Why I am not a theological liberal.

[Walpole]

Again, we have a misunderstanding. I can see how I could have misrepresented myself given my perceived understanding of what you are trying to ascertain.

I will restate my position for clarification.
I rely on scripture alone to be the infallible source of information about God. Some things about what scripture says are difficult to comprehend for a multitude of reasons. I use my skills and the skills of others to interpret what the infallible source of God's word means. I and commentators are fallible.


You conflate two different ideas and assume they are one. This is the source of your invalid conclusion.

1. One idea is the source of information about God. I state the only infallible source is scripture alone. This is the sola scriptura aspect of your question.
2. Second idea is how do I understand scripture. I state I read it and read commentaries of others and come to a conclusion or probability of correctness. I recognize that I and commentators are fallible. This is the Arianism aspect of your question with you conflate with "scripture alone". When I answer this second question you apply it to be my statement on "scripture alone" and then say the answers are not the same ... ask one question at a time and hoping the conflict will go away.

1. Idea 1: Sola Scriptura is that scripture alone (66 books of Bible) are the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13)—truthful, uniquely authoritative, and without error. (maybe the root of the problem is your definition)
2. Idea 2: How do you apply 'scripture alone' to determine God's will with respect to whatever (you used Arianism)

Thus, your question about my understanding of Arianism is a invalid conflation IMO.

In other words, if you want an opinion about sola scriptura you should ask for a definition of the term and then use agreed to definition to determine possible contradictions.

You can't have it both ways. Either Scripture alone is the source or it's not. If you are relying on things outside of Scripture, then you are contradicting sola Scriptura.

I do agree that it would help to have a definition of sola Scriptura. However, this too poses another problem for adherents of the doctrine. For you cannot provide a definition of sola Scriptura, using sola Scriptura. Thus any definition you put forth not defined in Scripture is nothing more than YOUR PERSONAL definition. Without a definition found in Scripture alone, any definition put forth is no more or valid than any other definition put forth. In other words, there is no clear or unambiguous definition of the doctrine. Without a definition from Scripture alone, you have no authority to declare what the doctrine is or is not any more than I do.

The doctrine is an illogical and self-contradicting mess, which is why it doesn't work. You can't even get to the Scriptura without violating the sola! (The canon of what is Scripture came from outside of Scripture!)

 

[JLB]

Either Scripture alone is the source or it's not. If you are relying on things outside of Scripture, then you are contradicting sola Scriptura.

If Jesus says …. the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


And we see Him coming in the clouds ourselves relying on our first witness apart from the scriptures, then we are relying on a source other than scripture.



JLB

 

[Fastfredy0]

You can't have it both ways. Either Scripture alone is the source or it's not. If you are relying on things outside of Scripture, then you are contradicting sola Scriptura.

Your understanding of "scripture alone" is not valid. Perhaps you should get a definition from Dr. Google before discussing further. We are talking about the same thing with varying definitions IMO.

I do agree that it would help to have a definition of sola Scriptura. However, this too poses another problem for adherents of the doctrine. For you cannot provide a definition of sola Scriptura, using sola Scriptura. Thus any definition you put forth not defined in Scripture is nothing more than YOUR PERSONAL definition.

Hmmm, interesting point. I grant that the doctrine of sola Scriptura is not found in scripture and thus has the potential to be incorrect. Can the concept be proven by scripture and a little logic ...
Premise 1: Sola Scripture is defined the Bible is the word of God ...
Conclusion: The Bible is truthful, uniquely authoritative, and without error
What is your issue with Sola Scripture and this conclusion? What is incorrect? I grant premise 1 is a presupposition, but if you don't accept it all our discussion is pointless.

In other words, there is no clear or unambiguous definition of the doctrine.

That's why I stated a need to an agreed definition and proposed said definition. It is not germaine to our discussion that others can't agree to a definition ... unless the discussion is focused on what is a common definition of "scripture alone" or "is there a common definition" or "who is the authoritative source of a definition" or yahda, yahda.

The doctrine is an illogical and self-contradicting mess, which is why it doesn't work.

Again, you have not proposed a definition (I have), so commenting on a non-defined or not agreed to entity is of little use.

 

[Quantrill]

It has worked quite well actually, since in 2000 years there have only been two schisms.

By contrast, it is sola Scriptura which does not work. The result is thousands and thousands of different denominations, all with competing and often contradictory beliefs (see my previous post with the example of baptism). We know from history that when Protestantism first started, they rapidly began dividing because sola Scriptura is not able to resolve any doctrinal disagreements. By the end of the 16th century alone, there were already nearly 300 different sects. Because Protestantism does not have a living authority to resolve exegetical disagreements, the fruit of this doctrine has been the continual division with the ultimate authority resting not in the Scriptures alone to decide what is or is not the faith, but rather in the subjective interpretation of the Scriptures by each individual adherent.

What has worked quite well? Answer: The massive corruption and perversion of the Word of God. Why did it work so well? Answer: Because Rome wants sole authority over the Church of Jesus Christ.

Just because believers came out of the Roman heresy, doesn't mean they interpret the Scripture 'subjectively'. It means they disagree with Romes interpretation.

