Sola Scriptura

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

This is entering circle reasoning.

Paul has authority cause the bible says he has authority. But there was no New Testament to make that claim in the time Paul.

Therefore if sola Scriptura is correct than in the time of Paul they could only use the Old Testament. Because that was scripture and you can only go by scripture alone.

I stand by my original stance. Jesus created a Church and gave that Church authority. That comes directly from scripture and sola Scriptura does not come from scripture.

So what Church are you talking about?

I know this is the second time you've asked. Why does it matter. I'm using scripture to support my argument.

So if I have to than I'm talking about the Church Christ started in Matthew. I don't want this discussion to turn into what denomination is right and which one is wrong.

[Guest shiloh357]

This is entering circle reasoning.

Paul has authority cause the bible says he has authority. But there was no New Testament to make that claim in the time Paul.

 

No, you missed what I said.  I said that Paul's authority was derived from the Lord and His calling as an apostle.  I didn't say that his authority came from the Scriptures.   You really need to slow down and read.

 

Therefore if sola Scriptura is correct than in the time of Paul they could only use the Old Testament. Because that was scripture and you can only go by scripture alone.

I stand by my original stance.

 

Your original stance is based on both a false premise and an obvious lack of knowledge regarding what Sola Scrptura is.   Your original stance has no credibility.

 

 

Jesus created a Church and gave that Church authority. That comes directly from scripture and sola Scriptura does not come from scripture.

 

You have not delineated what that authority is, as far as I can tell.  Authority for what?   Sola Scriptura doesn't come from Scripture.  Sola Scriptura is the belief that an infallible and inerrant Word of God which has an inerrant, all knowing God as its sole author and source should be the Christian's sole source for understanding the Christian faith.  The Bible is the final arbiter in all matters of Christian faith and practice.

 

Tell me this:  What can the Church provide that is not already provided in Scripture?  The Church's authority is derived from the Scripture.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

This is entering circle reasoning.

Paul has authority cause the bible says he has authority. But there was no New Testament to make that claim in the time Paul.

Therefore if sola Scriptura is correct than in the time of Paul they could only use the Old Testament. Because that was scripture and you can only go by scripture alone.

I stand by my original stance. Jesus created a Church and gave that Church authority. That comes directly from scripture and sola Scriptura does not come from scripture.

So what Church are you talking about?

I know this is the second time you've asked. Why does it matter. I'm using scripture to support my argument.

So if I have to than I'm talking about the Church Christ started in Matthew. I don't want this discussion to turn into what denomination is right and which one is wrong.

 

Jesus didn't start a church in Matthew.   Jesus said, "...upon this rock I will (future tense) build my church...."  The Church started at  Pentecost, not in Matthew 16.

[Fez]

 

 

This is entering circle reasoning.

Paul has authority cause the bible says he has authority. But there was no New Testament to make that claim in the time Paul.

Therefore if sola Scriptura is correct than in the time of Paul they could only use the Old Testament. Because that was scripture and you can only go by scripture alone.

I stand by my original stance. Jesus created a Church and gave that Church authority. That comes directly from scripture and sola Scriptura does not come from scripture.

So what Church are you talking about?

I know this is the second time you've asked. Why does it matter. I'm using scripture to support my argument.

So if I have to than I'm talking about the Church Christ started in Matthew. I don't want this discussion to turn into what denomination is right and which one is wrong.

 

This is where I am confused about you reasoning...

 

I have never said anything was more than the Word. My argument is that BOTH are needed. It's scripture AND the Church. 

 

You have stated that it is the church Christ started in Mathew, but as Shiloh has pointed out the church started at Pentecost.

 

Secondly, where is that church today, the one who you maintain has equal standing with the bible?

 

Scripture is perfect.

 

There is no such thing as a perfect church however.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Shiloh yes I stand corrected. The Church did start at Pentecost.

Jesus said that he will build the Church. Mat 16:18

18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. *

Than the very next verse Jesus say:

19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, * and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

That is Jesus giving Peter his own authority as the coming leader of the Church that Christ is to build.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh yes I stand corrected. The Church did start at Pentecost.

Jesus said that he will build the Church. Mat 16:18

18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. *

Than the very next verse Jesus say:

19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, * and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

That is Jesus giving Peter his own authority as the coming leader of the Church that Christ is to build.

