Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

Traditions of men!

WM

 

Funny, Anastasia doesn't in your quote define Sola Scriptura. But Prima Scriptura. How do you know Anastasia doesn't know what Sola Scriptura is?

 

They are always to be understood the way the apostles themselves taught us, and that we have in the Bible itself. That which has been passed down in fallible writings are just that--fallible. God's word alone is infallible. That is why God gave the believer the Holy Spirit, that he might have the wisdom to understand the Scriptures that the unbeliever cannot understand. Many of your "Apostolic Traditions" come from unsaved individuals.

And: purgatory, the assumption of Mary, baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. Yes, all of this is under that same name of Tradition as well. And you buy into it?????

What was consistently observed with Tertullian, one of our early ECF?
The infant baptism at the beginning of his life, or the baptism by immersion for adults only at the end of his life? Which one is the "Apostolic Tradition"? Which Tertullian are you going to ask: early one or the latter one?

 

Matt, I apologise. Bad checking on my part before clicking on "Submit Reply". :tear:

I imagine the alleged "shortcomings" were these:

Two points, neither of which is new in our exchanges on the BB:

1. Yes, there are differences among those people who believe that God's Word alone is our authority. That is to be expected, because not one human being has perfect understanding of God and His Word. But I would suggest that despite the differences (even what you call the fundamental one of "Calvinists -v- Arminians"), all who hold to Sola Scriptura (as far as I am aware) are agreed on the "basics", the "Root of the Matter", to use the title of one of Spurgeon's sermons, such as the divinity of Jesus Christ, the necessity of believing on Him to be saved, the fact that He is the only Saviour, and so on. In order to deny any element of this "root", it is necessary to go beyond the bible. The Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the scientologists, and so on, didn't get their distinctive beliefs by holding to a "Sola Scriptura" position. The JWs had to have their own "translation" of the bible in order to bolster their belief that Jesus is not God. So in their version, John 1.1 reads:

"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
​

And Colossians 2.9, according to them, says:

"Because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."
​

The Mormons have the bible, but they add "The Book of Mormon" to get their distinctive doctrines. And so it goes on.

2. Your charge of there being disagreements among those who hold to Sola Scriptura could equally be made against those who don't. The "non-SS community" is not populated by folk who all believe exactly the same.

 

Well DHK, some of these doctrines really only came into serious question during the reformation in the early 1500's. Just for grins, let's do a little math here:

For the first 1500 years the Church taught these doctrines. That means that God in his power let millions of people live and worship a lie only to send them all to hell at the end of their lives. If that were true, then the gates of Hell actually did prevail against the Church. Thankfully, we know that to be patently false.

Oh... and please don't provide us with revisionist historical fantasies about the REAL church being in hiding for the first 1500 years while the big bad RCC Whore of Babylon with it's anti-Christ Popes persecuted them and destroyed all of their writings and all of the historical evidence of their existence. That would be so Jack Chickish of you.

WM

 

I was a member of a church that never took up an offering. They left an "offering box" on a table in the back of the church where the members themselves could "bring their tithes and offerings" and put them in the offering box. If you want to call it a tradition then so be it. I would rather look it as their way of doing things.
Our church simply "passes the plate," so to speak. Do we call it a tradition? No. It is just the way it is done. A method that works for us. We could incorporate better technology I suppose, like portable debit machines, and incorporate a better way. Taking up an offering is not a tradition; it is a way of doing something. We are not bound by it.

Some of the churches I have been to have a mid-week service on Thursday instead of Wednesday. It is not a tradition that we are bound by. They also differ as to the nature, the order, the content, of the meeting. Some have more stress on the Bible Study. Some are almost completely given to prayer. There is no Tradition here only obedience to a command of Scripture:

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Hebrews 10:25)

The Catholics (and others) teach for traditions the doctrines of men, which I have listed for you--doctrines, which if heeded, will send people straight to hell.

 

Like the Assumption of Mary? It was 1950. Hardly pre-reformation.

Get your history straight. Those churches that followed the doctrine of the apostles, that is the Bible, never taught such heresy. There is and was no "Church," unless you are referring to the apostate RCC. It never was a "church" in the first place. The only church or churches I know of are local in nature as the word ekklesia denotes.

