A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!

[ThomistColin]

I don't mean to come off as obtuse, but you studied nothing and gained nothing.

You don't come off obtuse. You come off as if attacking education. So, if a Christian learns about Biology in a class about Biology that is acceptable. But if a Christian studies the history of the Church in a class about the History of the Church, he's learned nothing?! Really?

And before you get all crazy...the Professor is a Reformed Theologian and Historian of the Reformed Church in New Jersey. (Reformed meaning he is a Calvinist.)

 

[Nick01]

Oh hai, Kerry :/

 

[Kerry]

You don't come off obtuse. You come off as if attacking education. So, if a Christian learns about Biology in a class about Biology that is acceptable. But if a Christian studies the history of the Church in a class about the History of the Church, he's learned nothing?! Really?

And before you get all crazy...the Professor is a Reformed Theologian and Historian of the Reformed Church in New Jersey. (Reformed meaning he is a Calvinist.)

So you learned some church History hoooray. I have met theologians that no nothing about the cross. Learning history is a good thing but understanding what they were doing is a different thing. I'm gonna take a big guess and say it was all about the works you can do?

 

[Kerry]

Oh hai, Kerry :/

Hi nick I have to say it again or it will not post hi nick

 

[ThomistColin]

So you learned some church History hoooray. I have met theologians that no nothing about the cross. Learning history is a good thing but understanding what they were doing is a different thing. I'm gonna take a big guess and say it was all about the works you can do?

Calvinists don't agree with Catholics on salvation. So, no, the prayers were for the Lord to ensure that the professor taught that which the Lord wished to be taught and that the class lead none away from the loving arms of Jesus Christ. You're assuming again.

 

[Nick01]

You're right, I'm sorry, for some reason as we were discussing Athanasius I mixed in Iranaeus, which is a huge leap in centuries I know. However, Augustine mentions the Gospel of Peter and the Acts of Peter being used by the Corinthian Church, until a "papal edict" denounced the Scriptures. "Papal Edict" is the modern term, Augustine called it the decision of the Bishop, though at the time of Augustine there were no Bishops over Corinth, and himself being a Bishop at the time, most scholars believe he is speaking of the Bishop of Rome.

Augustine relates a story about Peter, but it is by no means clear that it is equivalent to any extant text that we have, or even that Augustine is referring to a specific written work. If you can give me a link to the relevant passage of Augustine ( I think it's Contra Adimantum), that would be helpful.

For that matter, I'm not actually sure that Irenaeus actually cites an Acts of Peter, either, but merely talks about Peter's crucifixion and, if I recall correctly, Simon Magus, all of which could be completely independent on any written text, let alone one that was widespread enough to be considered canonical or on the fringes of the canon in the manner of the Shepherd. Another citation to Irenaeus work would also be helpful for us to work that out.

Second, my study of the discussion of Canon at Nicea was short. I took a class on the discussion of Canon, and we discussed that the Canon of Scripture is discussed and tabled at Nicea. It's cited in one of the Bishops who went, who stated that he and others sought to bring up the heretical Scriptures and was rebuffed (I'll look up his name in my textbook. I don't have it on me)

Citations are always helpful As far as I know, there was no formal tabling of canon at Nicea. Perhaps you're thinking of Laodicea?

Third, yes, that's why I said the first version of the Athanasian Creed. We do read about Athanasius arguing the doctrine of the Trinity. Though he did not pen the Creed exactly as written, most scholars feel that it is based off of a Creed written and espoused by Athanasius and the early Church.

It could have been, but afaik, there is no evidence that Athanasius had any involvement in that specific creed - the only main reason to connect the two is obviously the Trinitarian focus, but again, nothing in Athanasius' work that would indicate he himself prepared a specific text comparable to the Ath Creed. He may have had influence in terms of the the themes in an indirect way, but I think any formal work on the Ath Creed at Nicea is a little speculative, especially considering the production of the Nicean Creed at the same time.

 

[Nick01]

Hi nick I have to say it again or it will not post hi nick

Oh, you could have just used smilies or something, as well, probably.

 

[Kerry]

Calvinists don't agree with Catholics on salvation. So, no, the prayers were for the Lord to ensure that the professor taught that which the Lord wished to be taught and that the class lead none away from the loving arms of Jesus Christ. You're assuming again.

Good as I said it was a guess. But what is your interpretation of this passage of scripture?

Galations 2:19

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

 

[ThomistColin]

True, and I agree. When I find my textbook, I'll send the citation.

Its possible I might be thinking of Laodicea, but I'm sure he mentioned being at Nicea when it was tabled.