Sola Scriptura may have it's own faults. That doesn't make Rome's claim to be the sole interpreter of Scripture true.

Scripture alone and denominations help preserve the truth. Rome's claim to be sole authority drags all down with it.

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

If Jesus says …. the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


And we see Him coming in the clouds ourselves relying on our first witness apart from the scriptures, then we are relying on a source other than scripture.



JLB

I am not sure what the eschaton has to do with sola Scriptura. I do not get the point you are trying to make.

 

[JLB]

I am not sure what the eschaton has to do with sola Scriptura. I do not get the point you are trying to make.

The point is witnessing the prophetic scripture being fulfilled is relying on something outside of scripture.

 

[Walpole]

What has worked quite well? Answer: The massive corruption and perversion of the Word of God. Why did it work so well? Answer: Because Rome wants sole authority over the Church of Jesus Christ.

Just because believers came out of the Roman heresy, doesn't mean they interpret the Scripture 'subjectively'. It means they disagree with Romes interpretation.

Sola Scriptura may have it's own faults. That doesn't make Rome's claim to be the sole interpreter of Scripture true.

Scripture alone and denominations help preserve the truth. Rome's claim to be sole authority drags all down with it.

Quantrill

I think many do not realize the Scriptures were actually born from the Church. The Scriptures were born from the Church’s tradition and are written in the context of it. The Gospels did not start the Church. Rather, the Church started the Gospels. The Church did not come out of the Gospels, but rather the Gospels came out of the Church. The Church preceded the New Testament. The early Christians did not come to believe in Jesus because the Gospels recount the story of Him. Rather, the early Christians wrote down the stories of Jesus because they already believed in it. The Church already believed and her members set down much of these beliefs and traditions in what we call the Gospels.

See —-> Luke 1:1-4


This is why you can't proof text Scripture apart from tradition, as you have to be in the tradition to understand the meaning of Scripture. This is why sola Scriptura is an absurd concept. Hence starting a religion using another religion's Scriptures was never going to work. One of the things I admire about the Mormons is at least when they Mormons did it, they were honest enough to make up a crazy story to justify their origin!

 

[Walpole]

The point is witnessing the prophetic scripture being fulfilled is relying on something outside of scripture.

But we have not reached the eschaton. The question is, what do we rely on until it arrives?

 

[Quantrill]

I think many do not realize the Scriptures were actually born from the Church. The Scriptures were born from the Church’s tradition and are written in the context of it. The Gospels did not start the Church. Rather, the Church started the Gospels. The Church did not come out of the Gospels, but rather the Gospels came out of the Church. The Church preceded the New Testament. The early Christians did not come to believe in Jesus because the Gospels recount the story of Him. Rather, the early Christians wrote down the stories of Jesus because they already believed in it. The Church already believed and her members set down much of these beliefs and traditions in what we call the Gospels.

See —-> Luke 1:1-4


This is why you can't proof text Scripture apart from tradition, as you have to be in the tradition to understand the meaning of Scripture. This is why sola Scriptura is an absurd concept. Hence starting a religion using another religion's Scriptures was never going to work. One of the things I admire about the Mormons is at least when they Mormons did it, they were honest enough to make up a crazy story to justify their origin!

You misrepresent the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ is not synonymous with the Roman Church. And the origin of Scripture is not the Church of Jesus Christ. It is God. First using Israel. Then using the Church.

As to the rest of what you, I don't know what you're talking about.

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

Your understanding of "scripture alone" is not valid. Perhaps you should get a definition from Dr. Google before discussing further. We are talking about the same thing with varying definitions IMO.


Hmmm, interesting point. I grant that the doctrine of sola Scriptura is not found in scripture and thus has the potential to be incorrect. Can the concept be proven by scripture and a little logic ...
Premise 1: Sola Scripture is defined the Bible is the word of God ...
Conclusion: The Bible is truthful, uniquely authoritative, and without error
What is your issue with Sola Scripture and this conclusion? What is incorrect? I grant premise 1 is a presupposition, but if you don't accept it all our discussion is pointless.


That's why I stated a need to an agreed definition and proposed said definition. It is not germaine to our discussion that others can't agree to a definition ... unless the discussion is focused on what is a common definition of "scripture alone" or "is there a common definition" or "who is the authoritative source of a definition" or yahda, yahda.


Again, you have not proposed a definition (I have), so commenting on a non-defined or not agreed to entity is of little use.

You are actually making my point. Even the definition itself becomes entirely subjective. What I say it is might be different from what you say it is. And you have no authority to claim your version or definition is any better or worse than a definition I might provide.

Unless you can use sola Scriptura to define sola Scriptura, you are violating the very belief in the doctrine by going outside of Scripture to define it.


After all, what does the word ALONE mean?

Alone = to the exclusion of ALL OTHERS
Only = without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively

Ergo, sola Scriptura precludes any other authorities. If you have ANY authority to determine Christian doctrine and practice other than Scripture ALONE, including the very definition of the doctrine itself, then you are not an adherent of sola Scriptura, but instead Scriptura et _________. ( <--- fill in the blank with whatever you need to make your theology work)

 

[Walpole]

You misrepresent the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ is not synonymous with the Roman Church. And the origin of Scripture is not the Church of Jesus Christ. It is God. First using Israel. Then using the Church.