The RCC came into existence in the 4th century, so maybe your speaking of an 1100 year period when the RCC was in existence and believed the heresies that I previously mentioned:

Neither the early church believed them, nor do those that believe the Bible today believe them.

The RCC never came into existence until the 4th century. That is well documented. What existed before then and along with it? Churches! Churches that believed the Bible. Churches like the ones Paul started. He started over 100 churches in three missionary journeys; not denominations, but churches.

 

Well, it is arguable whether or not heeding "Catholic" Traditions will send people straight to hell. Of one thing I am sure - that it is the "heeding" and NOT the doctrines that would send them there.

WM

 

And that is Apostolic Tradition.

Yes and the consistent teaching that has not changed in 2,000 years.

The problem with this statement is it belies the truth. No one reads the ECF as fallible or infallible but as reliable witness to those things believed by their contemporaries. The Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, or Anglicans have not suggested that the ECF are infallible in the entirety of their work. But they are a reliable witness to what was taught by the apostles. And that is important.

No one disputes that.

That is not why he gave the Holy Spirit to the believer. He gave the Holy Spirit to the believer that the believer might be lead into all truth.

Yes but not independently of the community which God established ie the Kingdom of God or the Ecclessia (the assembly of those called out)

Contrarily, the "Apostolic Traditions" come from the Apostles themselves. Apostolic Traditons consist of writen words and teachings they passed down. For instance 2 Tim 3:14

shows Paul convinsing Timothy to continue from the teachings passed down from him and the apostles and together with that Paul continues

with what else was included in timothy's training AND scriptures. Ie what the apostles have taught and what the scriptures themselves say. Together these things are the full expressed teachings that have been passed down and together scripture and the teachings of the Apostles are Apostolic Traditions.

These consepts are never fully understood by those who don't understand them. For instance Purgatory is nothing more than the flushing out of what is expected in Sanctification. The Assumption of Mary has been consitantly taught through out Church history but in actuality has no effect on salvation but here is the key to it and why it is believe: This doctrine holds to it a promise of our own resurrection. Jesus will bodily raise us from the dead and reward us with faithfulness even as he did his mother who was the first faithful Christian in that she was the very first human being to believe who Jesus was. Thus it is believed that Jesus being faithful to his mother ressurrected her and took her bodily into heaven. So will he do the rest of those who believe. But we can go way back in history long before Constantine and see early Christian teaching of this. Baptismal regeneration is clearly taught in scriptures. Acts 2:37-38

Also in John 3:5

in which the Greek word for water is hydōr meaning

never elsewhere in Greek writing does this word connotate embiotic fluid. Its always associated with water. Thus not every man born of flesh and of spirit but every man born in water (baptism) and of spirit. And we have this testimony only 50 years after Jesus of a person making a witness of what early Christians believed by Justin Martyr

It is clear this passage in John was understood by the early Christians as baptismal regeneration.

 

It is quite simple. Biblical Christianity has a simple message of salvation--the gospel--a message that is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It is the only faith in the world that is not of works. All eastern religions, and other world religions, and cults insist that one must work their way to heaven. Biblical Christianity alone states that salvation is by faith alone.

Along with all the other religions of the world, the RCC states that salvation is by works--the work of baptism, the work of confirmation, the works of the sacraments, etc. It is a religion of works that condemns instead of saves, or at least points one to the Saviour.

 

Wrong again DHK. It was taught very early on and was only formalized as Church teaching when people start challenging it. I believe that did happen when the Pope and the College of Cardinals made it official in 1950. However, Thinkingstuff is the goto guy on those topics.

Here's some history for ya' DHK. The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

Let's see now - I believe that 110 AD kind of pre-dates your 4th century claim by several hundred years documenting the Catholic Church's existence to within 70 or so years of the death of the last apostle.

Oops....

And by what authority do you - little human fallible DHK proclaim them to be heresies?

Well, that's pretty much your opinion now isn't it?

I have shown you evidence proving that date wrong and, if you want I can give you more of the historical record from St. Ignatius all the way up to St. Augustine indicating the succession of the Popes. Can you provide the "proof" of which you claim to the contrary? Oh wait... I forgot... there isn't any because the dirty RCC destroyed it all. How convenient.

WM

 

Excellent summary!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Which year in the 4th century?

 

No it isn't. I don't trust what people call Apostolic Tradition. I trust the Word of God. You are playing a game of semantics. Wicked men throughout the ages have come up with a body of information that is full of false doctrine. They call it Apostolic Tradition, though the apostles themselves would call it heresy.

