Quote:

---

From my view I think that is one of the fatal flaws to Sola Scriptura - the application of it. The same texts of the Bible are interpreted to mean different things by different denominations and individuals. Many twist the scriptures to their own destruction, although they may not realize what they are doing.

---

This has absolutely nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

Groups interpreting things different is the fundamental basis of most heresies throughout Christian history dating back to the beginning.

Quote:

---

My point was that IF you are going to hold to the Bible ALONE as your sole and supreme rule of faith - first you would need to be absolutely certain your Bible is indeed complete (not missing any books and nothing extra either).

It is not possible for either the Bible or the Church to be "above God." And it's not so much that the church is above the Bible, but rather the only way the Scriptures could be recognized as the inspired word of God was through the Church - and testing what was written against what was taught and practiced throughout the church. The church discerned and illuminates the scriptures and likewise the scriptures illuminate the church.

I think many Protestants come with the perspective of Bible first or Bible only, and as a result subjugate the Church to a lesser status. Both are of God and therefore they witness and testify truth and to each other beautifully.

The Bible without the Church would just be a book of old writings. The Church today without the Scriptures could be completely off the rails. The two work together and cannot and do not contradict each other in any way.

This is what makes the question of the canon, and how we got the Bible, such an interesting and important topic. I'm not sure most Protestants really want to think critically about it because Christian history does not support today's Protestant canon on what is Scripture.

---

This is where you go right back to misapplying or misunderstanding Sola Scriptura.

I can take the exact same assurances that you take in knowing the Scriptures I read are correct and still hold 100% to Sola Scriptura.

Quote:

---

The Bible without the Church would just be a book of old writings. The Church today without the Scriptures could be completely off the rails. The two work together and cannot and do not contradict each other in any way.

---

And I don't disagree. I can look at the Councils and see they were guided by God in their coming to understand what should be part of the New Testament. However, once again, we've never defined what the Church is. I've pointed this out for several weeks now.

I did want to highlight something though. I do get why this is so important to you to believe that somehow Roman Catholics are set apart. If this leg falls, it should call into question the entirety of the Roman Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

My argument does no such thing - that is your presumption and projection getting in the way again. You are not really making any kind of case or defense for your position. You are just telling me I am wrong and taking stabs at reasons why.

For example: you say that it was God that determined what was Scripture. HOW and WHEN did God do this? Please be specific.

Also, you say the "church" is still undefined. What do you mean by this? I can show you the one, holy, universal, and apostolic Church from Scripture complete with apostolic succession, the sacraments, and authority. Can you show me when this church passed away or ceased to exist?

---

No. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't understand the statements you are making.

On your second part, the Church history is the Church history. Rome, Orthodox, Coptics, etc don't have singular claim to that history. So when did God determine it? The exact same time you would claim. You don't have ownership to it. Christians as a totality have the same history.

The third part is classic Roman Catholic projection.

Apostolic Succession was not discussed in Scriptures. We get hints of how to ordain new Pr/Fr, but that's the extent. BTW, even if this was held to be true, Lutherans would have Apostolic succession since Luther was ordained.

Sacraments - This was not something the Father's agreed upon or talked about in detail, certainly not to the 7 used by Roman Catholics today. Those all came later on. And as Lutheran's pointed out, sure they are Scriptural, but the majority are not unique to christians and that should have caused concern.

Authority - not worth responding to b/c it's not a real claim.

Quote:

---

Agreed. All Scripture is God Breathed - But how do WE know, today, what is and what is not Scripture? There is disagreement on this issue today. I do not believe the Bible alone is my only source for truth so this is not a major issue for me - but for those who hold to Bible Alone this seems fundamentally critical.

---

Sola Scriptura relies almost entirely on Christians to correctly interpret the truth, and so not a concern for most anyone.

Quote:

---

Now this is getting a little closer to the target, but can you tell me exactly which writings Paul was referring to at the time? I agree the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in recognizing the Scriptures, but that included the Deuterocanonicals. The only reason we can trust the Scriptures, and what Paul wrote, is because the Church testifies to the Scriptures. Without the Church you have nothing to authenticate or validate what was written. Does this make the Church greater?

---

You really do seem to enjoy removing God from the equation and putting "the Church" in His place.

No we know that Paul received revelation from God

Galatians 1:11-12: "11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

But further, this argument is terribly flawed.

