Featured Sola Scriptura in the Bible

Which ones? There were plenty of false writings floating around that were claimed to be inspired of God and it took the One Universal Christian Church and those who had authority to finally whittle them down to the writings that were ultimately accepted to be the NT Canon. You seem to believe that Scriptures you now hold in your hands were the only ones available at that time and such a thing is just not true.

 

Sola Scriptura for the OT maybe, but Jesus threw that out the window when He gave The Apostles and their successors REAL POWER AND AUTHORITY. Matt 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." or Matt 18:18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven".

 

And how many people in the 1400's in England could read or write? Probably about 2% of the population would be my guess. Plus, let us not forget the erroneous translations that would have existed that the Church had a duty to confront.

 

Jesus told the apostles in Matthew 18:18, "“Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". He did not say this to their successors or mention their successors in this chapter. When the gospel church and kingdom was set up and established among all nations, the twelve Apostles were called, qualified and appointed by the Great Head of the Church to set in order every thing appertaining to the faith and practice of the church under the new covenant dispensation. They (the apostles) received their authority direct from the Lord Jesus, as he said to them at a certain time, “Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Their successors were not told they would sit on the twelve thrones, just as they were not told they were given power direct from Jesus to "bind and loose". He never said this to or about their successors.

And as they (the apostles) were commissioned and sent forth to preach the gospel in all the world, they were endued with power from on High, to decide what was truth, and what was not truth in all matters relative to the church of Christ. From their decision there was, or could be no appeal. Their decision was final, and clothed with as much authority as though the Lord Jesus himself personally had been present in the setting up and establishment of his church. The truth is, the Apostles were full of the Holy Ghost, and their judgment in all matters, as well as their acts in references to the church of God were valid and conclusive. As men they had no more power and authority than other men, but as Apostles and Judges they had.

The Lord Jesus is still seated upon the throne of his glory, and the twelve Judges are also seated upon their thrones in the kingdom of our God. The church of God has but one King and one Shepherd, and she has no other STANDARD writers but what we find in the Scriptures of truth, and especially in the New Testament. And whatsoever is not preached or published in accordance with the writings and acts of the Apostles or Judges, however plausible it may appear, cannot endure the ordeal of Eternal Truth. An experimental knowledge of the truth of the Scriptures, is known by revelation or heavenly teaching, as the Prophets and Apostles knew it. And unless the experience of the saints correspond with the Scriptures it can be of no account. The opinions and notions of men are all vain, when tried by the word of revealed truth.

That the successors did not inherit the authority to bind and loose is clearly apparent in scripture. First, there are only one set of apostles as proven by what Paul wrote, " Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." Catholic church authorities are not apostles as they do not exercise signs, wonders, and the mighty deeds the apostles did. Paul declared, "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" he clearly did mention their successors as the foundation. As the apostles and their writings are the "foundation" upon which the church is build sola scriptora is clearly a truth that can be extrapolated from this doctrine. Finally, Paul told the church , "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them", but if the Catholic church's doctrine of successor ship authority of church elders to "bind and loose" is true then these "wolves" who arose after Paul's departing from among the church who spoke "perverse things" to "draw away" disciples had authority to bind and loose and establish traditions-this is one of the reasons why this position is absurd.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Mark 7:9. 'He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition."'

The sad thing is that the Church of Rome actually subjugates the word of God to her 'traditions.'
''Read the Scripture within the "living Tradition of the whole Church"' ('Dominus Iesus,' 2000). The same document reprimands those who read the Bible for themselves. The same document complains that there is, 'The tendency to read and interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.' Have you considered how close this is to the way that the J.W. Watchtower organization keeps its converts in bondage to itself?

'Woe to you, lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves and those who were entering you hindered' (Luke 11:52).

 

It would be your guess and it would be entirely wrong. All through the 15th Century, literacy was growing down the social scale (cf. Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars, Pages 68-70). When the printing press arrived in England in 1471, it unleashed a huge demand for religious books, which the Church of Rome sought to satisfy with various forms of pseudo-religious devotional pap, but never with the Scriptures.

The Church of Rome recognized only the Latin Vulgate Bible (though it didn't encourage people to read even that). It contained two especially egregious errors: firstly, it translated the Greek word Metanoieo, 'repent,' with the Latin phrase Poenitentam ago, 'Do penance,' causing people to waste their money going on Pilgrimage and other useless activities instead of repenting before God. Secondly, it mistranslated Luke 1:28, so that instead of reading, "Greetings, you who are highly favoured (or "who have received grace")" into "Hail, you who are full of grace," so that the legend built up that Mary had an excess of grace to bestow, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

It was Erasmus' new Greek edition of the N.T. in 1516, with a new Latin translation, that burst the dam of the Reformation in England. A man named Thomas Bilney, who had undergone all the fasts, vigils, masses, pilgrimages and indulgences prescribed by the priests, came to the Scriptures for the first time and read, 'This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief' (1 Timothy 1:15). It is Christ who saves, not the Church of Rome with all her hocus pocus, and that realization transformed Thomas Bilney and soon turned the trickle of reformation in England started by Wyclif and the Lollards into a mighty flood.

