Featured Sola Scriptura in the Bible

Gee, I wonder how the Universal Christian Church got so far along (over 1500 years) without this Sola Scriptura idea and we should not forget about the "Traditions" of the Church either as we discuss these topics. We Catholics love the Scriptures, our whole form of worship consists of nothing but them and the problem seems to rise only when the biblical interpretations begin. What actually is the gospel? It's the belief in the death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ from which we receive forgiveness for our sins. Do we both not believe that?

 

G

 

The Sola Scriptura idea that says each believer is to determine what the Scriptures actually mean never existed until the Martin Luther era. Before that it was the Church that determined things by a combination of the Scriptures and yes what is known as the Sacred Tradition. While there might have been certain parts of the NT Scriptures around, the NT as we now know them did not come into being until the 4th century. Until that time there were many "writings" floating about that certain people claimed were inspired by God and these had to be weeded out and it was the One Universal Christian Church that did this. I don't think that 2 Tim 3:16-17 negates the role of the Church in scriptural interpretation or their ultimate formation.

 

Don't be foolish. Martin Luther has nothing to do with sola scriptura.
"sola"--alone.
"scriptura"--Scripture.
The Scripture alone is our authority; that is, it is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. No need to bring Martin Luther or any other of the Reformers into the picture. It is a Biblical doctrine practiced not only by the Apostles and Christ, but by the Israelites.

For example, one of the scriptures that Bob keeps pointing you to is:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--Let's examine this using some actual examples.
If a person came to the Israelites claiming to be a prophet but practiced a form of witchcraft telling people they would be healed through his magic potions, what should be the reaction of the nation of Israel?
Witches were to be stoned to death.
False prophets were to be stoned to death.
A false prophet was known by "his fruit," and in this case his fruit (or doctrine) was wrong.

Now, in application to the NT times or our time.
Doctrines like the: trinity, deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, can be verified by the scriptures and we know they are true and rejoice in them.

But when someone presents: baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, perpetual virginity of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, praying to the dead, etc. These doctrines must be examined in the light of Scripture.
The Bible is the final authority.
It is not Luther, the pope, the Magesterium, the Catechism, etc. It is the Scriptures. It was in the OT, and it is in the NT. It is the only authority that we have in matters of faith and doctrine.
The doctrines just listed are not found in the Bible. They are man-made doctrine and just as surely as they are man-made, they are false and damnable heretical doctrines that lead people away from the truth away from the entrance of salvation and heaven.

There is no tradition that is sacred. Tradition changes.
The Bible does not change; it has not changed for the past two thousand years.
God does not change.
Christ does not change.
But man changes; the RCC and its doctrine changes. We see this as we examine its doctrine throughout the centuries and even as we examine the changes that the present pope is making.

That is typical RCC propaganda. The entire NT canon was in existence by the end of the first century. John wrote the last books, particularly the last book, Revelation, in ca. 98 A.D. Then the canon of Scripture was complete. Because of the difficulty of travel, distance, and the fact that the books were written on bulky scrolls, no man may have had all the scrolls at one time. But they did have them, and they were sent and read to different churches. They even knew which ones were inspired. Paul indicates this in some of his writings as does Peter.

For example:
Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
--Paul wanted his epistles to be read.

John wrote the First Epistle of John because there were many "false writings" about Gnosticism "floating around." One of the reasons of the epistle was to refute that doctrine.

Christ and all the writers of the NT warned against false teaching.

Acts 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
Acts 8:11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. (rosary, indulgences, special blessings, etc.)

Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

Unlike Simon, the RCC has never learned. Its main purpose is still to deceive people and rob them of their money. It holds the power over the people.
From this passage comes the English word "simony," which means paying or bribing someone to gain advancement in a higher office in a religious order.

From Wikipedia:
Simony (/ˈsaɪ.mə.ni/ or /ˈsɪ.mə.ni/) is the act of selling church offices and roles. The practice is named after Simon Magus,[1] who is described in the Acts of the Apostles 8:9–24...The term also extends to other forms of trafficking for money in "spiritual things".[2][3] Simony was also one of the important issues during the Investiture Controversy.

Thus we use the Bible as our authority. The Catholic Church uses money, tradition, and many other ways of making their decisions. And many of them are wrong and have led them totally astray.

 

Lets see what it actually says.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

PROFITABLE means it helps.

Having eyeballs is profitable for doctrine and instruction.

That doesn't mean eyeballs IS doctrine.