When we read Isaiah or the Psalms and see prophecy that turned out to be about Jesus, did they know that when they wrote it? Was it clear to them that they were writing about Jesus? The odds are certainly not in favor of that argument, yet through the New Testament and Jesus life, we know that is was God intended.

So did Paul know he was writing about what would become the New Testament? Probably not, but did God? Certainly so!

Quote:

---

I understand what I have written. I understand the claims of Sola Scriptura. I think you are the one that is starting with a premise that Sola Scriptura must be correct, and that premise is fatally flawed in my view. Are you able to show me otherwise? Can you adequately address my questions?

---

Yes. The entirety of your argument is that Sola Scriptura fails b/c the Bible came "from the church." This is a false premise that only works if they did it independent of God. If God played a role, and this is my claim, they I can find assurance that the Scriptures I have in my house are what God intended to be there. If He had wanted 1 Clement or the Didache, they would be there.

Quote:

---

On Un-Workable :
1. If the Bible is the only infallible authority we have or need, how is it possible that so many people interpret the same passages and texts and come to different conclusions?
(If your response is that this is not your concern because YOU are correct in your interpretation - you still have not adequately addressed the question. The same Biblical texts, presumably guided by the same Holy Spirit, are leading thoughtful, honest, scholarly and discerning people to different conclusions and beliefs. This is why I said earlier this issue is not a question of the infallibility of the actual text of the Bible, but rather a question of how the Bible is being interpreted by the reader. If the interpretation is off base the fact that the Bible is infallible becomes meaningless because the person is in error.)

---

I've already shown this to be flawed. Most heresies (if not all) started in this manner. Sola Scriptura is irrelevant to this argument and so this fails.

Here's a link to a list of the heresies that came up that should not have been possible under your premise: Heresies in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils

Quote:

---

On Un-Historical:

1. All of the churches that have an ongoing and continuous claim to apostolic succession going all the way back to the original 12 apostles unanimously include the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books in their Canons. How can Protestants today exclude these books thus going against the consensus of the apostolic church? Furthermore, how can one then claim that this (incomplete) book should become the sole, infallible source for Christian faith and practice, supreme and independent to all others?

---

This is a good argument for someone who holds to "Bible only or Solo Scriptura." Solo Scriptura actually doesn't translate, but the premise that someone picks up a Bible and reads it and decides they understand what God wants is a faulty premise. It's usually done without even going back to the original languages.

This however, is not an argument against Sola Scriptura, which holds to the Traditions of the Church that are Scriptural. So this premise also fails.

Further, I provided 5 quotes earlier from Church Fathers who make the argument that Scriptures are necessary for providing correction.

[quot]On Un-Scriptural:
1. If Sola Scriptura is Biblical/Scriptural - please provide the verse or verses that teach that Scripture is the ONLY infallible source, and above any other source for teaching faith and practice for a Christian. Can you point me to the verse that says no other source or teachings can be held in the same esteem as the Holy Scripture in the written form?
(Please do not give me a commentary here about your interpretation and why we can have confidence in this or that - just provide the chapter and verse from the actual Bible that supports your position. You believe in Sola Scriptura - please defend your position accordingly).[/quot]

The entire premise of this question is faulty. You're setting up an arbitrary standard that you've already decided is false.

I've shown you that Jesus and the Devil argue from Scriptures.

I've shown you that Paul sets the Scriptures apart 2 Tim 3:16.

Paul also exhorts the Corinthians to not go beyond the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 4:6).

I understand that won't be enough for you. Your mind is made up and that's fine. It's not a concern of mine and won't keep me up at night.

As the Scriptures say, my concern is working out my salvation with fear and trembling.

God Bless.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My point was that IF you are going to hold to the Bible ALONE as your sole and supreme rule of faith - first you would need to be absolutely certain your Bible is indeed complete (not missing any books and nothing extra either).

It is not possible for either the Bible or the Church to be "above God." And it's not so much that the church is above the Bible, but rather the only way the Scriptures could be recognized as the inspired word of God was through the Church - and testing what was written against what was taught and practiced throughout the church. The church discerned and illuminates the scriptures and likewise the scriptures illuminate the church.

I think many Protestants come with the perspective of Bible first or Bible only, and as a result subjugate the Church to a lesser status. Both are of God and therefore they witness and testify truth and to each other beautifully.