Of course, the Church of Rome burned Bilney, but that was to be expected.

 

You are confusing sola scriptura with the doctrine of the Priesthood of the believer.

 

Well, Adonia, Clement of Rome and Polycarp quote only from genuine New Testament books, if only because the 'gnostic gospels' and other pseudographia had not been written at that time. It is evident if you look at other ECFs like Ignatius and Justin, that these people knew what was inspired Scripture and what wasn't long before either Constantine or the Church of Rome.

BTW, Ignatius wrote, "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles; I am a condemned man" (Ignatius: Epistle to the Romans). Poly carp wrote, "For neither I, nor is any other like me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul" (Polycarp: Epistle to the Philippians). Neither off these men regarded themselves as being part of any 'Apostolic succession.'

To cut to the chase, by AD 180, all the books of the NT, with only one exception (2 Peter) had been quoted as Scripture by one ECF or another. The Muratorian Canon, dated around AD 150, listed all the books except four, and warned against writings by Valentinus, Marcion, Basilides. It condemns Paul's letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians as forgeries and said that the Shepherd of Hermas should be read, but not alongside the apostles.

So long before we have a complete list of 27 books, we have 27 books being used as Scripture. The Church did not create the Bible. It received it from the Holy Spirit. One or two books took longer than others to be universally accepted by some churches because heretical groups misused them, but given the conditions of the time (persecution and writing by hand), the list of recognized books was not slow in forming, but remarkably rapid.

 

At least three non-canonical books are quoted from in the Bible:

Num. 21:14. Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD, “Waheb in Suphah, And the wadis of the Arnon,
15. And the slope of the wadis That extends to the site of Ar, And leans to the border of Moab.”

Joshua 10:13. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

2 Samual 1:18. and he told them to teach the sons of Judah the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jashar.

Jude 14. It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,
15. to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” (NASB, 1995)

 

Sola Scriptura?

When we compare the Bibles used by various Christian groups, we find the following writings that are not found in the Protestant Canon but which are found in the Bibles of other Christian groups:

Books and Additions to Esther and Daniel that are in the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles

Tobit
Judith
The Additions to the Book of Esther found in the Greek Version
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach
Baruch
The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch ch. 6)
The Additions to the Greek Book of Daniel
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

Books in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles; Not in the Roman Catholic Canon

1 Esdras (2 Esdras in the Slavonic Bible, 3 Esdras in Appendix to the Vulgate)
The Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
3 Maccabees

A composite book in the Slavonic Bible and in the Latin Vulgate Appendix

2 Esdras (3 Esdras in the Slavonic Bible, 4 Esdras in the Vulgate Appendix; “Esdras” is the Greek form of “Era”)

(Note: In the Latin Vulgate, Ezra- Nehemiah are 1 and 2 Esdras.)

A book in an Appendix to the Greek Bible

4 Maccabees (This book is included in two important Bibles from the fourth and fifth century.)

 

...for BobRyan and SDA is "~utter nonsense~" they dare not deal with ~Sola Scriptura~ because they CANNOT.

 

Surely you jest. Do you read history?
Johannes Gutenberg (1398-1468) invented the printing press in 1439. The first book to be printed on it was a Bible, the Gutenberg Bible.
With the advent of the printing press literacy increased albeit slowly. This was the period known as the Dark Ages brought on by illiterate priests deliberately keeping the people in the dark afraid that a little bit of knowledge would destroy the church and their corrupt positions. The RCC was more corrupt than ever at this time. The more popular the printing press grew the more literacy grew until in the 1900's literacy in England was almost universal.

 

"Polycarp died in AD 155, long before the Roman Catholic Church reared its head."


How about you cough up an actual date the Roman Catholic Church started. And then show us the bishop's reporting how this new heretical group appeared. How they were not sola fide and wiped everyone else who was not.

Once the church shows up.......where are the others? and who are they?
What were the "real" Christians called back in 400? Name ONE person of that time.


Who is Polycarp anyways!?!? [profanity edited out]

"And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour, is the mother of us all. Galatians 4:26 For if any one be inwardly possessed of these graces, he has fulfilled the command of righteousness, since he that has love is far from all sin." --Polycarp epistle to ephesians Chapter 3

I like this guy!

Oh yeah sounds JUST LIKE A PROTESTANT..........who became Catholic. I'm going to have to read up on him.....

 

Well he was a chap who didn't use bad language in his one surviving letter.

Well, first of all, if you have a letter from Polycarp to the Ephesians you are doing very well. His letter is to the church at Philippi. Secondly, he does not commend the Philippians to an infallible pronouncement of the Pope, nor to 'sacred tradition,' nor the Virgin Mary, but to the word of God. In the segment you quote, he mentions 'faith...hope...and love,' I'm sure that's in the Bible somewhere. So he sounds to me like someone who believed in Sola Scriptura. His doctrine was fallible because he was a fallible man, so we judge it according to the Scriptures, with which I'm sure he would agree.

I'll come back to the origins of the Church of Rome as I have time.