I love the Nicene Creed though, and I didn't discover the Athanasian Creed until college (and I still think by far its the best explanation of the Trinity I've ever read, simply because it doesn't explain it. )

 

[ThomistColin]

Good as I said it was a guess. But what is your interpretation of this passage of scripture?

Galations 2:19

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

That upon accepting Christ into my life and becoming a Christian, I am with Christ at the Cross. For every Christian is crucified with Christ, just as the Holy Thief. And let us discuss this in PM, since this topic is about Sola Scriptura and not Sola Fide.

 

[Kerry]

well I done for the night if you want PM me then PM me. I like John, he spoke about love more than anyone yet He also fought against false doctrine more than anyone else in the bible. Tradition say's that He went into a bath house with many followers and saw a teacher of false doctrine and shouted let's leave lest the building fall upon us. He didn't want to be in the same room with the false teacher. Then say's do not welcome them nor wish them God Speed lest you partake of their false doctrine. That is the same as us saying God bless you. John the preacher of love.

 

[Dan_473]

The Word existed perfectly in written form in Latin manuscripts (Not the corrupt Latin Vulgate Roman Catholic manuscripts) before the KJV 1769 (1611). Before the Latin, they existed perfectly in Greek manuscripts (NT) and Hebrew manuscripts (OT). But as I said before, only the "Written Word of God" now exists from after the point of the close of the book of Revelation (When John's scroll was complete).

this is totally great, and interesting! so, in 1768 there were Latin forms of the Word... what happened to those copies in 1769?

 

[Atwood]

Calvinists don't agree with Catholics on salvation. So, no, the prayers were for the Lord to ensure that the professor taught that which the Lord wished to be taught and that the class lead none away from the loving arms of Jesus Christ. You're assuming again.

Thomist:
Do you think it might be helpful to forget the denominational hangups & consider God's Word?
Get out your highlighter & read from Gen-Rev & mark all the passages.

The Word says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved."

"Commit thy way unto YHWH;
Trust also in him, and he will bring it to pass.
And he will make thy righteousness to go forth as the light,
And thy justice as the noonday.
Rest in Jehovah,"

Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for
He shall save His people from their sins.

Do you note how He is the Savior, not a mere chance-giver. He guarantees the outcome.

To be saved requires resting from one's works, and resting in the Savior by trusting Him with your life & eternal destiny. [Mary has no part in this.]

Come to Me all ye who labor & are heavy laden, . . . and I will give you rest.

To-day if ye shall hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation,
Like as in the day of the trial in the wilderness,
9 Where your fathers tried me by proving me,
And saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was displeased with this generation,
And said, They do always err in their heart:
But they did not know my ways;
11 As I sware in my wrath,
They shall not enter into my rest.


12 Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, . . .
And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that were disobedient? 19 And we see that they were not able to enter in because of unbelief.

[the only command to obey for salvation is "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved." It is a profound rest in Him.]


4:1 Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also they: but the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard. 3 For we who have believed do enter into that rest; even as he hath said,
As I sware in my wrath,
They shall not enter into my rest:
although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day on this wise, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works; 5 and in this place again,
They shall not enter into my rest.


6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter thereinto, and they to whom the good tidings were before preached failed to enter in because of disobedience, 7 he again defineth a certain day, To-day, saying in David so long a time afterward (even as hath been said before),
To-day if ye shall hear his voice,
Harden not your hearts.


8 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest hath himself also rested from his works, as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, . . . .

Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of need.

 

[Atwood]

It being an academic class, no, not in class. After class, yes. Most of the students were Christian. We prayed with the Professor before the other students arrived to class and after class.

What leads you to believe that they were Christian?

 

[Atwood]

You're right, I'm sorry, for some reason as we were discussing Athanasius I mixed in Iranaeus, which is a huge leap in centuries I know. However, Augustine mentions the Gospel of Peter and the Acts of Peter being used by the Corinthian Church, until a "papal edict" denounced the Scriptures.

To establish a truth requires at least 2 reliable witnesses. How much time did old Augy spend at Corinth? "Being used by" -- what does that mean? My local church has a lot of books in its library which are used, even some writings by heretics. Once I was in a Presbyterian church service where the pastor read from a story about The 4th Wiseman. It went like this: The 4th wiseman left after the 3, and got off the direct road to Bethlehem. He had a bag of gold coins for the baby Jesus, but #4 kept running into people in need & giving them some coins. By the time he got to the baby Jesus, his bag was empty! (I think this was a story promoting salvation by works! read by an obtuse Calvinist!) So then I could go and say, "The Church of Philadelphia (Pa) uses The 4th Wiseman.

