Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

Christians by that time had many names.
"And they were first called 'Christians' at Antioch." Acts 11:26
and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (Acts 9:2) WEB
They were called brethren, believers, and many other names as well.
The word Catholic at first meant simply "universal" and never referred to the RCC before the fourth century.

As I was saying the word "catholic means...." And the word bishop is simply another word for pastor. Just look at our KJV. Let's not read into this literature more than it says:
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. (1 Timothy 3:1)
--Paul is giving the qualifications of a pastor as he writes a pastoral epistle to Timothy.

What proof do you need? Do you actually believe that every Christian was part of a state-run church. To believe that would be very naive.

There were always groups of individuals that took a stand against corruption whether in the churches or otherwise. Montanism was one such group. Montanus was concerned about the corruption in the churches, and separated himself and those who would follow him, into a way of life that would be separate from that worldly living and corruption way of life that had crept into many of the churches. If you remember Tertullian eventually became a Montanist. They separated from the corruption of churches gone astray, and were never a part of any state-run church either. That would be a good example.

Constantine was a politician, not a Christian.

 

Yes, we know all that. Our position is not that we are 'pro-Roman Catholic'* but that we do not wish to rely on the relativistic "Me, Jesus and my Bible" approach to Biblical interpretation advocated by you and others here which leads only to multiple 'truths' and thus epistemological confusion. We also want to rely on sound Church history, not wishful thinking.

*AFAIK, there's only one Roman Catholic on this thread and that's Lakeside.

 

You cannot believe what you defend and be consistent by staying outside the Roman Catholic Church. If someone embraces what you are teaching and actually practices it - they will join Rome as there is no other logical alternative and no other consistent alternative if they really believe what you teach.

You don't have to claim the name or be an actual member to be essentially Roman Catholic in theology. That is exactly why The Church of England and other Reformed Roman Catholic denominations are considering returning to Rome and that is precisely why many in their ranks have already returned to Rome.

 

Er...no. Some in the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England have swum the Tiber over the ordination of women and now women bishops. Those of us at the more evangelical end of the spectrum have no such intention.

 

"Sound"????? It is nothing but absolute confusion containing every conceivable error imaginable. You can use the ECF's to defend any doctrine you please and interpret any scripture any way you please.

Again, to avoid such obvious confusion you must logically depend upon church counsels and ultimately the Roman Catholic Church for clarity midst all traditional confusion.

Our position is trust Christ, His Word, the Indwelling Holy Spirit guided by sound principles of hermeutics to determine the truth (1 Jn. 2:29). Your position is trust Traditions of men as selected and refined by church counsels and ultimately by the Church at Rome.

 

Using the basic rules of hermenutics invalidates the use of scripture alone. See, you don't even hold to sola scriptura yourself - for if you did, scripture would be your only source AND... since you don't, it isn't.

Hmmmm... every time you are pinned by Traditions and the History of the Church, you flee back to sola scriptura (or at least some version of it) based entirely upon your personal interpretations.

And why should we play by rules to which we do not hold? Personally, I don't believe you CAN make your case using only scripture as you've not been able to do that, even without the introduction of Tradition or Church History.

Allow us? Right....

Promise?

Well, since you've given us your position, I'll give you mine. You have a very thin and often weak method of "defending" your points and when you attempt to defend them, you end up insulting virtually anyone who takes issue with you. You are not alone in this cheap tactic either. There, that's my position and one, I might add, that holds just as much weight as your own.

Well, that passage doesn't condem ALL traditions now does it?

Look doc - I and others here use scripture to back up our positions and to make the opposite inference is fallacious. Further, to believe that one can get a true understanding of scripture in a vacum without examining history, culture, tradition, and language is the reason you are in such a contorted state to begin with.

WM

 

I mean in particular contrast to the ahistorical nonsense spouted by the Trail of Blood people and my some here eg: referring to Jesus founding the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem:laugh:

Wrong again. You seem to treat this as some kind of zero-sum game -"My way or the RCC way" - but it isn't. There's plenty of stuff that the RCC unilaterally introduced since the Great Schism of 1054 with which I don't agree and that has never been ratified by any Ecumenical CHurch Council.

Again, it isn't a zero-sum game. I trust Christ, His Word as interpreted by His Body, the Church, the Holy Spirit which indwells both me and His Body. You really do misunderstand all this, don't you!

 

I am not talking abour your "intention" but about CONSISTENCY of teaching with practice. If you were consistent with the basics of your teaching concerning salvation, the church, authority for faith and practice, the ordinances, you would be in Rome. There are many Roman Catholics who are for women ordination and women bishops. Rome is broad enough to embrace all such differences.

I submit to you that ANYONE who embraces the basics of what you and others (WM, Thinkingstuff, etc.) cannot be CONSISTENT without joining the Roman Catholic Church. I believe the Roman Catholic on this forum will agree with me on this issue.

 

See my post above. Why do you think that Anglicans and Lutherans exist in the first place? (Hint: Anglicanism has virtually nothing to do with old King Harry in reality.) It is because, amongst other things, we hold to a different soteriology from that of the RCC and, whilst recognising the role of Tradition, hold Scripture to be supreme in matters of faith and doctrine.

 

Scriptures are my only source of faith and practice. Basic rules of hermenetuics are more than sufficient to prove "sola scriptura" and I have done it repeatedly and you and others have not been able to respond RATIONALLY. For example, "MORE SURE" - 2 Pet. 2:19; For example, "THROUGHLY FURNISHED" - 2 Tim. 3:16; For example, "bind up...and seal...among my disciples" - Isa. 8:16-20.