If that were true the only kind of church that would exist today would be IFB churches, and the RCC would have never been in existence at all. But the teaching of the Bible has been changed--again and again and again.

They are not reliable at all.
Ireneus believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80! How reliable is that?
Origen was a heretic even by the RCC standards. Most credit him as the Father of Arianism.
Most modern-day heresies and heresies of the RCC had their seeds in the ECF. They are not reliable.

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:12-13)
--Jesus was speaking to his disciples/apostles. He would tell them more but now is not the time. The Holy Spirit would guide them (not us) into all truth. It is a reference to the writing of Scripture. The Holy Spirit would guide them into writing all the truth of Scripture that needed to be written. He would show them exactly what to write. It would be infallible.
Do you know "all truth"? Be honest? Will you ever know "all truth"? Even in heaven, do you think you will gain omniscience, and know "all truth"?
The verse is wrongly used many many times. It was said to his disciples. It refers to the inspiration of the Word of God.

You are way off here. Ekklesia has only one meaning and that is "assembly" or "congregation." It always means local; a local assembly. The only time it takes on a meaning that you suggest is when all believers will assemble in heaven after the rapture takes place. The Bible constantly commands individuals, not communities to study the Word of God.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)
--There are many such Scriptures. There is no passage of Scripture that suggests we ought to do what you just said: "(study) but not independently of the community which God established i.e. the Kingdom of God..." Hogwash! Where do you find such a concept in the Bible?

Then the apostles would still be living wouldn't they?
Either that, or we would all be Baptists.
Since neither of those is true then Apostolic Tradition has been corrupted. We know that it has error and even heresy that the apostles themselves would never teach.
[quotte] Apostolic Traditons consist of writen words and teachings they passed down.[/quote]
What was passed down is the Bible. That alone is trustworthy. There is something here to be said for sola scriptura.

The quote is from 2Tim. It is a pastoral epistle--an epistle "training" if you so desire, Timothy in the proper running and administration of a church. Thus the Scripture is there for all of our benefit. It is not tradition; it is Scripture. Paul has instructed Timothy concerning the order of the church; he was pastor of the church at Ephesus, and he has taught him doctrine. Both of these are recorded in the Bible for our benefit. It doesn't make either one "tradition."

 

The biggest source of unreliability on this thread would appear to be DHK, not the Patristic period writers: he's wrong on his revisionist take on church history, doctrinal meaning and Scriptural interpretation.

 

Now that's profound.

Same old heresy covered over in different words. It is not taught in the Bible. It is a "damnable heresy," as Peter calls it. Notice that you don't give any Scripture to back any of these up.

I thought you would be more educated than to believe in fairy tales. If you are going to post bogus doctrine and try and defend at least quote Scripture to try and defend it. Otherwise you only make a mockery of yourself.
The Assumption of Mary officially became a RCC doctrine in 1950; please don't tell me it was always believed; it wasn't. It has no relation to our resurrection. It is a fable that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven--a myth with no factual basis. There is no reason to believe this any more than the moon is made of green cheese. Where are the facts?

How did Jesus reward his mother. The last thing that Jesus said to Mary is: "Behold thy son," as he directed her to the Apostle John, and for John to take care of her after his death. The Mary, sometime after Pentecost, died. Mary is dead. She is dead like any other person. Her body waits for the redemption of her body, the resurrection. Right now she is simply a pile of dead bones somewhere.

Lies and fairy tales. Tell the truth. Back it up by Scripture. Don't post fables. Where is your evidence for such heresy.

No it isn't. Not one verse. Acts 2:38 doesn't teach it either.

You speak as one who has never studied the Bible. I would think you would know better than that.

I know what the Greek word is. It is the word for "water." The fact is that "water" is symbolic isn't it? You say it is symbolic for baptism. The other fact to notice here is that baptism is not mentioned anywhere or even suggested in this entire passage. It is the least thing that would have been on Nicodemus mind. It doesn't fit the context. The RCC affirms that it is baptism only because of their catechism and their belief in baptismal regeneration. How convenient! But that heresy is not taught here.