The Bible without the Church would just be a book of old writings. The Church today without the Scriptures could be completely off the rails. The two work together and cannot and do not contradict each other in any way.

This is what makes the question of the canon, and how we got the Bible, such an interesting and important topic. I'm not sure most Protestants really want to think critically about it because Christian history does not support today's Protestant canon on what is Scripture.

---

This is where you go right back to misapplying or misunderstanding Sola Scriptura.

---

You tell me I am misunderstanding and misapplying Sola Scriptura but you refuse to articulate how. You just tell me I am wrong and then you move on like you addressed my error. You have yet to explain how and where I am wrong.

Quote:

---

I can take the exact same assurances that you take in knowing the Scriptures I read are correct and still hold 100% to Sola Scriptura.

---

Do you accept the Deuterocanonical (Apocryphal) books as Scripture?

Quote:

---

However, once again, we've never defined what the Church is. I've pointed this out for several weeks now.

---

I've said repeatedly we are talking about the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church visible in the New Testament. The same church we see in Acts that appointed Matthias to succeed Judas and fill his vacant office and thus counting him as one of the twelve apostles. The Church that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against.

Quote:

---

I did want to highlight something though. I do get why this is so important to you to believe that somehow Roman Catholics are set apart. If this leg falls, it should call into question the entirety of the Roman Catholic Church.

---

You, my friend, are the one on shaky ground.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My argument does no such thing - that is your presumption and projection getting in the way again. You are not really making any kind of case or defense for your position. You are just telling me I am wrong and taking stabs at reasons why.

For example: you say that it was God that determined what was Scripture. HOW and WHEN did God do this? Please be specific.

Also, you say the "church" is still undefined. What do you mean by this? I can show you the one, holy, universal, and apostolic Church from Scripture complete with apostolic succession, the sacraments, and authority. Can you show me when this church passed away or ceased to exist?

---

No. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't understand the statements you are making.

---

Just so we are clear, I absolutely understand the statements I am making. You have yet to make a coherent case either 1) explaining the flaws you see in my position, and 2) in providing support for your position.

Quote:

---

On your second part, the Church history is the Church history. Rome, Orthodox, Coptics, etc don't have singular claim to that history. So when did God determine it? The exact same time you would claim. You don't have ownership to it. Christians as a totality have the same history.

---

This is where you completely miss the whole point - ALL of the apostolic churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, etc) are in complete agreement that the Apocryphal books are a part of the canon of scripture (inspired). If you want to claim the same history you have to claim the same history. Do you accept the Apocryphal as inspired Scripture? Are these books in your Bible or Canon today?

Quote:

---

The third part is classic Roman Catholic projection.

Apostolic Succession was not discussed in Scriptures. We get hints of how to ordain new Pr/Fr, but that's the extent. BTW, even if this was held to be true, Lutherans would have Apostolic succession since Luther was ordained.

---

Let's address the last part first - apostolic succession is passed down from Bishop to Bishop, not priests. Luther was an ordained priest, but was not a Bishop and not in the apostolic line.

Now to your claim that apostolic succession was not discussed in scripture:

Quote:

---

Acts 1: 20-26
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishop-Rick let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

---

now I could give you countless examples throughout the NT of apostolic succession and the formation of the church, but I'll just start with this one to refute your claim. It was literally the first thing the apostles did following Jesus' ascension to Heaven.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Agreed. All Scripture is God Breathed - But how do WE know, today, what is and what is not Scripture? There is disagreement on this issue today. I do not believe the Bible alone is my only source for truth so this is not a major issue for me - but for those who hold to Bible Alone this seems fundamentally critical.

---

Sola Scriptura relies almost entirely on Christians to correctly interpret the truth, and so not a concern for most anyone.

---

You just articulated a MAJOR flaw that should be a concern for everyone living by the Bible alone.

Acts 8
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
31 "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Now this is getting a little closer to the target, but can you tell me exactly which writings Paul was referring to at the time? I agree the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in recognizing the Scriptures, but that included the Deuterocanonicals. The only reason we can trust the Scriptures, and what Paul wrote, is because the Church testifies to the Scriptures. Without the Church you have nothing to authenticate or validate what was written. Does this make the Church greater?

---

You really do seem to enjoy removing God from the equation and putting "the Church" in His place.

