How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

[BRIANH]

This information is wrong right here, and shows that you have a propensity for leaning on Catholic-biased information.
First, even the works of Flavius Josephus attest to 66 books in the canon of Scripture. The ECF need not always be resorted to for historical facts.
Secondly, we know that the extra Deuterocanonical books were not inspired. The RCC includes them in the OT. The OT was completed by 450 B.C. There was no book even considered to be part of the canon of the OT Scripture written after 400 B.C. And yet everyone of the Apocryphal books were written between 150 B.C. and 50 A.D., well outside the parameters of the closure of the OT canon.
The Jews never accepted them as Scripture.
The Apostles never accepted them as Scripture.
Christ didn't accept them as Scripture.
The early church didn't accept them as Scripture.
Protestants, as a whole never accepted them as Scripture.
They were only officially accepted as Scripture at the Council of Trent in 1532.
The doctrines contained in these books are contrary to the doctrines contained in the Bible, and we know that the Bible doesn't contradict itself.
We may safely conclude that these books were never Scripture, but were written by imposters.

Not only does Flavius Josephus attest to such a Bible, but so do other very early versions--the Itala, and the Syrian, both second century translations.

Again there is more to history than the ECF. They do provide us with some good information. There are some good uses for them. I do not rely on them for theology. The Bible is my sole authority for faith and practice.

Josephus does not attest to a 66 book canon. Please provide proof.
There are no 66 book canon lists or copies from the 2nd or 3rd century. Provide a link or proof of your statements please.

 

[BRIANH]

Bad mistake. When looking for the truth, go to its very source: "the way, the truth, the life," is Jesus Himself, who is revealed to us in the Scriptures. What do the ECF reveal to us:
Origen is often referred to as the "Father of Arianism." He was a heretic. His heresies are well known, so well known that even the RCC declared him a heretic.
Ireaneus believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80, and had some other very eccentric ideas.
The idea of purgatory surfaced with the ECF.
Tertullian believed in infant baptism during the first part of his life. In the latter part of his life he got converted, was baptized as an adult by immersion, and then joined the Montanists. Which part of Tertullian's life are you going to believe?

I follow after Jesus Christ, and the teachings that He left for us in the Word of God.

Quite true. But why the need to wade through pages of ECF for a confirmation.
"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

In order to convince educated Roman Catholics of the folly of church/tradition; I have found it effective to confront and deal with early Patristic writings. If you look at my homepage, you will find out this is something I do every day. While I appreciate your zeal, the Lord has used my website to lead hundreds (thousands possibly) out of the errors of Catholicism. You can take your approach and maybe it has worked for you

 

[BRIANH]

Slight problem with the red. These books were in the initial canon defined by the Synod of Hippo in 393 and affirmed by the Council of Cartage in 397. Trent added no new books but simply declared the canon that had been in place for over a thousand years infallible and closed.

Ironically, these two councils are also the ones who determined the NT canon which is accepted by all Christians as valid. The same individuals who worked under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine which of the available writings were truly inspired to canonized the NT are the same who placed these books in the OT canon.

It was a Jewish 2nd century council I believe who opted to abandon the Greek OT translation that contained these books and revert to the Hebrew translations which did not. Of major concern was the favorable language in the Greek that supported the divinity of Christ -- "a virgin shall bear a child" as opposed to "a maiden shall bear a child" and such.

I have always found it ironic that when accepting which canon of Scripture is valid many opt to align with a Jewish council that denied the divinity of Christ over that of the Christian council they believe were guided by the Holy Spirit to correctly canonize the NT.

The Council of Jamnia you are referring to is actually going against the grain of contemporary historical scholarship. Bruce Metzger has a compliation of scholars who comment in his book The Canon Debate.
I would not agree that the councils determined; but confirmed. There is scant patristic evidence that the councils, local in nature, were even influential in the church as a whole; evidenced to some degree by the still existing differing canons of certain Orthodox bodies.
For the canon of the NT, you will find consensus 50 years prior to the councils where Shephard of Hermas, Barnabas and others have dropped out of the picture and the few remaining contentious; ie 2nd Peter, Jude, and Revelation has gained universal acceptance by God's divine providence. Even the Catholic Church does not contend that the early councils set the canon. Their approval was "subsequent" and while we differ on the contents of the OT canon, a point that we could discuss although to his credit DHK has summarized many of the effective Protestant point, those who suggest the councils "set" the canon have a problematic presupposition for the very reason you suggest.
I know we can wade pretty deep into this but defending the Protestant canon is...part of what I do!