Profitable for doctrine and IS doctrine are two different things.

And have common sense this verse is a commentary ABOUT scripture itself, as they knew it the OLD TESTAMENT.


Here is Jesus following a NON-SCRIPTURAL Tradition:

Matthew 23
1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Moses' seat is formally recognized by Christ. Your not going to find a lick of this in the old testament, no instruction concerning it.



Some of you are married. Show us where it says to use RINGS. Show us the whole do you take this woman to be your wife?

The instructions on THE HOLY MATRIMONY don't you think that's important?

You sola scripturist better not be getting married......Can't....not in the bible.



Scripture alone doesn't work. Independent ......HAH. That means I am the infallible authority of scripture everyone else is wrong.

You guys can't even agree on what it says.


2 peter 3
16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Peter says SOLA SCRIPTURA is dangerous. It can't work alone. YOU require GUIDANCE else you are UNTAUGHT and UNSTABLE just as Martin Luther and John Calvin were UNTAUGHT and UNSTABLE.

There is a test they FAILED.

You come from a long line of UNTAUGHT to UNTAUGHT.

The guy who taught you, who taught him? And we can trace it all the way down to a untaught dumb catholic.

The only protestants that get to fly are the ones have Prophets like Joseph Smith, Ellen G white.... cause they can claim the GOD taught them ect,ect.

If you don't have some miraculous conduit to be taught scripture. Then you have no guarantee of any meaning of scripture outside the certified lineage of teaching that comes from apostolic succession.

And better you have NO holy table of contents, You don't even know what the bible is which one is right unless someone puts it in your hands.

You didn't think up the cannon of scripture yourself, you got to cheat off some other guys list....and that guy is a CATHOLIC.

 

Ouch!

 

It certainly never existed within the Church of Rome, which forbade the translation of the Scripture into English (Constitutions of Arundel, 1407) and burned those who did so (De Carburendo Haeretico, 1401).

Nevertheless, men and women were willing to risk such a horrible death to bring the Scriptures to the people of England. These were the 'Lollards,' and if you haven't read about them, maybe you should. The Reformation did not begin with Luther and Henry VIII.

 

I'm just amazed you can write this stuff. Do you write it with a straight face? The Jewish religious authorities were the law of the land and therefore to be obeyed save where the proclamation of the Gospel was concerned (Acts 4:19-20; Romans 13:1 etc.).

Rings are not required. Non-scriptural addition; optional extra End of story. Move along. Nothing to see here.

 

Inspired Scripture is God's book of revelation. As a result of that revelation, we are able to hold the Bible in our hands and know that we have in our possession the written word of God, and to say, 'To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them' (Isaiah 8:20).

In Exodus 24:4, we read how 'Moses wrote all the words of the LORD.' And a little later the Lord spoke to him some more and said to him, 'Write these words.....' (Exodus 34:27). Once written, these inspired writings were carefully preserved. 'Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you' (Deut. 31:26). Later, when Joshua made an addition to Moses' scroll, he 'wrote these words in the book of the Law of God, And he took a large stone, and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the LORD. And Joshua said to all the people, "Behold, this stone shall be a witness to us, because it has heard all the words of the LORD which He spoke to us. It shall therefore be a witness to you, lest you deny your God' (Joshua 24:27).

So to deny the word of God is to deny God Himself.

God continued to inspire men until there was a wonderful collection of books (cf. 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 36:1-2). This collection was regarded from the beginning as essentially one book, called 'the book of the LORD' (Isaiah 34:16). The king of Israel himself was required to make a copy of God's word (Deuteronomy 17:18; cf. 2 Chronicles 23:11). How good it would be if every President of the USA and every Prime Minister of Britain had to spend an hour or two each day copying out sections of the Bible!

More to follow as time permits.

 

Non-scriptural addition TO WHAT? The CORE essential is not in the bible.

I'm married to every woman on earth. Biblically prove otherwise.

How about a 80 year old marry a 8-year old. Show us this is not allowed biblically.


The Jewish Religious authorities.........WERE PEOPLE. Not scripture. Can you comprehend the point you made yourself?


If Jesus was a SOLA SCRIPTURist. The Jewish religious authority(singular) would be SCRIPTURE ALONE.

 

Your problem is that you don't know what Sola Scriptura actually means. What you are talking about is Solo Scriptura. Sola Scriptura simply means that mythical 'traditions' and the witness of the fathers' is not to be given equal status with the word of God. But that same Sola Scriptura tells us that the Lord Jesus 'Gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.......etc.' (Ephesians 4:11-12).

