How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

[BRIANH]

Ok I'll take your last statement first.



As far as the LXX lets say I agree with you. Though there is dispute about this and for the sake of this argument I will agree with you. (Though unlike you I believe that all of the books in the version we know as the LXX were available to the early christians) That does not deminish the fact that the earliest christian writers referred to certain text in the LXX not in the Hebrew bible as authoritative. Look at Clements letter to the Corinthians in AD 90. He refers to Judith. As early as AD 90. Paul when we quotes from OT text is using LXX language and phrases. This would indicate that he was using the greek text and consider that with referrences in early christian writings to books not in the Hebrew bible that christians looked at the LXX as authoritative. So if not all books in the LXX we know as apocryphal at least some of them were considered authoritative.

The reference to Judith is in and of itself not authoratative though. He quotes it. Paul quotes noncanonical sources as well as I am sure you would be familiar with based upon the scholarly nature of your reply.
Patristic references as a book being scripture is also an interesting approach to take; we know that Irenaues quotes the Shepherd as scripture.
I am not disputing their use; thus why I support their inclusion in a section of the Bible; the KJV being the perfect example of this. I do like your references to history though. I think the main thing we can agree on is that just because the LXX contained some of the books it would eventually possess; it does not mean it contained ALL of the books that would be accepted by our local synod in northern Africa 400 years later.

 

[DHK]

Ok I'll take your last statement first.



As far as the LXX lets say I agree with you. Though there is dispute about this and for the sake of this argument I will agree with you. (Though unlike you I believe that all of the books in the version we know as the LXX were available to the early christians) That does not deminish the fact that the earliest christian writers referred to certain text in the LXX not in the Hebrew bible as authoritative. Look at Clements letter to the Corinthians in AD 90. He refers to Judith. As early as AD 90. Paul when we quotes from OT text is using LXX language and phrases. This would indicate that he was using the greek text and consider that with referrences in early christian writings to books not in the Hebrew bible that christians looked at the LXX as authoritative. So if not all books in the LXX we know as apocryphal at least some of them were considered authoritative.

It is a well established fact that the original LXX did not have the apocryphal books. It was originally translated from the Hebrew ca. 250 years B.C. The oldest of the apocrypha books is about 130 B.C. All of these spurious books were never found in the Hebrew OT nor in the original LXX. At the time of Christ there was floating around another edition of the LXX wherein someone had inserted some apocryphal books, but this was unacceptable to the Apostles and Christ. Note that they never quoted from it.
The Jews have never accepted the apocryphal books.
They have consistently and always rejected the apocryphal books.
What sort of stupendous miracle do you think it would take to force God-fearing Hebrews to put other Greek literature into their Holy Canon when translating it? Anyone who thinks that the Hebrews would stoop so low to do such a profane thing has not thought things through very much. It is akin to sacrificing a pig in the temple. It just could not happen.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is a well established fact that the original LXX did not have the apocryphal books. It was originally translated from the Hebrew ca. 250 years B.C. The oldest of the apocrypha books is about 130 B.C. All of these spurious books were never found in the Hebrew OT nor in the original LXX. At the time of Christ there was floating around another edition of the LXX wherein someone had inserted some apocryphal books, but this was unacceptable to the Apostles and Christ. Note that they never quoted from it.
The Jews have never accepted the apocryphal books.
They have consistently and always rejected the apocryphal books.
What sort of stupendous miracle do you think it would take to force God-fearing Hebrews to put other Greek literature into their Holy Canon when translating it? Anyone who thinks that the Hebrews would stoop so low to do such a profane thing has not thought things through very much. It is akin to sacrificing a pig in the temple. It just could not happen.

Thats like saying it is a well established fact that the Book of Daniel was writen 250 years before Christ or that Moses didn't exist and most of OT was writen just after the babylonian captivity and the 10 commandements are really a rip off from the code of Hemmurabi. there are scholars who have submitted theories like this but its not a well established fact. In fact, there are a multitude of scholars who disagree with you. And if you're right how can Clement quote from the book of Judith in 90 AD? there is a 40 year difference if you're saying Judith is the oldest book in the LXX if you're not then the differential increases. So you're saying the macabees was writen 200 years after christ?

