Replies

First, I’m largely going to ignore kosta50. Why? His argument devolves into ‘You don’t know what was written in Scripture’. I say we do, and posted a link to a 150 page book discussing the reliability of scripture here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2316798/posts

Suffice it to say that if we don’t know what scripture says, then we don’t know what anyone says, and we have NO standard for belief. I don’t know if any of y’all are ‘Roman Catholic’, but try finding a list of infallible pronouncements by the Pope...

kosta50 disagrees with me, and he is welcome to do so - but if we have no standard for comparison, then we have no basis for discussion that moves us forward - it becomes all ‘he said/she said/we feel’.

This was the dilemma I sometimes faced with Mormon friends when I lived in Utah - if they insisted on using their additional 3 books of ‘scripture’ and denied the accuracy of translation in the Bible, then we had no way to make progress in a discussion.

As for sola scriptura, it helps to define what it is or is not. Here is how I understand it:

“...the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith, for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition. The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word and is constantly reformed thereby.”

Kolokotronis wrote: “The best story revolving around the canon concerns the widespread adoption of Hebrews and Revelation. The East accepted Hebrews early on. The West soundly rejected it. Similarly, the East rejected Revelation. There was a deal of sorts whereby the East promised to accept Revelation if the West accepted Hebrews. The West accepted Hebrews and we waited until the 8th century to accept Revelation and even at that we never use it.”

If we want to make progress in discussing ideas, we need some common ground. I think Hebrews is a fantastic part of scripture. Martin Luther was not so impressed, although he granted it was part of the canon. But if you don’t accept it (or Revelations), then it does no good for me to quote it, other than as an explanation of what I believe that is not in any way binding on you to believe.

In like manner, the church eventually - after hundreds of years, settled sort of on ‘canon’. For Catholics, there was no binding resolution until the Council of Trent, which is why Catholics were allowed to have doubts about individual books before the CoT.

If I understood Calvin’s argument correctly, then I agree with him in that each individual is responsible for what he believes, and therefor is responsible for deciding what he accepts as canon. Why? Because if I quote a passage from 2 Peter, and kosta50 replies, ‘Maybe that was added later, I don’t trust it’, then kosta50 is free to ignore my conclusion from that ‘scripture’.

As a Baptist, it won’t surprise any of you that I believe in sola scriptura, at least by the definition I quoted.

One reason I do is because Jesus treated scripture this way.

Matt 15: “ 1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’”

Jesus quoted scripture to the Pharisees to show their traditions were wrong.

Again, we read (Luke 4):

“1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness 2for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry. 3The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” 4And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”

5 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, 6and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. 7If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” 8And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’”

9 And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, 10for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,’ 11 and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”

12 And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” 13And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.”

If Jesus quotes scripture to rebuke Satan, that is pretty authoritative! And note, Satan tries to twist scripture to his evil purposes - which I fully grant men do to this day. But Jesus then responds with scripture, so I’m happy to follow his example.

In Luke 24 we read:

“13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus...15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?”...25And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”

Jesus, just resurrected from the dead, used SCRIPTURE as his authority when teaching the men.

If Paul was right, and “16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”, then it obviously is qualified as a rule of faith for the church.

If you want to add tradition, and that tradition doesn’t conflict with scripture, then as I said in a previous post concerning the topic of this thread - where scripture is silent, I will be. I may disagree with your practice, but I have no desire to tell you how to worship God in any detail that isn’t found in scripture.

I believe man is so tiny compared to God that we can know nothing about God apart from revelation - some of which we can see in his handiwork, but primarily from his revelation to us in scripture and the life of Jesus Christ.

Earlier, I quoted from Romans 14:

“4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.”

Something I appreciate about the Orthodox Church is that, as I understand it, the Orthodox are willing for us to disagree on a wide variety of practices, provided we have a basic agreement on who God is. Even Catholics have moved a bit towards the idea that we Protestants don’t have to fully agree with their teaching to be saved.

I quoted a number of scriptures to show WHY I don’t give special attention to Mary - but there is only one verse indicating that someone else should not, and it hardly constitutes a binding restriction on it. So we can disagree and still call each other brother - I think.

Gotta go - may try to write more later.

So, instead of seeking an objective truth as much as possible, you suggest we make an a priori assumption, basically a conscious pretense, that, contrary to reason, and plentiful of evidence, the Bible is a pristine, unadulterated copy of inspired originals. Talk about sticking one's head in the sand and pretending the sun doesn't shine...
Fine with me. I'm game. Let's play ball!

Suffice it to say that if we don’t know what scripture says, then we don’t know what anyone says, and we have NO standard for belief

Without going (again) into "knowledge" (a loaded term when it comes to subjective beliefs), "no standard for belief" pretty much describes the Protestant community and is at the crux (no pun intended) of geoffmylawn's question you didn't answer: Who (or maybe what) decides which one of the 30,000-plus Protestant denominations' interpretations of the Bible is the "standard for belief."
Protestantism is not just pure heterodoxy, a spectrum of beliefs, but a narcissistic heterodoxy. The only "standard" is one's own personal interpretation of the "scriptures" (a man-made heterogeneous collection of books deemed inpsired). This might even make some sense were it not for the fact that there is nothing "standard" about Christian scriptures, Mr. Rogers! The Bible you use is not the Bible used by a vast majority of Christians.
In other words, if Christians don't even agree which books constitute Christian canon, how can there be a "standard for belief" based on Christian "scripture"?!? Which Christian scripture, Mr. Rogers? The one you personally choose, isn't it?
So, am I to understand that you are suggesting you are the "standard for belief?"
Given the complete absurdity of the sola scriputra argument (an argument based on a non-existent entity!), do you honestly expect reasonable people to take the sola scriptura (which scriptura; whose scriptura?) seriously?!
When you say "I won't agree unless it is in the scripture" basically what you are saying "it's not true unless I find it in my collection, which I deem to be true scripture, and it agrees with my interpretation of what it means! That, in short, Mr. Rogers, is the Protestant "standard for belief." Which is, of course, no standard at all.
Getoffmylawn was actually polite. He should have asked about millions of "churches" because in the Protestant world each man/woman is his/her own church (a church of one, the "church of me"). It is the Me-Myself-and-I "standard" for belief.