---

The answer to my question was NO. Nowhere have I ever removed God from the equation. God is everywhere in all of this and you fail to see it! He is working through men throughout this entire process. I think your anti-Catholic bias is so strong you are having a difficult time with seeing this fact. This was all done by God's design and in a way that all of us with our human limitations could know the truth.

Quote:

---

No we know that Paul received revelation from God

Galatians 1:11-12: "11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

But further, this argument is terribly flawed.

When we read Isaiah or the Psalms and see prophecy that turned out to be about Jesus, did they know that when they wrote it? Was it clear to them that they were writing about Jesus? The odds are certainly not in favor of that argument, yet through the New Testament and Jesus life, we know that is was God intended.

So did Paul know he was writing about what would become the New Testament? Probably not, but did God? Certainly so!

---

None of what you wrote here makes the case for Sola Scriptura.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I understand what I have written. I understand the claims of Sola Scriptura. I think you are the one that is starting with a premise that Sola Scriptura must be correct, and that premise is fatally flawed in my view. Are you able to show me otherwise? Can you adequately address my questions?

---

Yes. The entirety of your argument is that Sola Scriptura fails b/c the Bible came "from the church." This is a false premise that only works if they did it independent of God. If God played a role, and this is my claim, they I can find assurance that the Scriptures I have in my house are what God intended to be there. If He had wanted 1 Clement or the Didache, they would be there.

---

Part of my argument that Sola Scriptura fails has to do with the Church (the historical part), and then there is the unworkable part, and perhaps most glaring is the unscriptural part.

Again, nowhere have I removed God from this process. The Scriptures came from God and were delivered through His church. The problem i see is that you want the Bible independent from the church.

I'll ask a 3rd time: Do you accept the Deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture? Are they included in your Bible?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

On Un-Workable :
1. If the Bible is the only infallible authority we have or need, how is it possible that so many people interpret the same passages and texts and come to different conclusions?
(If your response is that this is not your concern because YOU are correct in your interpretation - you still have not adequately addressed the question. The same Biblical texts, presumably guided by the same Holy Spirit, are leading thoughtful, honest, scholarly and discerning people to different conclusions and beliefs. This is why I said earlier this issue is not a question of the infallibility of the actual text of the Bible, but rather a question of how the Bible is being interpreted by the reader. If the interpretation is off base the fact that the Bible is infallible becomes meaningless because the person is in error.)

---

I've already shown this to be flawed. Most heresies (if not all) started in this manner. Sola Scriptura is irrelevant to this argument and so this fails.

---

Sorry, you have not shown this to be flawed. You have deflected and not addressed this question. In fact, this response begs the question - if heresies start as a result of wrong interpretation what mechanisms would be needed to correct them?

You seem to think that it should be impossible to ever have heresies because of the church. Without the church these heresies could have never been corrected. That's kind of my point - you need more than a book.

Example: please interpret the following sentence and tell me it's correct meaning:

"I never said you stole the money."

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

On Un-Historical:
1. All of the churches that have an ongoing and continuous claim to apostolic succession going all the way back to the original 12 apostles unanimously include the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books in their Canons. How can Protestants today exclude these books thus going against the consensus of the apostolic church? Furthermore, how can one then claim that this (incomplete) book should become the sole, infallible source for Christian faith and practice, supreme and independent to all others?

---

This is a good argument for someone who holds to "Bible only or Solo Scriptura." Solo Scriptura actually doesn't translate, but the premise that someone picks up a Bible and reads it and decides they understand what God wants is a faulty premise. It's usually done without even going back to the original languages.

This however, is not an argument against Sola Scriptura, which holds to the Traditions of the Church that are Scriptural. So this premise also fails.

---

What about the Traditions of the Church that are not explicitly found in Scripture but that are implicitly Scriptural?

Quote:

---

Further, I provided 5 quotes earlier from Church Fathers who make the argument that Scriptures are necessary for providing correction.

---

These same fathers also argued that the Church and her Traditions were necessary. This does not make the case for Scripture alone.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

On Un-Scriptural:
1. If Sola Scriptura is Biblical/Scriptural - please provide the verse or verses that teach that Scripture is the ONLY infallible source, and above any other source for teaching faith and practice for a Christian. Can you point me to the verse that says no other source or teachings can be held in the same esteem as the Holy Scripture in the written form?
(Please do not give me a commentary here about your interpretation and why we can have confidence in this or that - just provide the chapter and verse from the actual Bible that supports your position. You believe in Sola Scriptura - please defend your position accordingly).