2.3 The Septuagint
What Bible does the New Testament quote? Not the Hebrew Bible, since the majority of the New Testament was composed in Greek. The Bible used for most Scripture quotations in the New Testament is the same Bible used by the Ethiopian Jews mentioned above and the same Bible used by Christians in the earliest centuries of the Church -- it is named the Septuagint (or LXX). The LXX is a translation of the Old Testament into Greek that was completed no later than 180 BC.
One of the reasons that the LXX is of value is that expresses the opinions of the Jewish people in the times prior to Christ, during an age where later opinions of him could not have biased their writings or thoughts with respect to Christian issues. In some cases also, it may well reflect an earlier text than the present Hebrew.

Isaiah 7:14 became a controversial verse for Jews and Christians practically from the start -- but it reflects a pre-Christian Jewish interpretation of the admittedly more vague Hebrew text. The LXX used the word virgin in its translation, and after Christians came on the scene and used this word as prophetic of the type of birth Christ it became an embarrassment to the Jews.

What this verse said about the virgin birth of the Messiah, together with the fact that the LXX was the version quoted by the authors of the New Testament, combined with its widespread use before and after the time of Christ caused many to think that the LXX itself was inspired. Another strong reason that many believed in the LXX's inspiration was that a legend sprang up about its composition -- that the books were translated independently by 72 scholars and that they arrived at, word for word, the identical translation.

Unfortunately, the oldest copies of the LXX currently in our possession date from the 4th century, and must have been copied by Christian hands. The antiquity of the translations can be established, however, from other considerations. The canon of the LXX is larger than than the present canon used by the Jews, and includes the books disputed between Catholics and Protestants (as well as the additions to Daniel and Esther).

The LXX was not generally available in the form of a modern Bible (although there are some copies, called codices, which were bound in a form like a modern book), but as a collection of scrolls, and thus its table of contents was less fixed. Furthermore, even in the ancient codices there is some variation in the contents. One finds books there that both Catholics and Protestants consider to be non-canonical. In all cases the disputed books are present in the codices, the only exception is that Maccabees is absent from one copy of the LXX named Codex Vaticanus.

In any event, one must recognize that at the time the New Testament was written the LXX was in wide use and was widely respected by the authors of the New Testament and the Jewish people living at that time -- otherwise the New Testament writers would not have made use of it. Rapidly, however, it became more a Christian than a Jewish book. In fact, I think one can say with little exaggeration that it became the Christian Old Testament.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The reference to Judith is in and of itself not authoratative though. He quotes it. Paul quotes noncanonical sources as well as I am sure you would be familiar with based upon the scholarly nature of your reply.
Patristic references as a book being scripture is also an interesting approach to take; we know that Irenaues quotes the Shepherd as scripture.
I am not disputing their use; thus why I support their inclusion in a section of the Bible; the KJV being the perfect example of this. I do like your references to history though. I think the main thing we can agree on is that just because the LXX contained some of the books it would eventually possess; it does not mean it contained ALL of the books that would be accepted by our local synod in northern Africa 400 years later.

I actually don't have a real problem with your last statement. I could even agree until I get more information comes to light that this is not so. The fact is you're right at least some of the texts were used by Paul, and other early church leaders. They relied on them. Their use seems to indicate at least some inspiration. But these were the text the early christians used to develop their theology. It is clear in their writings. So then that is information obtained outside the bible as we know it today and their for not entirely sola scriptura which is my point.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I agree 100% brother. The abandonment of Sola Scriptura for a pretended Sola Ecclessia has led to the worst heresy, vice, darkness, and depravity seen. No church by their deeds are more reprehensible than Antichrist has perpetuated on the world, plunging it into deep darkness, which by the grace of God the Reformation, being a heaven-sent revival, God was pleased to use to restore the Gospel and the Word of God to itself rightful place--albeit not without much bloodshed perpetrated against them.

Just curious, why did the Baptist Church need to be “reformed” and be named aptly: Reformed Baptist. If sola scriptura is doing it’s job, why are there Alliance Baptist, American Baptist, Baptist Bible Fellowship, General Baptist, Missionary Baptist, Black Primitive Baptist, Central Baptist, Christian Unity Baptist, Conservative Baptist, Continental Baptist, Cooperative Baptist, Evangelical Free Baptist, Full Gospel Baptist, Fundamental Baptist, General Association of Baptist, General Association OF General Baptist, General Association of Regular Baptist, General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist, General Six-Principle Baptist, Independent Baptist of America, Independent Baptist Fellowship International, Old Regular Baptist, Old Time Missionary Baptist, ORIGINAL Free Will Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Progressive (not the insurance) National Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Regular Baptist, Separate Baptist, Separate Baptists in Christ, Seventh Day Baptist, Southern Baptist, Southwide Baptist, Sovereign Baptist, Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptist, United American Free Will Baptist, United Baptist…need I go on?

