Sola Scriptura - does this foundation make you a heretic

[bbyrd009]

i thot we had a more recent "Sola Scriptura" thread? Anyway,

"
The Sadducees and the Torah

The Sadducees maintained that only the Torah is divinely authoritative in matters of legislation, and the rest is not. This conveniently excluded not only the royal histories (Kings and Chronicles), poetry (Psalms, Proverbs and such) and the prophets, but also the vast oral traditions that would ultimately evolve into the Talmud (the Sadducees nevertheless produced their own texts, notably their handy Book of Decrees). A similar yearning for Scriptural purity resulted during the Reformation in the comparable doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And although both movements are commendable in their apparent quest to be righteous, they both attempted to trim the blossoming tree of the Great Human Library down to the seed it emerged from. That obviously can not be done, but this effort in turn stems from the even vainer quest of wanting to determine where the divine ends and humanity begins.

This latter idea, although apparently pious, comes from the pagan notion that the divine is like some human king: a fellow player on the stage of reality, but of greater rank, seated in some distant fortress and endowed with the greater powers. This divinity rules by means of a discrete package of absolute decrees that must be wholly obeyed, and which turns humanity into a machine. This divinity is also utterly removed from his subjects and requires human representatives in the earthly realms, who therefore also must be blindly obeyed, and who also benefit from turning mankind into a slavish machine.

The God of the Bible, on the other hand, is not a fellow player, but the Creator and Maintainer of reality; of the very stage upon which His people are invited to play. This divinity engages His people in continuing negotiations, to teach them the rules upon which creation operates. Surrender and obedience to these rules is by no means oppressive but brings about the same kind of freedom which a musical virtuoso experiences once he masters both his own instrument and general musical theory, and is fortunate enough to find friends who are likewise liberated from the fetters of ignorance. This divinity is so intimately involved with reality that it's impossible to say where He ends (which He obviously doesn't).

God's revelation is continuous rather than a one-time thing...
" The amazing name Sadducees: meaning and etymology

 

[Taken]

Sola Scriptura (Lat., ‘by scripture alone’). The belief that the truths of Christian faith and practice can and must be established from scripture alone, without additions from, e.g., tradition or development.

Sola Scriptura was/is a founding principle for protestant Christians and is found as a principle in scripture itself;
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

If someone such as myself were to say that my understandings for God, Christ and salvation are entirely founded on "Sola Scriptura" does this mean that in other peoples views I could be considered a heretic?

Scritpure is FOR revealing KNOWLEDGE that has been Recorded in Written form;
ACCORDING to God and APPROVED by God.

The PRECEPT IS;
God ALONE, reveals KNOWLEDGE.

The PRECEPT IS;
"ONCE" the "Lord" IS WITH a man, and the man WITH the "Lord";
Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding,
ACCORDING to God, is continued, BEYOND, the Written Scriptures;
From God to the Individual man.

Considered? Called? A Heretic?

Being considered or called a Heretic by another man is irrelevant.

Being considered AND called BY GOD Himself, is All an individual should be concerned with.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[epostle1]

Tradition
2. Theology - a doctrine believed to have divine authority though not in the scriptures, in particular.

Mark 7:9-13 9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition...

• ....13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

• It says "...your own tradition" The false traditions that the scribes and Pharisees made up so they could claim they give everything to God and neglect their parents. Read the context.

Timothy was never an apostle. Paul cannot pass on the such a position since apostles are chosen by God.

A bishop carries the same responsibility as an Apostle, but does not have the same status as the original 12.

Timothy was a believer who was charged with doing what any believer could do.... pass on the teachings of the apostles.