---

The entire premise of this question is faulty. You're setting up an arbitrary standard that you've already decided is false.

I've shown you that Jesus and the Devil argue from Scriptures.

I've shown you that Paul sets the Scriptures apart 2 Tim 3:16.

Paul also exhorts the Corinthians to not go beyond the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 4:6).

---

My arbitrary standard of asking someone who claims the Bible to be the only infallible source needed for faith and practice - to show me where the Bible actually teaches that - is somehow a flawed premise?

The reality, as I stated long ago, is that Sola Scriptura is in fact not Scriptural. A point you are unable to prove otherwise.

Quote:

---

As the Scriptures say, my concern is working out my salvation with fear and trembling.

---

This I can agree with whole heartedly.

God Bless

Ordhound04 said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

The idea that the writings that came from decades of passing stories around like a game of telephone and were ordered together centuries after-the-fact could be a reliable source of information is asinine.

---

We have early manuscripts from before they were "ordered together". It wasn't a game of telephone since the people who knew Christ in the flesh were alive when the New Testament scriptures were written.

I mean it would be one thing if they were oral tradition. Passed down for 400 years then written down Just before canonization, but they were written down when the apostles were still alive. Heck we could almost compile the NT scripture from the notes made by the apostolic and early church fathers.

---

None of the gospels were written by the apostles for whom they are named and it is highly unlikely that the few of them who could read fact checked what was being written.

The earliest estimates for the "Q" document is still decades after the fact.

In regards to Sola Scriptura, one question that I haven't heard a good answer to is How did the believing Jewish person know that Isaiah and 2nd Chronicles were scripture, 50 years before Christ?

There had not been a magisterium at that point in time and Jesus plainly held people accountable to scripture (i.e Have you not read what God spoke to you...). There was no argumentation between Jesus and the Jewish scholars on what is and isn't scripture.

It's a tough question to answer given the presupposition that you need an external, categorical statement of some type of infallible source to determine canon , when that's not how God did it with the Old Testament and yet Jesus functions on the basis on the result of whatever process God used, as he felt it was good enough to hold those men accountable to the scriptures.

Scripture has basically always been ratified by use. The persistent myth that some council or magisterium is what determined the canon is simply not true.

Don't disagree, but I find that almost strengthens the argument for Sola Scriptura.

When Jesus had his dialogues with the Jewish authorities, he constantly quoted scripture as the sole bar to which man is to be held accountable.

Also, to be clear, Sola Scriptura is not just randomly opening the Bible to any book, reading a few passages, thinking how they make you feel and that being the correct interpretation. When reading scripture we must always know context. Who was the author, who was the audience, what was happening culturally at the time, etc.

Woody2006 said:

---

Ordhound04 said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

The idea that the writings that came from decades of passing stories around like a game of telephone and were ordered together centuries after-the-fact could be a reliable source of information is asinine.

---

We have early manuscripts from before they were "ordered together". It wasn't a game of telephone since the people who knew Christ in the flesh were alive when the New Testament scriptures were written.

I mean it would be one thing if they were oral tradition. Passed down for 400 years then written down Just before canonization, but they were written down when the apostles were still alive. Heck we could almost compile the NT scripture from the notes made by the apostolic and early church fathers.

---

None of the gospels were written by the apostles for whom they are named and it is highly unlikely that the few of them who could read fact checked what was being written.

The earliest estimates for the "Q" document is still decades after the fact.

---

A couple of things:

1). Only the Gospel of John was claimed to have been written by an Apostle. Luke was not an apostle. Neither was Mark or Mathew. So an argument that they were not written by an apostle is only a shot OT John, not the others.

2). Mark was a companion of Peter I believe. Luke traveled with Paul, and I'm sore met Apostles to corroborate. I'm sure Clement, Titus, Mary, etc could also corroborate many of the writings.

3). I know Bart Ehrman has made the contention That the gospels were originally "anonymous" but their is literally not a single piece of textual evidence to support the claim. I head an interview where I think Dr. Ed Fesser asked him about that fact, and even Ehrman acknowledged that the physical evidence doesn't support his claim. It's basically speculation on Ehrman's part.