 

[trustitl]

It does seem to me as though it was the Catholics/orthodox folks who God trusted to pen our New Testaments.

That may or may not be (we will no doubt never know for sure), but who cares. God can use anybody or anything he wants to.

I am not looking at becoming Catholic, btw...

I would hope not. You would still be in the same position you are right now.

But it seems to me that nobody REALLY believes in sola scriptura.. really.. I mean, a lot of my first ideas about how to interpret the bible came from a charismatic church and the Pastors opinions and interpretations. When scripture stopped making sense there, my husband and I hopped over to the Baptist church, but yet again, I am running into scriptures that do not make any sense at all

I would encourage you to stop "looking for love in all the wrong places.(sorry, I'm am a product of the 70's :laugh: ) I speak from experience and have a lot in common with you. You need to stop feeling like you need to have all the right answers. I think God is looking for those that WANT all the right answers, not HAVE them. And since we will never have them all, God is in the position he wants to be: us seeking and being dependent on Him. It is very freeing to be like Paul (Gal. 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

And I have yet to read the church fathers for myself, but I am going to. I keep hearing that the ancient church looks much more Catholic, that they really did believe in Eucharist, and that infants were baptized as the norm.

Again, I would give up on the Church "fathers" (oh, I don't like to right that) until you realize you don't really need them. (I John 1:27 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, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.)

Again, keep in mind, I have made absolutely no decisions, but Im looking at this very seriously. I want to know the truth.

You are on the right track, but seem to be looking in the lanes next to you to much.

And no, I dont think that the bible is inadequate AT ALL. I think we are the inadequate ones, BUT, if there is a church that has it right, then I want in.

You are right about us and the Bible. But about the church thing: there isn't. In fact that was never the plan to begin with. It is about you and Jesus (oh the "orthodox ones hate that).

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Sola Scriptura is a hated doctrine among the Orthodox Church as well.
They also have "other" authorities besides the Bible alone.

Sola scriptura is a protestant doctrine, born out of the Reformation. The "doctrine" is responsible for the thousands of different sects among Protestantism. Now why would the Orthodox Church need this doctrine? For 2,000 years Christ promise to His Church has yet to fail...no reforming needed here.

In XC
-

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let me ask the reader if in fact the views of either sola scriptura or prima scriptura admit to the reality of man’s God instilled conscience as a primary or most basic rule of action and revealer of truth?
Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

 

[Agnus_Dei]

An opinion not reciprocated by the Catholics towards the Orthodox interestingly enough.

From an Orthodox perspective, we see Catholicism and Protestantism both on the same side of the coin.

The Protestant Reformation had nothing to do with the Eastern Orthodox, it probably wasn't much of a surprise to the Eastern Sees when the Reformation happened in the West.

I am curious about your view about the "first" -- why not the Oriental Orthodox?

The Oriental Orthodox resulted from their refusal to accept the Councils Christological dogma's which held that Jesus has two (2) natures, a divine and a human one in the 5th Century. This was a small schism that involved "churches" and their Bishops and today many Churches have come back from their schism and are now in full communion with Constantinople. Interestingly, they're not going to Rome and seeking communion.

In XC
-

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Agnus Dei: The Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Bible, it is built upon the apostles and prophets. Christ did not leave a written book to guide his Church, he left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit.

HP: Of a truth many Scriptures were written subsequent to the Church age, yet was it the Church or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that produced the Scriptures? Even if ‘in a sense’ one would believe the Church produced the NT Scriptures, can it rightfully be said that the Church produced the OT?

Is not it an over-stepping of the bounds of reason to say that Christ did not leave a written book to guide His Church? What else do we have to judge the legion of conflicting statements made by men and women within the church?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Agnus Dei...

"Sola scriptura is a protestant doctrine, born out of the Reformation."

Really?

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work"

(among multitiudes of others of course)

That passage of scripture was penned some 1600 years before protestantisms liberating break from the The church of Rome.

And we see it already in practice at the beginnig as the Bereans were using the scriptures to test the Apostle Pauls teaching to make sure it lined up with scripture.

"The "doctrine" is responsible for the thousands of different sects among Protestantism."

Thats a lie. The varying practices and points of emphasis in different groups was Gods idea, not mans.