God has given pastors and teachers to His Church, and we follow them so far as they follow Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1).

 

The Jewish religious authority, the Sanhedrin, hated Christ, were responsible for killing him.

Jesus is the Word, the Logos.
By His word he breathed the world and the universe into existence.
He spoke and it was done.
There is nothing that can be done that is done without permission from Him, or His Word.
That makes Christ not only sola scriptura but greater than it.

 

Do you just make up the rules and narrative as you go? Yep.

You say the church is to be 'the one' to interpret Scripture. Yep, but that isn't RC.

The church is made up not just of pastors, deacons (I'm purposefully excluding the blasphemous and non Scriptural 'office' of priest since there is no need as Christ made all being sanctified perfect forever by His one time offering, therefore there is no made up 'priest' needed for the people as He is it).

So what I am saying is that the offices of pastor, deacon make up the church, along with those who heed them. These folks are also the church, and many of them are very good teachers and exegetes as they 'sit in the pew'. In other words they don't allow a false and apostate RC system to lord over them and tell them what to believe. God has always reserved these people to Himself, those who won't bow the knee to Baal, or RC for that matter, and know that the Spirit of God is their teacher. Also note Ephesians 4:11ff. No office of priest mentioned. Why? Because there is no such office.

 

Sola Scriptura existed long before this, note Isaiah 8:20. Certainly your RC has a tradition to undo this? Note also Psalm 119 as well.

 

The Lord Jesus Christ ascribed inspired authority to the O.T. Scriptures (Matthew 5:18; 15:3; Mark 12:6; John 10:35). He also promised His chosen servants that after His return to heaven, He would send the Holy Spirit to remind them of the teaching He had given them and to communicate further truth to them. (John 14:26; cf. John 16:12-13).
In His ministry, the Lord Jesus, as has been shown in the O.P., attacked the Jewish authorities for exalting their traditions at the expense of Scripture (Mark 7:7ff). He also constantly referred them to the Scriptures. 'Have you not read.......?' (cf. Matthew 12:3-5; 19:4; 21:16; 22:31; Mark 2:25; 12:10, 16; 13:14; Luke 6:3; 10:26). For Him, the Scriptures were not the supreme authority but the only authority.

Recent discoveries of fragments of Matthew and Mark mean that those Gospels were probably written by AD 50, and almost everything else by AD 70 (possibly excluding John's letters and Revelation).

The N.T. Scriptures were immediately accepted as being the word of God. Paul quotes Luke 10:7 alongside Deut. 25:4 (1 Timothy 5:18), and Peter endorses Paul's letters in 1 Peter 3:15-16. The ECFs quote extensively from the N.T. showing that they regarded them as authoritative. For example, somewhere around AD 95, Clement of Rome wrote: 'Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos.....' Clement did not wait for any authority to tell him that 1 Corinthians was inspired Scripture. Clement also quoted from Psalm 118:18 and Hebrews 12:6 and described them both as the 'Holy Word.'

Polycarp, in his letter to the church at Philippi, quotes from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 2 Thes., 1 & 2 Tim., and Hebrews. He quotes 1 Peter so often and widely that Bruce Metzger suggests that he must have known it practically by heart. He introduces quotations by saying, "Remember what the Lord said in His teaching....." and "As the Lord said......" He also wrote, " I trust you are well versed in the sacred Scriptures and that nothing is hid from you." He assumed that his readers also has access to the N.T. Polycarp died in AD 155, long before the Roman Catholic Church reared its head.

 

Adonia,

It existed at the time of the New Testament. This verse is explicit, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things" (1 John 2:27

The Pharisees relied on both scripture and tradition to determine things. Nobody will debate they were the most schooled and learned men in the scripture of their day, but also relied on traditions to determine things, how did that turn out?
"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

If Jesus's advent were to occur today many of the Catholic hierarchy would be the first to plot his death to maintain their authority and tradition. Scripture says Christ is the head of the church, but Catholics say the pope is, which is it?

 

Mythical traditions? The Early Fathers were acting with the complete authority of Jesus Christ via the "binding and loosing" command. It went like this, the power given to the Apostles was turned over by them to the succeeding leaders of the One Universal Christian Church. They had the power to do so and that is what they did.

 

The Pharisees did not have the power to specifically "bind and loose" things on earth and thus in heaven - the Apostles and their successors did. But of course, that would be another biblical truth you would ignore and thus reject.