Concerning Sola Scriptura

[Guest JeffCR07]

Mustbenothing, I would just like to ask a brief question with regards to your definition of [i]sola scriptura[/i]. How is it that you hold this definition when it is not the one used by any of the most prominent Protestant theologians. Don Kistler, James White, Norman Geisler, Ralph MacKenzie, Robert Godfrey, [i]none[/i] of them support your claim.

The real question I have, however, is the following.

You state that "Sola Scriptura claims that the Scripture is our alone infallible rule of faith oustide of the apostolic era."

As you have made clear in that same post, you allow for non-scriptural infallible statements within the apostolic era.

The problem with the above is that you present a view of the history of the Church in which there are, at first, infallible teachings coming from extra-scriptural sources as well as scripture itself, but then you simply allow for all those extra-scriptural teachings to fall into nothing and fade away, to be forgotten or discarded. Then we are left with [i]sola scriptura[/i].

However, I maintain (and I believe the scholars I listed above would maintain as well), that such a position is utterly untenable, as it is self defeating. If the extra-scriptural teachings of the apostles are infallible, as you state, and the apostle's mission was to lay the groundwork for the church, then, just as the infallible teachings of the Scripture is necessary for the constant growth of the Church, so too are those other infallible teachings that come from the Apostles.

To state that an entire body of unwritten, infallible teachings were utterly forgotten or left behind is to state, point blank, that the Apostles did not complete their work.

Ironically enough, if the above is true, then one cannot, under your own definition, state that the apostolic era has come to an end.

Ultimately, it is much more tenable for a protestant to assert that there was no extra-scriptural [i]infallible[/i] teachings, even during the apostolic era, that to assert that there [i]were[/i] such teachings, but that they have since been forgotten or left behind.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 27 2004, 02:20 AM'] How many SS are there??? Theres one that accepts SS as only the bible, another one that does 2, but recognize there could be outside teaching, and another one which recognizes the bible only, but does recognize outside teachings, and refuses them. [/quote]
Lol... and I always found it ironic that protestants believe in sola scriptura and sola fide. How can you believe in two principles that have 'sola' in them?

[p0lar_bear]

Jeff,

mustbenothing hasn't posted in almost a year. I don't think you are going to get a response...

[Guest JeffCR07]

woah, I saw "August" and I didn't bother to read/process the "2003" that immediately followed, lol.

my bad....

[MorphRC]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Aug 28 2004, 01:10 AM'] Lol... and I always found it ironic that protestants believe in sola scriptura and sola fide. How can you believe in two principles that have 'sola' in them? [/quote]
Lol. Its very, very, very screwed up. [i]The 5 Solas[/i]. Its like [i]The 5 Oxymorons[/i].

[phatcatholic]

yea, i about died when i got my first tongue-lashing by a protestant for assuming that all protestants defined "Sola Scriptura" the same way.

[MorphRC]

Its gotta be one of the most confused and purposely confusing religions there is.

[ICTHUS]

Nice of you all to attack John when he's not here to defend himself.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Aug 27 2004, 09:40 AM'] Lol... and I always found it ironic that protestants believe in sola scriptura and sola fide. How can you believe in two principles that have 'sola' in them? [/quote]
I can't say as I understand the premise of your objection.

The five solas are meant to be taken as a unit..

Sola Gratia ~ Sola Fide ~ Solus Christus ~ Sola Scriptura ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, through the instrument of the atonement of Christ alone, all based on Scripture alone, to the glory of God the Father alone.

Glorious Gospel it is!

[MichaelFilo]

Alone is so un-unified

Edited August 29, 2004 by MichaelFilo

[MorphRC]

If prots are so against the Church, why do they use the language of the Church?.. Just a thought

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 29 2004, 11:15 AM'] If prots are so against the Church, why do they use the language of the Church?.. Just a thought [/quote]
I would prefer if you called us "Protestants"

Second, the Reformers used Latin because it was the language of the Church at the time (i.e. Luther wrote "De Servo Arbitro", his famous treatise against Erasmus of Rotterdam, in Latin, not German). Nowadays, however, we are more than content to use English, German, or whatever the native tongue is.

And we are not against the Church, this is the reason why we protest the errors of the Roman Catholics - on the contrary, it is out of love for Christ's Bride that we have rescued her from the errors of those who kept her hostage in idolatry for so long.

Edited August 29, 2004 by ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 29 2004, 11:07 AM'] Alone is so un-unified [/quote]
Explain?

[MorphRC]

Ok. But Christ said hell will never take over the Church, but your saying it did, for a long time to I might add, and then it was 'saved'...so what your indirectly saying is, Christ was a liar. He promised, He failed.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 29 2004, 11:26 AM'] Ok. But Christ said hell will never take over the Church, but your saying it did, for a long time to I might add, and then it was 'saved'...so what your indirectly saying is, Christ was a liar. He promised, He failed. [/quote]
Actually, the Catholic Church did not get into really hot water doctrinally until a couple of centuries before the Reformation.

And no, I am not calling Christ a liar. It is precisely in the Reformation that He has safeguarded His Bride from error, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against her in the sure doctrines of the Reformation.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 30 2004, 03:00 AM'] [b]Actually, the Catholic Church did not get into really hot water doctrinally until a couple of centuries before the Reformation.[/b]

And no, I am not calling Christ a liar. It is precisely in the Reformation that He has safeguarded His Bride from error, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against her in the sure doctrines of the Reformation. [/quote]
Ahh but it did faulter, and fall, therefore Christ did lie. Christ didnt say, Ill let this happen, and this and this, but it will be ok, He never said that.

Ok. So Christ wanted over 35000 differing and arguementative churches? Is that what Christ wanted?

[JESOd]

hmmm... i think the definition of Church differs between Protestants and a Roman Catholic.

[MorphRC]

Yes it does. Im using the original meaning of Church, not the made up one during and after the reformation.

Edited August 29, 2004 by MorphRC

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 29 2004, 11:37 AM'] Ahh but it did faulter, and fall, therefore Christ did lie. Christ didnt say, Ill let this happen, and this and this, but it will be ok, He never said that.

Ok. So Christ wanted over 35000 differing and arguementative churches? Is that what Christ wanted? [/quote]
No, He said that the gates of Hell would never [b]prevail[/b].

A hockey team can be down 2 points in the first period of the game, and then by a further two in the second period, but then can pull ahead and score six points in the third period, thus emerging victorious (prevailing).

A setback does not equal non-prevailing.

[quote]Ok. So Christ wanted over 35000 differing and arguementative churches? Is that what Christ wanted?[/quote] Where are you getting your numbers from?

[MorphRC]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 30 2004, 03:21 AM'] No, He said that the gates of Hell would never [b]prevail[/b].

A hockey team can be down 2 points in the first period of the game, and then by a further two in the second period, but then can pull ahead and score six points in the third period, thus emerging victorious (prevailing).

A setback does not equal non-prevailing.

Where are you getting your numbers from? [/quote]
Ok. But in the end, you are still admitting hell did.