4). So we also have evidence to support the gospels, and epistles, were written Within living memory of both Jesus and the apostles. People who met Jesus, people who were at Pentecost, people who saw the arisen Jesus etc could have corroborated these stories.

bigcat22 said:

---

In regards to Sola Scriptura, one question that I haven't heard a good answer to is How did the believing Jewish person know that Isaiah and 2nd Chronicles were scripture, 50 years before Christ?

There had not been a magisterium at that point in time and Jesus plainly held people accountable to scripture (i.e Have you not read what God spoke to you...). There was no argumentation between Jesus and the Jewish scholars on what is and isn't scripture.

It's a tough question to answer given the presupposition that you need an external, categorical statement of some type of infallible source to determine canon , when that's not how God did it with the Old Testament and yet Jesus functions on the basis on the result of whatever process God used, as he felt it was good enough to hold those men accountable to the scriptures.

---

Interestingly, If memory serves, there was a canonical dispute in the time of Jesus. I want to say that their is evidence that the Sadducees had a much more limited canon. (Just the books traditionally attributed to Moses)

Some of the early church fathers made the claim I think , and some verses in the gospel Talk about the Sadducees denying the resurrection.

It's true the Sadducees only accepted the Books of Moses. They didn't specifically reject the resurrection of Jesus, they rejected all resurrection as they didn't believe in an afterlife at all.

Aggrad08 said:

---

It's true the Sadducees only accepted the Books of Moses. They didn't specifically reject the resurrection of Jesus, they rejected all resurrection as they didn't believe in an afterlife at all.

---

Right, the incident where they tried to "trap" Jesus was about the general resurrection (Daniel?) not the particular resurrection of Jesus.

Quote:

---

You tell me I am misunderstanding and misapplying Sola Scriptura but you refuse to articulate how. You just tell me I am wrong and then you move on like you addressed my error. You have yet to explain how and where I am wrong.

---

I'll start by pointing out that you excluded from your response me pointing out that people "twisting the scriptures to their own destruction" is not indicative of Sola Scriptura, and has been done since the beginning. So that's my first articulation of you misapplying Sola Scriptura.

This would be your second:

"I think many Protestants come with the perspective of Bible first or Bible only, and as a result subjugate the Church to a lesser status. Both are of God and therefore they witness and testify truth and to each other beautifully. "

The Reformers were high Church, and of course Luther did not willing leave on his own will. Throughout his time, Luther remained loyal to the Pope and addressed him with the appropriate titles.

Further, the "Church" has not been subjugated. You would be hard pressed to go to a Liturgical Church (like Swimmers) and say that somehow the Church was relegated to the back seat.

Luther did however make it clear that no individual or singular councils were above the Scriptures or the Church.

""Since then your sere Majesty and your Lordships seek a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, neither horned nor toothed. Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."

Quote:

---

Do you accept the Deuterocanonical (Apocryphal) books as Scripture?

---

I think their history is very messy, but that does not mean they aren't useful for us.

Quote:

---

I've said repeatedly we are talking about the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church visible in the New Testament. The same church we see in Acts that appointed Matthias to succeed Judas and fill his vacant office and thus counting him as one of the twelve apostles. The Church that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against.

---

Which we've never define. So I'll simply agree that there was a church, but it's not defined as the Roman Catholic Church. It would be much closer to a combination of the Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox Church.

Quote:

---

You, my friend, are the one on shaky ground.

---

So you can accuse me of "not explaining things" and then give this response? The reality is that the Roman Catholic church's has always needed people to rely on the Church more than Scripture. If the Church structure or history is questioned, they generally don't stay Roman Catholic for long.

Quote:

---

Just so we are clear, I absolutely understand the statements I am making. You have yet to make a coherent case either 1) explaining the flaws you see in my position, and 2) in providing support for your position.

---

I've continuously made the point that there has been no definition of "the Church." You're trying to self define the Roman Catholic Church as meeting that standard, ironically without any claim.

Quote:

---

This is where you completely miss the whole point - ALL of the apostolic churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, etc) are in complete agreement that the Apocryphal books are a part of the canon of scripture (inspired). If you want to claim the same history you have to claim the same history. Do you accept the Apocryphal as inspired Scripture? Are these books in your Bible or Canon today?