Who’s able to use sola scriptura and speak collectively for the group in lets say a topic regarding Baptism, tongues or predestination?

In XC
-

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

In response to this...

"When the Bible alone is recognized as the source of authority (which is what God designed),"

You said...

Show me where the Bible claims that"

You have been shown so many times you should have all the passages of scripture memorized by now.

Its not that you dont know what the scriptures clearly proclaim. Its that you willfully reject it.


Mike

 

[Pastor Larry]

What a lot of contradictions here! Firstly, it is SS which produces "each man becoming his own pope" - and we see the pernicious effects of this all around, particularly on these boards

This is completely false. SS means that Scripture is the authority, not man. When you abandon SS, then people end up having to pick which man they will follow. When you have SS, then people follow the Scripture.

Show me where the Bible claims that

Let's think here for a minute. You pretend to have a studied opinion on this matter, and yet you do not even know the evidence for the position you disagree with? Seriously, Matt. How can we take you seriously when you don't even know the evidence?

But what's the point if there is still chaos about what is right? This is not the way Christ designed it,surely?!

Two things: First, the chaos is the result of sin which is the result of people rebelling against God, including rejecting God's authority for their own. That is what has led to a rejection of SS: "We don't like God's authority so we will follow someone else." Second, Christ designed that his church follow his Word. That is what he left to bring people to faith in him.

Fine, if the Scriptures claim that. Which they don't. Anywhere.

Then you need a new Bible. 2 Tim 3:16-17 say plainly that the Scripture equip man for "every good work." That means that it is sufficient for every good work ... that we need nothing else to equip us. 2 Peter 1:19-21 make it plain that the Scriptures come from God. This is so plain in Scripture that those who reject it are not rejecting mere opinion, but are asserting their own authority against God, the very thing that led to sin in the first place. To reject SS is to reject God and to make one's self his own pope. To this, the only answer can be repentance.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Just curious, why did the Baptist Church need to be “reformed” and be named aptly: Reformed Baptist. If sola scriptura is doing it’s job, why are there Alliance Baptist, American Baptist, Baptist Bible Fellowship, General Baptist, Missionary Baptist, Black Primitive Baptist, Central Baptist, Christian Unity Baptist, Conservative Baptist, Continental Baptist, Cooperative Baptist, Evangelical Free Baptist, Full Gospel Baptist, Fundamental Baptist, General Association of Baptist, General Association OF General Baptist, General Association of Regular Baptist, General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist, General Six-Principle Baptist, Independent Baptist of America, Independent Baptist Fellowship International, Old Regular Baptist, Old Time Missionary Baptist, ORIGINAL Free Will Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Progressive (not the insurance) National Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Regular Baptist, Separate Baptist, Separate Baptists in Christ, Seventh Day Baptist, Southern Baptist, Southwide Baptist, Sovereign Baptist, Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptist, United American Free Will Baptist, United Baptist…need I go on?

This can only be said by someone who is unthinking, uninformed, or willfully misrepresenting the facts. The fact that there are different groups of Baptists does not mean that Scripture is not sufficient by itself. How in the world do we get to that kind of thinking?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

This can only be said by someone who is unthinking, uninformed, or willfully misrepresenting the facts. The fact that there are different groups of Baptists does not mean that Scripture is not sufficient by itself. How in the world do we get to that kind of thinking?

Again, I ask; How did the Baptist Churches get to this point and why? Shouldn't the very definition of sola scriptura keep this from happening? Which group has rightly understood the Bible? Once we decide that we can then throw into the mix, the different groups of Methodist, Lutherans, Presbyterian...ect. Then we can take all the groups from each denomination that "rightly understands the Bible" and then try and decide which of those groups have "rightly understood the Bible."

In XC
-

 

[Andre]

This can only be said by someone who is unthinking, uninformed, or willfully misrepresenting the facts. The fact that there are different groups of Baptists does not mean that Scripture is not sufficient by itself. How in the world do we get to that kind of thinking?

I am not sure what your point is. In some of your posts you locate the locus of the authority in the scriptures. I have a lot of empathy for this position but I think that things are not so simple.

The problem lies in the non-existence of an "objective" reading. This is not so much a theological point as it is a point about the fundamental nature of the world. In this case, we have words on a page and we have a reader. The key point is that it is simply not possible to talk about the reader extracting an "objective" truth since the very act of reading and interpreting involves the application of the reader's mental infrastructure and all the subjectivity that this entails. Every view about what the scriptures say is somebody's view. The notion that there is an objective reading is essentially a myth.

