Sola Scriptura

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Okay I don't understand how you can exert sola Scriptura which is not found in the bible. If it's not scriptural than it should be rejected.

I don't get how that logic works than. This whole time I am being asked to use scripture to defend my point while you can not do the same.

So since sola Scriptura is not biblical I have no obligation to adhere to it.

[Guest shiloh357]

Okay I don't understand how you can exert sola Scriptura which is not found in the bible. If it's not scriptural than it should be rejected.

 

Well, your claim that the church was granted authority from Jesus that is equal to the Scripture isn't in the Bible, either.  Doesn't seem to stop you from trying to pencil it in.   The hypocrisy in your argument is duly noted.

 

I don't get how that logic works than. This whole time I am being asked to use scripture to defend my point while you can not do the same.

 

I have already made the point that Sola Scriptura is a theological approach to the Bible.  I don't have to provide Scripture for that.   I am not claiming it is a biblical doctrine.

 

So since sola Scriptura is not biblical I have no obligation to adhere to it.

 

Yes and we are free to reject this mythological "authority" you claim was given to the Church and tried to claim is biblical, but can't seem to find any scripture to support this alleged biblical teaching.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

What do you mean biblical doctrine?

[Guest shiloh357]

What do you mean biblical doctrine?

That was a typo.  It should read, "I am not claiming it is a biblical doctrine."

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

So if I don't claim Church authority as biblical doctrine than I'm good?

[Guest shiloh357]

So if I don't claim Church authority as biblical doctrine than I'm good?

Well if you want to back peddle on all of your attempts to prove it is biblical, that's up to you.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

I'm more than content with my position. I'm content with my arguments. I was asked what I believed and shared it and gave lots of examples and reasons why I believe what I do.

And now I have a better understanding of sola Scriptura. I still don't think it carries any weight but the feeling is mutual for my position (that it doesn't carry weight.)

And a bit selfishly... I think I got more from this discussion cause I came out a little more informed.

[GoldenEagle]

My phrasing was a bit sloppy so I apologize. The Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit determined/recognized which books where inspired and which ones were not.

You can use the word determined or recognized inter changeable here I think.

I agree with everything Shiloh has said, and have one question, which church are you talking about?

My guess would be either the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church?

[GoldenEagle]

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.

Now I'm thinking the Roman Catholic Church...

It inevitably comes back to Peter, interpretation of Matt 16, and the bishop of Rome.

If Peter was the head of the Church why did James make the judgment about Gentiles in Acts 15?

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

It's not a Roman thing or Orthodox or Anglican thing or what ever other denominations have Bishops.

Jesus left his authority with the Apostles. He left keys with Peter making him the head of the Church Christ is to build. This not a denomination thing it's a scripture thing.

Also throughout the early Church heresy after heresy rose up and the Church came together formed councils and guided by the Holy Spirit created doctrine in response to the various heresy.

This was how the doctrine of the trinity came about because of various heresies and the Church had to define doctrine.

There was no Roman Church until 1044. Most doctrine was defined long before than.

As far as your comment about it coming back to Peter well you will have to take that up with scripture. (This last paragraph is said tongue in cheek).