Any believer does not have the authority to bind and loose, declare anathemas, or resolve doctrinal disputes. That requires physical earthly, visible leaders.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 – at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry.
2 Tim 1:11(Paul) Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
2 Tim 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word
4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist,[/quote] Paul is training Timothy for the office of bishop.
Scripture shows that only the Apostles are "entrusted" with the care of the Gospel message:
• St. Paul "...they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised."(Gal. 2:7)

"...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5:19)

"...in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." (1 Tim. 1:11)

• St. Timothy
"Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians... we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel." (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4)

"O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you." (1 Tim. 6:20)

"...guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." (2 Tim. 1:14)

You may object at this point that St. Timothy was not an apostle. I will concede that he was not an "Apostle," with a capital "A," but you must concede that Scripture clearly calls St. Timothy an apostle, thereby attesting to his apostolic authority:

"Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians... nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ." (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:6)

It is not only St. Timothy who is called an apostle by Sacred Scripture, but also St. Barnabus, Apollos, and St. Titus:

St. Barnabus - "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude..." (Acts 14:14)

Apollos - "I planted, Apollos watered... He who plants and he who waters are equal." (1 Cor. 3:6, 8)

"I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren... For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death." (1 Cor. 4:6,9)

The objection will be raised: Titus is nowhere in Scripture explicitly called an apostle. I reply, it is implicit in what kind of authority is accorded to the apostles. Scripture testifies that only apostles are given full authority. Compare what is said of St. Paul and St. Timothy (both of whom are called "apostles") with what is said of St. Titus:

St. Paul - "...nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ." (1 Thess. 2:6)

St. Timothy - "As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine..." (1 Tim. 1:3)

"Command and teach these things." (1 Tim. 4:11)

"Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers." (2 Tim. 2:14)

St. Titus - "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you." (Tit.1:5)

"Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." (Tit. 2:15)

"...our boasting before Titus has proved true. And his heart goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him." (2 Cor. 7:14-15)

Scripture also shows that only the Apostles refer to the Gospel message as their own personal possession:
"...when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Rom. 2:16)

"Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ..." (Rom. 16:25)

"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel." (2 Tim. 2:8)

"Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians... for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction." (1 Thess. 1:1 & 5)

"Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians... God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel..." (2 Thess. 1:1 & 2:13-14)

The Apostles possess the Gospel message precisely because it was (as the above passages demonstrated) "entrusted" to them, i.e., given to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative. This is completely in keeping with the restriction imposed by Heb. 5:4.

Even in Paul's time there were people in the churches who were turning from the correct path and Paul sought to keep the word as true as it was given but, men just like the Pharisees like to take what is pure and add to it and the churches right from the beginning were already following the path of the Pharisees and it can be seen today in how the pure word of God has been changed to fit what man thinks it should be.

The only part of the written Word that has been added to is sola scriptura, which is nowhere to be found. Otherwise, please post Bible additions that don't belong.

Acts 20:28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Paul, John, and St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote in opposition the Gnostic heretics. Later came Arius, Nestorius, Apolinarius and legions of heretics all denying the Trinity, all using Bible alone theology.

 

[epostle1]

Scritpure is FOR revealing KNOWLEDGE that has been Recorded in Written form;
ACCORDING to God and APPROVED by God.

The PRECEPT IS;
God ALONE, reveals KNOWLEDGE.

The PRECEPT IS;
"ONCE" the "Lord" IS WITH a man, and the man WITH the "Lord";
Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding,
ACCORDING to God, is continued, BEYOND, the Written Scriptures;
From God to the Individual man.

Considered? Called? A Heretic?

Being considered or called a Heretic by another man is irrelevant.

Being considered AND called BY GOD Himself, is All an individual should be concerned with.

God Bless,
Taken

You need to find anywhere in Scripture where "Word of God" means the written word alone. It isn't in scripture.

 

[epostle1]

Sunday Worship

Scripture
Isaiah 1:13 – God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

Acts 20:7 – this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 – Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 – Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

2 Thess. 2:15 – we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Heb. 4:8-9 – regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Heb. 7:12 – when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Rev 1:10 – John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.

Tradition / Church Fathers
On the Lord’s own day,(Sunday) assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.” Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).

Sabbatarian cults have nothing to do with the church of 90 AD.

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death–whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master.” Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).

Sabbatarian cults have nothing to do with the church of 110 AD.

“The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest–abstraction from ills–preparing for the Primal Day,[The Lord’s Day] our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth–a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following Him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impossible; and this is to rest.” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:16 (A.D. 202).