I am not suggesting that the scriptures do not contain "objective truth". But it is an exceedingly daunting task to get at it, and almost certainly requires a community effort. And, in principle at least, this does seem to point us toward the "church" as being that community.

As other posters correctly point out, if it were as simple as a single reader sitting down reading the scriptures and "getting the truth that is in scripture alone", it is exceedingly suspicious that there is such divergence on what that truth is.

I think we all know that many will simply hold to the naive view that "my reading is the objective one". That is profoundly unrealistic and not sustainable in light of all the disagreements we get.

However, despite what I have just written, I choose to not subject myself to the authority of the "church" - at least not the "mainstream" church. My approach is definitely a more "protestant" one where I read the scriptures and try to figure them out "myself", although also listening to other voices.

This is a tricky issue and I see some valid arguments on both sides.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

This is completely false. SS means that Scripture is the authority, not man. When you abandon SS, then people end up having to pick which man they will follow. When you have SS, then people follow the Scripture.

...2 Tim 3:16-17 say plainly that the Scripture equip man for "every good work." That means that it is sufficient for every good work ...

Is that why we have thousands of different protestant denominations? People picking which man (Reformer) to follow?

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why then is it when I walk into any Christian Bookstore, I’m bombarded with books upon books of people’s interpretation of the Bible. Commentaries, Study Bibles, all interpreted based on some author with a Masters of Divinity or a Joel Osteen with no degree.

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why doesn't it produce consistent results?

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why not just hand out Bibles and stop handing out “How to be saved” tracts? Let the Bible do the talking…

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why do we even need you in the pulpit pastor? Can you "rightly divide the truth" of God's Word better than a Methodist pastor? If so, by what authority?

In XC
-

 

[annsni]

Is that why we have thousands of different protestant denominations? People picking which man (Reformer) to follow?

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why then is it when I walk into any Christian Bookstore, I’m bombarded with books upon books of people’s interpretation of the Bible. Commentaries, Study Bibles, all interpreted based on some author with a Masters of Divinity or a Joel Osteen with no degree.

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why doesn't it produce consistent results?

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why not just hand out Bibles and stop handing out “How to be saved” tracts? Let the Bible do the talking…

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why do we even need you in the pulpit pastor? Can you "rightly divide the truth" of God's Word better than a Methodist pastor? If so, by what authority?

In XC
-

Because man is sinful and imperfect. Was there not numerous churches in the Bible? Wasn't there people who followed Paul, others followed Apollos? What makes you think this is a result of the authority of the Bible?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Again, I ask; How did the Baptist Churches get to this point and why?

The differences between these Baptist groups are relatively minor, and they got there for various reasons.

Shouldn't the very definition of sola scriptura keep this from happening?

No, which becomes obvious when you understand what sola scriptura actually means. SS does not mean that everyone will interpret the Bible correctly. That’s your mistake. You think SS means everyone will interpret it correctly. It has never meant that.

s that why we have thousands of different protestant denominations? People picking which man (Reformer) to follow?

No.

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why then is it when I walk into any Christian Bookstore, I’m bombarded with books upon books of people’s interpretation of the Bible. Commentaries, Study Bibles, all interpreted based on some author with a Masters of Divinity or a Joel Osteen with no degree.

Because as I already said, SS doesn’t mean that everyone will agree. It means that the authority is in the Scripture.

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why doesn't it produce consistent results?

Because men are sinners and are finite.

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why not just hand out Bibles and stop handing out “How to be saved” tracts? Let the Bible do the talking…

Again, a gross misunderstanding of SS.

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why do we even need you in the pulpit pastor?

Because we preach the word of God because it is sufficient.

Can you "rightly divide the truth" of God's Word better than a Methodist pastor?

Yes, because I do it consistently. A Methodist does not.

If so, by what authority?

By the authority of Scripture itself.

Again, you appear to have a very poor understanding of SS and of denominational history.

 

[mrtumnus]

Then you need a new Bible. 2 Tim 3:16-17 say plainly that the Scripture equip man for "every good work." That means that it is sufficient for every good work ... that we need nothing else to equip us.

I would say that 2 Tim 3:16-17 plainly says that one must have Scripture in order to be thoroughly equipped. Not that it is the only thing one must have to be thoroughly equipped.