---

And since Luther didn't throw those books out, I guess that makes the Lutheran, Anglican, etc just fine...

So now your claim is that those who hold to Scripture alone are "the apostolic churches." That all other issues, heresies, splits are irrelevant? Interesting take, but I'll go with you on it.

Quote:

---

Now to your claim that apostolic succession was not discussed in scripture:

---

Your claim is really that Acts 1 singles out apostolic succession? That's crazy.

First off, everybody past the first generation fails verses 21 and 22 immediately since nobody "accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."

The only way this works in that manner is to twist the Scriptures up in to some weird argument that this applies to people in modern times who fail the above verses above. You do offer a great example of attempting to force fit a "manmade" concept/tradition into Scriptures vs letting Scriptures speak.

Second, now that I've established that it cannot mean apostolic succession, if you want to claim it somehow simply applies to general succession, than all you're establishing is that members of the Church should be the ones to pick their successors, and that's something that I could get behind.

Quote:

---

now I could give you countless examples throughout the NT of apostolic succession and the formation of the church, but I'll just start with this one to refute your claim. It was literally the first thing the apostles did following Jesus' ascension to Heaven.

---

You didn't actually provide a single one as I've shown above. At most what you've shown is that the Church is responsible for raising the next generation of leaders and teachers.

Quote:

---

You just articulated a MAJOR flaw that should be a concern for everyone living by the Bible alone.

Acts 8
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
31 "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

---

This is a wonderful example of Sola Scriptura!

I'm going to say something you'll view as controversial and then follow it up with why it's not.

The Ethiopian did something that most people do not. He read the Scriptures (though just a part) on his own and tried to understand what it meant. I suspect most nowadays start with someone telling them what to think and then take that slant into the Scriptures. The obvious problem is that it closes your mind and has you interpreting Scripture vs letting it speak to you.

Notice then it was only after the Ethiopian read the Scriptures did someone come and help him understand it.

That's Sola Scriptura as Martin Luther presented it. He wanted the commoner to read Scriptures, not have Rome tell them what was in it. Luther also did not claim to have an original idea, but turned to the Father's to interpret.

So wonderful example of Sola Scriptura in practice!

Quote:

---

The answer to my question was NO. Nowhere have I ever removed God from the equation. God is everywhere in all of this and you fail to see it! He is working through men throughout this entire process. I think your anti-Catholic bias is so strong you are having a difficult time with seeing this fact. This was all done by God's design and in a way that all of us with our human limitations could know the truth.

---

I'm not anti-Catholic btw. I certainly see major flaws in the past and present Church, but I'm not anti-Catholic. What I do dislike is anyone choosing to come in without an open mind to a discussion.

However, in this case, you continue to emphasize the Church as the doer vs God. The "church testifies to the Scriptures." Do you think that God needs the Church to spread his word? Do you think if the Church was corrupted that God's Word falls apart? I don't.

Quote:

---

Sorry, you have not shown this to be flawed. You have deflected and not addressed this question. In fact, this response begs the question - if heresies start as a result of wrong interpretation what mechanisms would be needed to correct them?

You seem to think that it should be impossible to ever have heresies because of the church. Without the church these heresies could have never been corrected. That's kind of my point - you need more than a book.

Example: please interpret the following sentence and tell me it's correct meaning:

"I never said you stole the money."

---

Deflected? Throughout history, the majority, if not all heresies started with someone who likely did not claim any sort of Sola Scriptura. That's not a deflection, that's simple history.

The rest is just incorrect projection again. Nowhere did I claim that the Church shouldn't exist. Luther (and others) were kicked out of the Church. They didn't leave or intend to start a new Church. They were excommunicated.

But you do go down another interesting pathway. How did the Church historically address issues? That effectively stopped when the Rome excommunicated the ecumenical patriarch

Starting to see a theme yet? Instead of addressing errors or debating via Councils (Ecumenical and otherwise), Rome self exalted itself to the position of no longer having to debate. It decided it was the authority, hence Papal supremacy was created.

And to head off your next argument, Matthew 16:18 has always been highly debated/disputed and most hold that it is not about Peter, but about the faith he professed that Jesus is the Son of God.

Btw...your example is silly and once again a complete misinterpretation of Sola Scriptura. It's quite frustrating you continue with this false line of reasoning.