There is no end of confusion and alternative options in the vain traditions of men.

I did not deny that you "USE" scripture! You "use" it and abuse it. Furthermore, scripture is not in a vacuum as Paul explicitly states that "all scripture" not "all scripture plus traditions" make the "man of God" THROUGHLY or THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto "all" (not some) good works. Hence, the Scriptures ALONE provide all that is sufficient for doctrine, correction, instruction and reproof.

However, your position reverses this and denies that "all scripture" is sufficient to THOROUGHLY FURNISH the man of God unto "ALL" good works in regard to doctrine, correction, repoof and instruction. Your position flatly denies that scripture is sufficient alone for such things but traditions MUST be included in order for the man of God to be "THROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS" in regard to establishing those works by doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof.

No amount of fancy dancing around it can change this fact.

 

Scripture is supreme in your system ONLY AS IT IS PROPERLY INTERPRETED BY TRADITIONS OF MEN. Hence, traditions are really supreme in matters of faith and doctrine as they ultimately determine your understanding and meaning of scriptures.

However, Paul says that "all scripture" not "all scripture as interpreted by tradition" is given by inspiration and is THROUGHLY or THOROUGHLY sufficient to furnish the man of God with doctrine, instruction, correction, reproof essential for "ALL" (not some) good works - period! That is the doctrine of "sola scriptura."

 

Wrong again. It is Scripture as interpreted by Christ through His Body, the Church. In your theological paradigm, it is Scripture as interpreted by you privately. How is your private interpretation not a 'tradition of man'?

 

I suppose the question is: What scholars are "of repute" in your opinion. They may not fall in that same category in mine.

Matthew:
Scofield contends that there is no reason not to accept the traditional dating of 37 A.D. of this Gospel.
(That does seem a bit early). Most others I have read date it around the mid-50's. It is one of the earliest NT books.

Mark:
[FONT=&quot]The date of Mark has been variously placed between A.D. 57 and 63. [/FONT]

Luke. Here is some interesting information gleaned from B.W. Johnson:

What Johnson says makes sense. Luke was Paul's companion. He wrote two volumes. The second volume introduces the ascension to the readers. The first volume (the gospel of Luke) takes us up to that point. He had already finished the gospel, put the postage on the package, mailed by donkey-post, and Theophilus had already received it before he even started the Book of Acts. If Johnson's calculations are right Luke would have been written ca. 57 A.D.

John is dated in the 90's.

It seems that the synoptics are closer to the mid to late fifties rather than the 70's. Now whose scholars are of "repute"?
[/FONT]

 

The fallacy of your confession is that it ultimately makes fallible people and false traditions the final authority for interpreting and understanding of God's Word instead of the Author of the Word - The Holy Spirit, and thus makes your trust in Christ and your trust in His Word no more valid or right than what you have trusted to interpret both.

In other words, the Holy Spirit has been removed to a secondary position in regard to interpeting His Word. Fallible people and fallible traditions have been elevated above the Holy Spirit. Just look at where you place the Holy Spirit in your confession and that tells all.

 

Have a look at this piece.

[Reply to DHK]

 

You're far more condemning yourself by these words since you - and therefore your private interpretation - are a 'fallible person' and therefore your fallible interpretation is for you the final authority for understanding God's Word. At least with Apostolic Tradition you have the interpretation of the successors of some of the writers of the NT, who were discipled by those writers and hence far better equipped than you or I to know what they meant.

 

Wellhausen, Harnack, et. al. These liberal critics from the beginning have been out to destroy the Bible, negate the supernatural, do away with all prophecy. At every corner and opportunity available their focus is to attack the integrity of the Word of God.
It was Wellhausen that came up with the ridiculous JEDP theory of the Pentateuch--another attack on the Word of God. We have no reason to trust their scholarship at all.

 

And so it goes. They disagree with me therefore we cant trust their scholarship!!!!

How disingenuous.

 

Let’s take an analytical look at 2 Tim. 3:16

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Taking the verse apart we see the following:

1.Scripture is inspired by God Amen!

2. Scripture is profitable (yielding advantageous results) for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Again, Amen! Additionally, since scripture is inspired, then by nature, it is authoritative. However, nowhere does the verse state that scripture is sufficient. Further, nowhere in scripture do we find the words scripture alone. If scripture were the only authority, then one would expect to find it explicitly stated in scripture. It isn’t, therefore, Sola Scriptura (ironically by your own standard) is not scriptural.

Even you don't practice Sola Scriptura but apparently, you refuse to admit it.

Clearly, you don't understand the difference between the formal and material sufficiency of scripture.

Two points...

1) None of what you quoted states that scripture is the only authority, it simply states that it is sufficient to throughly furnish a man of God unto all good works [there's that works thing again] for doctrine, correction, repoof and instruction. If I join the military then I will be sufficiently furnished to march, drill, and fight. However, without training, I won't be able to use that with which I have been furnished.

2) Ultimately, Sola Scriptura is logically flawed:
a. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura dictates scripture as the only/sole/unique authority regarding matters of faith and morals
b. Scripture does not say that about itself
c. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is a FALSE doctrine.

There's one of the traditions of men that scripture admonishes you about.

WM

 

So 'reputable' = 'only those who agree with me'. I see...