As to the rest of what you, I don't know what you're talking about.

Quantrill

The Scriptures (I'm speaking of the New Testament) are the Church's tradition written down. They are thus written in the context of her tradition.

See —-> Luke 1:1-4

 

[Quantrill]

The Scriptures (I'm speaking of the New Testament) are the Church's tradition written down. They are thus written in the context of her tradition.

See —-> Luke 1:1-4

No. Scripture is written as the inspired Word of God. That it occurred in the historical setting means nothing. Just as Old Testament Scripture was progressive also.

I recognize you want 'tradition' to be believed because you want 'tradition' to be equated with Roman 'tradition'. Hence the problem.

Quantrill

 

[JLB]

But we have not reached the eschaton. The question is, what do we rely on until it arrives?

What is the eschaton?


There are other scriptures to be fulfilled before His Coming.


And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:4-14



“Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.
“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. Matthew 24:15-25







JLB

 

[Walpole]

No. Scripture is written as the inspired Word of God. That it occurred in the historical setting means nothing. Just as Old Testament Scripture was progressive also.

I recognize you want 'tradition' to be believed because you want 'tradition' to be equated with Roman 'tradition'. Hence the problem.

Quantrill

St. Luke opens his gospel stating what he is writing is tradition...

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

The Scriptures were written in the tradition of the Church, including that of the Roman Church. There is even an epistle written specifically to her in the New Testament canon! Additionally, St. Luke is the only one who wrote a conclusion to a Gospel with his account in the book of Acts. The book of Acts details the Church's growth from Pentecost in Jerusalem and concludes with the arrival of the faith in the city of Rome, from whence it would go out to all the world.

"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world." (Romans 1:8)

Of no other Church is this said.

 

[Walpole]

What is the eschaton?


There are other scriptures to be fulfilled before His Coming.


And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:4-14



“Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.
“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. Matthew 24:15-25







JLB

The eschaton is the end of the world.

 

[Quantrill]

St. Luke opens his gospel stating what he is writing is tradition...

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

The Scriptures were written in the tradition of the Church, including that of the Roman Church. There is even an epistle written specifically to her in the New Testament canon! Additionally, St. Luke is the only one who wrote a conclusion to a Gospel with his account in the book of Acts. The book of Acts details the Church's growth from Pentecost in Jerusalem and concludes with the arrival of the faith in the city of Rome, from whence it would go out to all the world.

"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world." (Romans 1:8)

Of no other Church is this said.

Luke is not writing from what you want to call 'tradition'. He is writing from first hand accounts. Eyewitnesses.

Again, this is not to be equated with 'Roman tradition'. Because Rome will use that to shore up false teachings and doctrine. There is no problem with 'tradition' if used correctly. Hence the problem.

Indeed, it is a sad commentary that the Roman Church today had it's origin in the small faithful church Paul wrote to. It shows how no church is safe from false doctrine entering.

And, Rome was not the center from which the Gospel went out. Antioch was. At the end of all Paul's missionary journeys, save the last when he died, he always returned to Antioch to give report. It was where he was called from and it was who he answered to.

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

Luke is not writing from what you want to call 'tradition'. He is writing from first hand accounts. Eyewitnesses.

Tradition is the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice.

St. Luke opens his account stating what he is writing has been handed on to him...

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)

Again, this is not to be equated with 'Roman tradition'. Because Rome will use that to shore up false teachings and doctrine. There is no problem with 'tradition' if used correctly. Hence the problem.

Indeed, it is a sad commentary that the Roman Church today had it's origin in the small faithful church Paul wrote to. It shows how no church is safe from false doctrine entering.

And, Rome was not the center from which the Gospel went out. Antioch was. At the end of all Paul's missionary journeys, save the last when he died, he always returned to Antioch to give report. It was where he was called from and it was who he answered to.

Quantrill

I think you are conflating the Roman Church with the Catholic Church. The Latin (Roman) Church is but one of many Churches which comprise the Catholic Church. (Not all Catholics are Latin / Roman.)

Circling back to my original post here, how do you know what is or is not a false doctrine? What body, organ or mechanism do you have to ensure what you believe is actually the Christian faith?

 

[JLB]

The eschaton is the end of the world.

This is associated with His Coming, as I mentioned.



Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Matthew 24:3



And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?





JLB

 

[Fastfredy0]

I think many do not realize the Scriptures were actually born from the Church. The Scriptures were born from the Church’s tradition and are written in the context of it.

This is the Roman Catholic position. There are two other positions of which I am aware. It is not possible to determine which is correct from material evidence. Aside: Obviously, if you believe R.C. tradition is infallible, then you believe the R.C. version.

Three models for the authentication of Scripture (I won't bother with the details of each)

1. Roman Catholic model
2. Evidentiary model
3. Self-authenticating model

 

[Walpole]

This is associated with His Coming, as I mentioned.



Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Matthew 24:3



And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?





JLB

At His coming you will not need Scripture. You will either live in eternity in His presence or in eternity apart from His presence.