Yes, Jesus is giving Peter authority within the Church.   He is not giving the Church some special authority.  So I am not sure that this really helps you.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

And Fez to answer your question. All I can say is it must be out there otherwise the gates of hell have prevailed.

We have Churches that claim to be Christian marrying same sex couples. I look at that and think that can not be the Church Christ started.

I've heard some denominations have preachers that are openly gay and practicing gay. How can someone preach the word when they live contrary to what they are teaching.

2 things will give me clues to the Church Christ built.

Satan hates God and all that is good. Therefore he will do everything in his power to bring hate and persecution on Christ's Church. He will lie and make believers of his lies and they too will hate Christ's Church.

The whole gay marriage issue. I believe that Christ's Church will stand firm against such a thing.

Perhaps a third. I've heard and can not verify so please take it for what's it's worth and seek out your own truth on this one. But I've heard that some Christian Churches have become soft on the abortion issue. If that is true than that would be a third clue.

Fez we need to seeks the answer to your question with an open heart and prayer on our lips and invite the Holy Spirit in and ask for guidance.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Again in Matthew 18:18-20 we see Jesus talking about binding and here he also mentions gathering together which is what the councils did during the early Church.

18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. *

19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

There is a difference between church and Church. When I talk about the Church having equal authority I am not talking about the bricks and mortor. I'm talking about the leaders of the Church Christ started. Jesus left his authority with Peter and the apostles and they used that authority at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15

And when the canon needed to be defined and closed, there was disagreements amongst the Churches as to what books were inspired and which were not. So the bishops came together and did exactly what Jesus describes in Matthew 18:18-20.

Same thing with the doctrine on theTrinity. There was a heresy and again the bishops came together and exercised the authority given to them by Jesus.

[Persuaded]

The letters of correction that Paul wrote to the various local 1st century churches, and the letters of correction that Jesus wrote in Rev 2&3 to various 1st century churches, all suggest that churches after Acts are not a valid source of instruction. Indeed, if we take "Nicolaitians" as an untranslated word, we see that it means "to conquer the laity", which describes a church that rules over the people.

 

[Rev 2:15 KJV] So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

 

A few Bible and canon thoughts- first a favorite quote, I don't know from whom:

"The Word is a sword. It doesn't need defending if it is just removed from its sheath and used!"

 

The Bible (and more) are pre-authenticated by Jesus before He left:

[Jhn 16:13 KJV] 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.

 

The Bible also self-authenticates itself by its integrity of message and idiom, all despite the differences of the author's backgrounds. This forum is evidence of the miraculousness of this process, since so much is in dispute here, yet within the scripture we see a single message said in many ways, but agreeing.

 

If I dumped all the parts for a jet engine on a garage floor, and slipped in a lawnmower piston, you'd be able to tell after getting familiar with the rest of the parts that it just didn't belong...

[Guest shiloh357]

Again in Matthew 18:18-20 we see Jesus talking about binding and here he also mentions gathering together which is what the councils did during the early Church.

18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. *

19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

 

 

But Jesus wasn't talking to anyone but Peter when he said that.  Furthermore, it was a common thing that Rabbis said to their disciples.  The "keys to the kingdom"  refers to the authority to legislate, judiciate and teach.  It was a common form of rabbinical authority.

 

To take what was particular to Peter and apply to "the Church" is poor exegesis; something the early church is known for.

 

There is a difference between church and Church. When I talk about the Church having equal authority I am not talking about the bricks and mortor. I'm talking about the leaders of the Church Christ started. Jesus left his authority with Peter and the apostles and they used that authority at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15

 

I understand what you are talking about, but you have no real biblical authority to support your position.

 

And when the canon needed to be defined and closed, there was disagreements amongst the Churches as to what books were inspired and which were not. So the bishops came together and did exactly what Jesus describes in Matthew 18:18-20.

 

No, that isn't really what they were doing.  That is yet another misapplication of Scripture and an oversimplification of what was being done.

 

Same thing with the doctrine on theTrinity. There was a heresy and again the bishops came together and exercised the authority given to them by Jesus.

 

 

Bishops were not given any authority by Jesus.  You just seem willing to believe whatever they tell you whether it comports with Scripture or not.