What is the common usage of water? For most it is washing. Nicodemus knew well the OT, and when Jesus mentioned water, his mind no doubt went back to the OT to verses such as:

Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. (Psalms 119:9)
--What makes one clean? It is the Word of God. Water is symbolic of the Word of God.

Jesus taught the same thing:
Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. (John 15:3)
--What is water symbolic of? It is the Word of God.

James teaches the same thing:
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)
--He begat us, that is, we are born again by the word of truth or the word of God. The Word of God is essential to the new birth.

Peter teaches the same thing.
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)
--One is born again by the Word of God. It is stated very clearly and plainly.

Now, according to John 3:5 there are two and only two agents by which a man is born again. One is water, and the other is the Spirit. We have now seen that water is symbolic of the Word of God. One cannot be born again without the Word of God, nor can he without the Spirit of God; both are needed. And that is what the verse means. Baptismal regeneration is not taught at all.

 

Wow! Peter called Purgatory a 'damnable heresy'? Chapter and verse, please.

Maybe not 'always believed' but believed for many mnay centuries prior to it being proclaimed as dogma in 1950. Again, please get your facts right before posting.

An impartial observer could say and ask the same of the Ascension of Jesus. Or His Resurrection.

Er...yes it does. I would suggest you re-read it. As does I Peter 3:20-21

And you appear not to have read the two verses above.

No. Again, please check your facts. Water is no more symbolic than the Spirit of Whom Jesus speaks in the same sentence.

Pure speculation!

 

Uh. Yes it is.

When wrong redefine things to suite you! LOL.

Baptist didn't come into existance until the 1600 They were a culmination of beliefs garnered from the Anibaptist (modern day Amish and Mennonites), Old Reformed Calvnist teachings, and English Puritanism. They became a solidfied group in Holland and came to the United States. Except for a nonrelated welsh group. Baptist did not exist prior to that. And certainly did not exist during the patristic period.

The teaching of the bible has not changed it has remained consistent. Its personal interpretations that have.

As a matter of witness to what their contemporaries believed they were. As are many non Christians like Pliny the younger who testifies to christian beliefs. For instance Pliny observe Christians would meet publically to present the gospel, say prayers, sing praises, and have people encourage each other to live rightly. Pliny also observes when chistians meet to have communion they do it privately away from people who don't believe. Pliny has no reason to lie about his behavior. Which give insite into early worship service. Ie... the Liturgy of the word and later the Liturgy of the Eucharist. We know liturgical style worship was introduced into the Christian faith from their jewish predicessors the Apostles. Ie. IN Acts Peter and James go to the 3:00 pm Prayers. Why? it was liturgical prayers. It wasn't temple open prayer time meet you at the pole. Some of these practices were brought into the Church itself.

Thats not true if you read book V of adverse Heresies you would know He was speaking of John who lived during Trajan.

It seems more reliable than your reading comprehension of that passage.

Again wrong on the details. Origen spent a lot of time with speculative theology and he even admitted he was wrong at times but he would not go against the body of the church. Arius is the father of Arianism thus its title. And the Only reason you consider Arianism a heresy is because the body of the Church in 325 delcaired it so at Nicea. No Baptist preacher even mentioned Arius in 324 AD.

Again you are wrong most modern day heresies are born from pride of personal opinion. Jesus is whom I say he is not Jesus is whom he is revealed to be.

Thanks for proving my point about the Holy Spirit.

Misapplied scripture. You have to prove this point by using the bible alone. Because that is not what that passage says.

Do you know all truth? Be honest. Be honest. I do believe this Jesus is the Truth and I know him. And one day I may be given all truth.

you need to touch up on your Greek. It means a gathering of those called out. Always had.

Yet Jesus establishes a Church. Not churches. He calls it his body not bodies. And Yet you also forget what the apostles themselves have said.

Oh yeah thats right baptist don't believe the OT.

together with Hebrews we know that worship is a community thing as well as a single thing.

Nope you don't understand the term "Passed on" the Parusia .

Only a mal informed Landmarkist would think that. There is no evidence of baptist before the 1600's.

. And apostolic Tradition on understanding those text.

 

Ekklesia is also used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew qahal which is used to mean the whole community of Israel. Thus the Church (singular) is the new Israel (singular).

 

A total non sequitor as there was no NT church in the Old Testament.

Plus the fact the nation of Israel could assemble and was called to assemble many times. Hence the word means assembly as it always had. Thanks for proving my point.