's smaller too.

115 easier
Congrats on doing so well