"Now why would the Orthodox Church need this doctrine?"

Have you got several hours? But to make it short, primarilly because its would expose the goddess worship, false teaching, idolatry and the repudiation of Gods saving Gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ that exists in the Orthodox world.

"For 2,000 years Christ promise to His Church has yet to fail...no reforming needed here."

Your right. Gods church has not failed. Only groups such as the JW's, Mormons, Orthodox and Catholicism, who have abandoned the "fountain springing up into eternal life" for "wells with no water" have become shipwrecked.



:godisgood:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I believe I could say that in regard to the issues of ‘faith and practice of the Christian faith, ‘Sola Scriptura!” Conscience certainly does not provide the truth or way of salvation, man’s only hope of eternal life. It is only if and when one tries to make ‘Sola Scriptura’ the only source of truth that I would personally see a problem. Thoughts?

 

[DHK]

Sola scriptura is a protestant doctrine, born out of the Reformation. The "doctrine" is responsible for the thousands of different sects among Protestantism. Now why would the Orthodox Church need this doctrine? For 2,000 years Christ promise to His Church has yet to fail...no reforming needed here.

In XC
-

Born out of the Reformation eh?
That is news to me.
Is that why the Bereans practiced it? Who were they trying to reform? Paul???

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

This is sola sciptura. It was practiced in the Bible. These NT Christians used the Bible as their sole authority to determine whether or not the message of Paul was true. If it was true, then they would believe. But only then. They would check the Scriptures, their sole authority first. That is sola scriptura. It is taught, by example right here.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: These NT Christians used the Bible as their sole authority to determine whether or not the message of Paul was true.

HP: This is a great example of what I could never accept as being established ‘sola Scriptura.” It is true that we must use Scripture to determine whether or not something stated is true, but NOT to the exclusion of say intuitive truths or first truths of reason known and recognized by all men of reason as truth. Of a truth, God has revealed to all men some truth necessary to even comprehend any truth found in Scripture. This truth more than likely lies antecedent to our even knowing there is such a thing as Scripture, without which no truth could be known, Scriptural or otherwise.

Failure to consult these God instilled intuitive truths, these first truths of reason, I see as one of the primary sources of false interpretations of Scripture.

 

[DHK]

HP: This is a great example of what I could never accept as being established ‘sola Scriptura.” It is true that we must use Scripture to determine whether or not something stated is true, but NOT to the exclusion of say intuitive truths or first truths of reason known and recognized by all men of reason as truth. Of a truth, God has revealed to all men some truth necessary to even comprehend any truth found in Scripture. This truth more than likely lies antecedent to our even knowing there is such a thing as Scripture, without which no truth could be known, Scriptural or otherwise.

Failure to consult these God instilled intuitive truths, these first truths of reason, I see as one of the primary sources of false interpretations of Scripture.

Even though Paul commended the Bereans for using sola scriptura, and stated that they were noble for doing so, I can only conclude from your post that must have come to false conclusions, were wrong in their interpretations, and rejected what Paul had to say, because they didn't interpret the Scriptures "your way."
A bit arrogant aren't you?

 

[trustitl]

To say that the Bereans practiced Sola Scriptura is a little disingenuous. Paul came to them making claims about Christ out of the Law and the Prophets. They wanted to see if what he said was true. However, his message was spoken and was a new message: "the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints".

This message needed to be believed by faith; it was not some academic pursuit of checking a written source. Their authority was not only written but was Paul's spoken word. This is where the Orthodox and RCC churches go astray(in addition to others). They attribute the authority of Paul and the Apostles to the ""church fathers" and the leaders of the church ever since.

Sola Scriptura is valid to me if it means that their is no truth outside of in or addition to the scriptures that we have which is necessary for salvation or living by faith in Christ. I think that is what DHK advocates.

There is no doubt to me that there is truth outside of scripture, but those will be revealed to us when the adoption is complete. The idea of progressive revelation does not line up with my understanding or reading of the Bible.

Also, I don't think a person needs the Bible to get saved or know when a teaching is not "truth". I know many people with a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible with better understanding than some who can quote chapter and verse with the best of them. These people just "know something is wrong". I think that is what HP advocates.