But I don't care what ol Augy said, "MY Sheep hear my voice." That means that Sheep (believers in Christ) intuitively know what is God's word -- they don't recognize stranger voices). And it is obvious that from the time the original recipients got a prophetic epistle from an apostle, they recognized it as God's Word. No one thought they should wait 300 years for some old religious fogies in robes & beards to tell them if it was God's word or not. Peter recognized Paul's letters at once. The 7 Churches of Asia Minor accepted John's Revelation at once. Your whole concept of canon is in error.

Heretics arose from the getgo. The early church was quickly corrupted (see 3 John & Diotrophes). Instead of having a plurality of elders=bishops, the monarchal bishop arose along with Patriarchs, & eventually a big papa in Rome -- none of this in the Bible. So they later debated the canon & made decisions on it. But they did not make God's Word.

Now you really have to make a decision on your theological epistemology:
Is it the RCC first or the Word of God first?
Do you recognize the Word of God & then try to prove the RCC is true?
Or do you recognize the RCC first & then try to prove the Bible is true from that?
Circular reasoning: A, therefore B. B, therefore A.
I start with God's word, self-evidently God's word.
Therefore the RCC is not true, as it is alien to the Word.

That is not to deny that whosoever believes in the Son of God (even if loyal to the Pope) has everlasting life. Believe = trust in Him as SAvior (not mere chance-giver).

 

[ThomistColin]

Hey Nick01,

I was wrong. It wasn't Nicea, it was Chalcedon when the other Scriptures were tabled. Chalcedon came after Hippo and Carthage.

 

[ThomistColin]

To establish a truth requires at least 2 reliable witnesses. How much time did old Augy spend at Corinth? "Being used by" -- what does that mean? My local church has a lot of books in its library which are used, even some writings by heretics. Once I was in a Presbyterian church service where the pastor read from a story about The 4th Wiseman. It went like this: The 4th wiseman left after the 3, and got off the direct road to Bethlehem. He had a bag of gold coins for the baby Jesus, but #4 kept running into people in need & giving them some coins. By the time he got to the baby Jesus, his bag was empty! (I think this was a story promoting salvation by works! read by an obtuse Calvinist!) So then I could go and say, "The Church of Philadelphia (Pa) uses The 4th Wiseman.

But I don't care what ol Augy said, "MY Sheep hear my voice." That means that Sheep (believers in Christ) intuitively know what is God's word -- they don't recognize stranger voices). And it is obvious that from the time the original recipients got a prophetic epistle from an apostle, they recognized it as God's Word. No one thought they should wait 300 years for some old religious fogies in robes & beards to tell them if it was God's word or not. Peter recognized Paul's letters at once. The 7 Churches of Asia Minor accepted John's Revelation at once. Your whole concept of canon is in error.

Heretics arose from the getgo. The early church was quickly corrupted (see 3 John & Diotrophes). Instead of having a plurality of elders=bishops, the monarchal bishop arose along with Patriarchs, & eventually a big papa in Rome -- none of this in the Bible. So they later debated the canon & made decisions on it. But they did not make God's Word.

Now you really have to make a decision on your theological epistemology:
Is it the RCC first or the Word of God first?
Do you recognize the Word of God & then try to prove the RCC is true?
Or do you recognize the RCC first & then try to prove the Bible is true from that?
Circular reasoning: A, therefore B. B, therefore A.
I start with God's word, self-evidently God's word.
Therefore the RCC is not true, as it is alien to the Word.

That is not to deny that whosoever believes in the Son of God (even if loyal to the Pope) has everlasting life. Believe = trust in Him as SAvior (not mere chance-giver).

Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

 

[Atwood]

Calvinists don't agree with Catholics on salvation. So, no, the prayers were for the Lord to ensure that the professor taught that which the Lord wished to be taught and that the class lead none away from the loving arms of Jesus Christ. You're assuming again.

Those sound like worthy prayers, Colin.
So Colin,
You are saying that you actually talked with God, instead of reciting rote formulas? Did you recite any Hail Marys? Did you say something to Mary? If so, what?

 

[Atwood]

Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

I note you ignored most of my post apparently.
Now which is it, Colin?

Is the RCC true because the Bible says it?
Or is the Bible true because the RCC says it?

Circular reasoning: A therefore B, B therefore A.

Someone reading here may think you duck the question.

 

[Atwood]

Hey Nick01,

I was wrong. It wasn't Nicea, it was Chalcedon when the other Scriptures were tabled. Chalcedon came after Hippo and Carthage.

Thomist, off the top of your head, could you tell me what book comes before & after Nahum?