“In fine, let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered “friends of God.” For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? At all events, in settling him in paradise, He appointed one uncircumcised as colonist of paradise. Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended; while He accepted what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering. Noah also, uncircumcised–yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath–God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and in-observant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world; who did not first taste death, in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might by this time show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God.”
Tertullian, An answer to the Jews, 2 (A.D. 203).

“The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation: because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the lace of the dead and on the first day of the week He arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week He ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week He will appear at last with the angels of heaven.”
Teaching of the Apostles, 2 (A.D. 225).

“Hence it is not possible that the rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh of our God; on the contrary, it is our Saviour who, after the pattern of His own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of His death, and hence also of His resurrection.” Origen, Commentary on John, 2:27 (A.D. 229).

“On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that ‘His soul hateth;’ which Sabbath He in His body abolished.” Victorinus, On the Creation of the World (A.D. 300).

 

[Taken]

You need to find anywhere in Scripture where "Word of God" means the written word alone. It isn't in scripture.

Since you have a strange thinking process that apparently makes sense to you....

Back at ya......

Uh, why don't you go find harvesting peanuts in Scripture? It isn't in scripture.

As for me, I don't look for things that are not in Scripture....nor did I claim the "Word of God" " MEANS ", the written Word ALONE.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[epostle1]

Since you have a strange thinking process that apparently makes sense to you....

Back at ya......

Uh, why don't you go find harvesting peanuts in Scripture? It isn't in scripture.

As for me, I don't look for things that are not in Scripture....nor did I claim the "Word of God" " MEANS ", the written Word ALONE.

God Bless,
Taken

Then provide ONE example in Scripture where "word of God" is confined to the written word alone. It's a false man made tradition. "Word of God" appears 180-200 times, depending on what translation you use. But don't take my word for it. Biblegateway has an excellent search engine. Search "word of God" in the entire Bible where the phrase is used to MEAN the written word alone. It's a false man made tradition.

 

[Taken]

Then provide ONE example in Scripture where "word of God" is confined to the written word alone.

AND? How about YOU FIRST "QUOTE ME" making THAT CLAIM....BEFORE you Ask me to provide you with examples....??

"confined to the written word ALONE"

God Bless,
Taken

 

[epostle1]

AND? How about YOU FIRST "QUOTE ME" making THAT CLAIM....BEFORE you Ask me to provide you with examples....??

God Bless,
Taken

You said in post #402:
"Scritpure is FOR revealing KNOWLEDGE that has been Recorded in Written form;
ACCORDING to God and APPROVED by God."

What has been recorded is not in written form alone. You say it is. I challenged you to produce evidence by finding anywhere in the Bible where "word of God" means the written word of God alone. You failed. If you don't have an answer don't reply to me, I don't like repeating myself over and over because you refuse to understand a simple post.

 

[epostle1]

Dr Michael Liccione was having a discussion with a Protestant systematic theology professor on this very subject. The Protestant professor succinctly explained the difference between the two understandings of Scripture .

The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!

This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition doesn't exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).

What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.

"The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian."

 

[Taken]

You said in post #402:
"Scritpure is FOR revealing KNOWLEDGE that has been Recorded in Written form;
ACCORDING to God and APPROVED by God."

Uh huh, and that is TRUE.

What has been recorded is not in written form alone.

I never said it was.

You say it is.

No. That is what YOU SAID "FOR ME".
No where did I say "ALONE" or "LIMITED TO" writing only.

I challenged you to produce evidence by finding anywhere in the Bible where "word of God" means the written word of God alone.

Your challenge is MOOT. You are challenging YOUR OWN WORDS, not mine.

You failed. If you don't have an answer don't reply to me, I don't like repeating myself over and over because you refuse to understand a simple post.

No. YOU added to my comment, YOUR WORDS, and now want me to be accountable FOR YOUR WORDS....

Twisted game, and not interested in you speaking FOR ME, and then want me to be accountable for WHAT YOU SAY.