I wonder when the intuitive understanding that HP has and the scriptures that DHK relies on will bring them to the understanding that they are not "being kindly affectioned one to another in brotherly love". :1_grouphug:

Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I find that Sola Scriptura in this present day an interesting thing. Those who believe in Sola Scriptura say that all their authority comes from Scriptures alone. A noble statement indeed. But in practice, it is simply not true. There are many beliefs that protestants (especially baptist) that are extra biblical. First of all the bible itself. Lets review. The earliest churches used the LXX which contains the apocryphal books that orthodox and catholics call deuterocanonical. This can be verified in History as early as 90-120 AD Clement and Ignatius quote in their letters books from the LXX not in Protestant copies today. They obviously felt that these words were inspired by God. However, the protestants agree with the Jews about which Old Testiment text to use. The Jews shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple wanted to omit books that limited messianic prophesy to a managble level. The early christians did not. Christians agreeing with Jews who want nothing to do with Jesus is something to think about. However, there has to be an agreement with Jews after Jesus' resurection and assention about which OT bible to use. nearly All protestants agree that the NT was first oral tradition that was writen down early in church history. The earliest writings of the Church (which makes up part of that oral tradition) include quotes from the apocryphal books. So the choice of OT canon is dependent on Jews that wanted nothing to do with Jesus! The bible of choice then is a bible that omits early chritian tradition and falls in line with Judaism!
Next my issue with Sola Scriptura are theological beliefs that everyone of us takes for granted like the trinity. If I were to ask many of you if Jesus is of the same essense of God and so is the Holy Spirit. Then you would say yes. Why? The scripture reveals that there is one God. And it reveals that God is revealed in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. But how? It doesn't mention that! The closest you can get is when Jesus said; "I and the father are one." but that isn't clear. How the trinity interworks in that they are all of the same essense and how Jesus nature works being both divine and human isn't sola scriptura. It comes from an outside source! The 1st 2 ecuminical councils the first of which supposedly created the awful Roman Catholic Church. So many of our beliefs are extra biblical. A truly sola scriptura person would say I can't comment on it because scriptures hasn't fully revealed it. But thats not the case. I mean there are post here that are still arguing over the dual nature of Christ or if God is revealed in three persons one at a time! Thats what sola scriptura gives you! In practice nobody is sola scriptura at all! They can be mostly scripture based but at the end of the day much theology we take for granted was handed down by the Catholic and Orthodox churches. And that would make sense because the Protestant reformation is born out of Catholicism like Christianity was born out of Judaism. Protestants take beliefs from the Catholic church (Just the ones they agree with) and the early christians take on the OT from the Jews. Here is another point. early christianity was maintained on Oral Tradition as was Judaism. Once that oral tradition is writen down in scriptures does that make the oral tradition void? Think about Deut 5:31-33 is this an argument for oral tradition? Did Jesus validate some of that oral tradition. Did he refer to it? I think you'll find that he did. We forget he was Jewish and very rabbinical in his teaching. Compare him to Rabbi Heliel (a contemporary of Jesus) and you'll find a lot of similarities in their teaching.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Trustiti,

"To say that the Bereans practiced Sola Scriptura is a little disingenuous. Paul came to them making claims about Christ out of the Law and the Prophets. They wanted to see if what he said was true. However, his message was spoken and was a new message: "the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints".

This message needed to be believed by faith; it was not some academic pursuit of checking a written source."

Not true. After the ressurection, Christ spoke with His disciples, and the scripture says...

"And beginning at Moses, and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself"

And included in that would surely have been...

"And God laid upon Him the iniquity of us all"

The message was there in the OT, but it was just made much clearer and much more thoroughly taught in the NT.


:godisgood:

 

[trustitl]

The message was there in the OT, but it was just made much clearer and much more thoroughly taught in the NT.

Good points to bring up.

What I intended to point out was that Paul had a gospel that was not fully explained in the OT scriptures. Were it so, Paul would not have needed to be inspired to write more scripture for future generations. Paul would no doubt have preached the message that we see in Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, etc. before he would have written it. This message could have been understood before it was written.

 

[mrtumnus]

From an Orthodox perspective, we see Catholicism and Protestantism both on the same side of the coin.

The Protestant Reformation had nothing to do with the Eastern Orthodox, it probably wasn't much of a surprise to the Eastern Sees when the Reformation happened in the West.


The Oriental Orthodox resulted from their refusal to accept the Councils Christological dogma's which held that Jesus has two (2) natures, a divine and a human one in the 5th Century. This was a small schism that involved "churches" and their Bishops and today many Churches have come back from their schism and are now in full communion with Constantinople. Interestingly, they're not going to Rome and seeking communion.