If as you say -- we need nothing else to equip us -- then Scripture alone would be the full armor of God.

 

[Andre]

IF Scripture is “all sufficient” why doesn't it produce consistent results?

There are a number of possible explanations for this:

1. On the cynical side of things, one can argue that many people come to scripture wanting it to endorse their own desires. I suggest that this happens a lot. One could argue that the scriptures are indeed "all sufficient" and the inconsistency is simply a manifestation of the fact that some approach the scriptures "honestly" while others do not.

2. The Scriptures are inherently complex and difficult to figure out. On this view, the Scriptures could still retain "all sufficient" authority and yet we would still see divergence as people try to find the meaning that is inherently difficult to get at.

I think both the above are at play. Look at the "Politics" forum - there you see lots of examples of those who bend the scriptures to endorse the worldly view that the projection of military might, or unbridled capitalism, or a "future only" Kingship of Jesus are endorsed by the Scriptures.

However, if you have read my earlier post, you will know that I believe that the very nature of the beast denies the possibilty of a "one-person objective reading". So, I think that a community effort is required. But at the end of the day, and I suspect in contrast to you, I am just too skeptical of the mainstream church to subject myself to their authority. So I am indeed in an odd place - somewhere in the middle of the positions in this thread.

 

[D28guy]

Annsni,

"Because man is sinful and imperfect. Was there not numerous churches in the Bible? Wasn't there people who followed Paul, others followed Apollos? What makes you think this is a result of the authority of the Bible?"

I'll give you 3 guesses.


Mike

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Because man is sinful and imperfect. Was there not numerous churches in the Bible? Wasn't there people who followed Paul, others followed Apollos? What makes you think this is a result of the authority of the Bible?

It wasn’t because of conflicting doctrines that there were numerous churches in the NT.

Are you seriously trying to compare the Church in Corinth to the Church in Antioch to the Church in Galatia to the Church in Philippi to the Church in Thessalonica to the Church in Ephesus to Protestantism? I certainly hope not.

Did Apollos teach anything contradictory to Paul’s teaching?

Furthermore, there were no NT Bible that Apollos drew from, only what was taught to him by Paul…Tradition.

In XC
-

 

[Pastor Larry]

I would say that 2 Tim 3:16-17 plainly says that one must have Scripture in order to be thoroughly equipped. Not that it is the only thing one must have to be thoroughly equipped.

You would say wrongly.

If as you say -- we need nothing else to equip us -- then Scripture alone would be the full armor of God.

Um, no ...

 

[mrtumnus]

I would say that 2 Tim 3:16-17 plainly says that one must have Scripture in order to be thoroughly equipped. Not that it is the only thing one must have to be thoroughly equipped.

You would say wrongly.

Please point out where the word "ONLY" is in the text then?

If as you say -- we need nothing else to equip us -- then Scripture alone would be the full armor of God.

Um, no ...

So why is Scripture 'alone' not the full armor of God then?

 

[DHK]

It wasn’t because of conflicting doctrines that there were numerous churches in the NT.

Are you seriously trying to compare the Church in Corinth to the Church in Antioch to the Church in Galatia to the Church in Philippi to the Church in Thessalonica to the Church in Ephesus to Protestantism? I certainly hope not.

Did Apollos teach anything contradictory to Paul’s teaching?

Furthermore, there were no NT Bible that Apollos drew from, only what was taught to him by Paul…Tradition.

In XC
-

Tradition? Where do you find that in the Bible? You don't, at least not if you give the Bible its proper interpretation. Here is what you find:

1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
--Christ is not a tradition.

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
--Again, Christ is not a tradition

1 Corinthians 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
--Paul taught to Timothy the Word. Paul taught in every church and everywhere the Word. He sent Timothy with the Word, which God would bring into remembrance for Him.

1 Corinthians 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
--The gospel was of primary importance to Paul. This is what he preached.

Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
--He preached things concerning the kingdom of God.

Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
--Finally he says that he has not shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of God. What Paul did was preach and teach the Word of God. He did it in the synagogues, on the ships while traveling, in jails and prisons, and from house to house.

Acts 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
--He didn't keep anything back from them; he taught sola scriptura. He taught them all. He taught them the whole counsel of God. So that at the end he could safely say:

Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
--If he had not warned them of the things recorded in God's Word their blood would be on his hands; but he had warned them. He was pure from the blood of all men, for he had faithfully preached God's Word wherever he had gone. He had practiced sola scriptura. The Bible was his authority at all times.