But you want an answer...I'm going to look to what the rest of Scripture says. I'm going to look to what the Fathers before said. I'm going to look to the arguments that councils made. And from there I'll draw my 100% Sola Scriptura view.

Do you see yet where you are failing to apply Sola Scriptura correctly?

Quote:

---

What about the Traditions of the Church that are not explicitly found in Scripture but that are implicitly Scriptural?

---

You'll need to provide an example. You continually accuse me of misinterpreting you.

Quote:

---

These same fathers also argued that the Church and her Traditions were necessary. This does not make the case for Scripture alone.

---

Once again, you seem to try to claim that the Church and Traditions do not conform with Sola Scriptura. This is incorrect as I have repeatedly said and shown.

I am going to respond in detail to your post, but before I do I ask that you answer the following two YES or NO questions...

1. Do you, AgLiving06, accept the Deuterocanonical/ apocryphal books as inspired Scripture?

YES or NO

2. If yes, are the Deuterocanonical/ apocryphal books included and printed in your Bible today?

YES or NO

Sorry. I'm not going to respond to those types of questions. Nuance is important and your attempt to avoid it with gotcha type questions is pointless.

So instead, I'll reply with a direct quote from Martin Chemnitz, who wrote the rebuttal to the Council of Trent (and is one of the best theological book series out there btw).

"In the second place they destroy, abrogate, and set aside the difference between the canonical books of the Scripture and the Apocrypha, which is acknowledged by the whole true and pure ancient church, in order that the authority of the canonical books and of the Scripture and the Apocrypha may be equal and identical for the confirmation of churchly dogmas."

So like Chemnitz, I'm going to choose to follow what the ancient church did vs a decree from a "Council" in the 1600s that was essentially designed to anathematize every group not the Roman Catholic Church.

So asking you, a "Sola Scriptura" believer, to actually define what your Scripture includes is a "Gotcha" question??

The reason you refuse to answer the question is because of the shaky historical ground that you are standing on, not nuance. Nice try though. My Orthodox brothers do not adhere to Trent or Rome for their canon, but they accept the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture, Nuances and all. You are unwilling to even take a position and answer the basic question of if these books are in your Bible?

I am genuinely curious. You have leaned on Luther who reluctantly included them, but you've also alluded to ordering an apocrypha online to read which implies they are not still in your Bible today. I am confused and you won't clear up your position or your obvious inconsistencies.

Again, you profess to claim the same Church history that the Catholics and Orthodox claim, but you do not actually claim the same history. You pick and choose what you like and leave what you don't. The Scriptures and apostolic succession are two such examples.

I've tried to think of a good response, but frankly, I'm left speechless.

So first you claim to not hold to the very council that explicitly deemed what was "Roman Catholic." So was Trent wrong? You certainly make no argument either way.

Second, you try to make some claim that because a version of the Bible doesn't include the apocrypha that it means something. On the contrary. The correct question would be whether the Lutheran tradition forces anyone to exclude those books and the answer is clearly no. So you create false controversy not for any real reason, but to avoid answering real questions around Trent.

Not a good argument for sure.

Edit to add that this appears to be the extent our conversation can go. So this will be my last reply to you on this topic.

Have a great day and God Bless.

Quote:

---

I've tried to think of a good response, but frankly, I'm left speechless.

So first you claim to not hold to the very council that explicitly deemed what was "Roman Catholic." So was Trent wrong? You certainly make no argument either way.

---

No. That is NOT what I have said at all. Taking your anti-Roman Catholic glasses off might help. I accept Trent, but one does not have to accept Trent to accept the Deuterocanonicals as inspired scripture- case in point the Orthodox.

You refuse to take an actual position one way or the other on what is scripture - but then you hold to a doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Quote:

---

Second, you try to make some claim that because a version of the Bible doesn't include the apocrypha that it means something. On the contrary. The correct question would be whether the Lutheran tradition forces anyone to exclude those books and the answer is clearly no. So you create false controversy not for any real reason, but to avoid answering real questions around Trent.

Not a good argument for sure.

---

Does the Lutheran Church today accept, include, and treat these books as Scripture? While the Lutheran Church may not force you to exclude these books, do they encourage or force their faithful to include them?

Are these books included in your "Bible Alone"? Your Sola Scriptura.
I don't understand why this would be a difficult question to answer or would present you with so much trouble.

I think you edited your post at the same time I posted my response