In XC
-

I don't think from the OO perspective it was a "small schism" and the break still exists today, 1500 years later. The ones I converse with often resent EO efforts to minimize the differences and portray one Orthodox world in communion with the EO. And I believe there are indeed several members of the Eastern Catholic churches which did come from the Oriental Orthodox to seek communion with Rome.

 

[Alive in Christ]

trustitl,

"What I intended to point out was that Paul had a gospel that was not fully explained in the OT scriptures. Were it so, Paul would not have needed to be inspired to write more scripture for future generations. Paul would no doubt have preached the message that we see in Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, etc. before he would have written it. This message could have been understood before it was written."

OK. I see what you were getting at now. I agree with you regarding what I quoted above.


:godisgood:

 

[BRIANH]

I find that Sola Scriptura in this present day an interesting thing. Those who believe in Sola Scriptura say that all their authority comes from Scriptures alone. A noble statement indeed. But in practice, it is simply not true. There are many beliefs that protestants (especially baptist) that are extra biblical. First of all the bible itself. Lets review. The earliest churches used the LXX which contains the apocryphal books that orthodox and catholics call deuterocanonical. This can be verified in History as early as 90-120 AD Clement and Ignatius quote in their letters books from the LXX not in Protestant copies today. They obviously felt that these words were inspired by God. However, the protestants agree with the Jews about which Old Testiment text to use. The Jews shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple wanted to omit books that limited messianic prophesy to a managble level. The early christians did not. Christians agreeing with Jews who want nothing to do with Jesus is something to think about. However, there has to be an agreement with Jews after Jesus' resurection and assention about which OT bible to use. nearly All protestants agree that the NT was first oral tradition that was writen down early in church history. The earliest writings of the Church (which makes up part of that oral tradition) include quotes from the apocryphal books. So the choice of OT canon is dependent on Jews that wanted nothing to do with Jesus! The bible of choice then is a bible that omits early chritian tradition and falls in line with Judaism!
Next my issue with Sola Scriptura are theological beliefs that everyone of us takes for granted like the trinity. If I were to ask many of you if Jesus is of the same essense of God and so is the Holy Spirit. Then you would say yes. Why? The scripture reveals that there is one God. And it reveals that God is revealed in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. But how? It doesn't mention that! The closest you can get is when Jesus said; "I and the father are one." but that isn't clear. How the trinity interworks in that they are all of the same essense and how Jesus nature works being both divine and human isn't sola scriptura. It comes from an outside source! The 1st 2 ecuminical councils the first of which supposedly created the awful Roman Catholic Church. So many of our beliefs are extra biblical. A truly sola scriptura person would say I can't comment on it because scriptures hasn't fully revealed it. But thats not the case. I mean there are post here that are still arguing over the dual nature of Christ or if God is revealed in three persons one at a time! Thats what sola scriptura gives you! In practice nobody is sola scriptura at all! They can be mostly scripture based but at the end of the day much theology we take for granted was handed down by the Catholic and Orthodox churches. And that would make sense because the Protestant reformation is born out of Catholicism like Christianity was born out of Judaism. Protestants take beliefs from the Catholic church (Just the ones they agree with) and the early christians take on the OT from the Jews. Here is another point. early christianity was maintained on Oral Tradition as was Judaism. Once that oral tradition is writen down in scriptures does that make the oral tradition void? Think about Deut 5:31-33 is this an argument for oral tradition? Did Jesus validate some of that oral tradition. Did he refer to it? I think you'll find that he did. We forget he was Jewish and very rabbinical in his teaching. Compare him to Rabbi Heliel (a contemporary of Jesus) and you'll find a lot of similarities in their teaching.

We are going to take one thing at a time.
A couple of facts. The earliest copies of the LXX have different books.
The LXX at the time of Christ and which books were in it are not known with any degree of certainity. It is a very common Catholic/Orthodox apologetic claim but its not true. We do not know what exactly was in the LXX when.
What we do know is that the earliest copies have different books. So I reject one of your basic presuppositions.
It was in "flux".
Now I would like to address another specific point. You say the Jews wanted to limit messianic prophecy. Where did that specifically occur and how do you know?
Thank you. I have not had discussions with you but I believe we must historically verify all of our claims prior to determining interpretation of the data we agree on.