How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

[Pastor Larry]

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

It's not there. But how is that relevant? You are trying to ignore the point by distraction. It's generally called a "red herring."

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

Because that's not what Scripture says. "Full armor of God" is not a term that has been used in the doctrine of bibliology, and I don't think you have warrant to use it here.

 

[D28guy]

My goodness, MrTumnus. I dont know how you can not be somewhat embarrased to be posting what you are posting now.

Whew.


Mike

 

[Agnus_Dei]

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.

I completely understand your dilemma and it’s a dilemma that can mentally exhaust and discourage you, if you let it. I know I was there for 4 years trying to figure out which Protestant denomination was “rightly dividing the truth.”

I strongly believed and desired to be were Christ’s Church is and Protestantism wasn’t working for me. I even tried forcing Orthodoxy into Protestantism, thinking I could practice Orthodoxy and be a Methodist. To do so was to distort Orthodoxy and force upon Orthodoxy something its not. So I left Protestantism for Orthodoxy, and as an episode of Seinfeld portrayed…”It’s not like changing toothpaste”.

I’ve been a Catechumen/Orthodox for a year now. I can honestly say I have found the true faith, rightly worshipping the undivided Trinity. Recently I visited home and my family and I visited the Baptist Church I grew up in that my parents are still members of. There was NO worship, maybe a little praise, but the preaching was nothing more than a “bible study”. What emptiness I felt and a reconfirming feeling that I did the right thing by waiting on God and He leading me to the Orthodox Faith.

You mention “community” and that’s a lot like Orthodoxy. Our Liturgy and our Creed unites us and keeps us in our community. When Communist Russia murdered millions of Russian Orthodox Christians, burned down Churches and confiscated bibles and icons, it was the Liturgy that was passed on from generation to generation that the communist couldn’t rid them of and what sustained the Russian Church to this day and unchangingly, the Russian Church is back.

Like the Hebrew people of the OT, we too are a family. We baptize our children and our children participates in the Eucharist…we do so as a family. We don’t ban our kids to the kids table; they eat with us at the big table.

May God lead you Andre.

In XC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Tradition? Where do you find that in the Bible?

Why then DHK, did St. Paul use non-biblical oral Tradition in II Timothy 3:8, when St. Paul refers to Jannes and Jambres as opposing Moses.

Show the classes where these two names appear in the OT. Even though the event is recorded in Exodus, but their names aren’t.

Same can be said with St. Jude quoting the Book of Enoch…Jude 14-15 cf. Enoch 1:9.

In XC
-

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,

In response to this...




You said...



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



Mike

I note you utterly fail to answer the question

 

[Matt Black]

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.

Bo, SS means 'a Pope in every pew'. That's it. I've seen it.

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?

Same point to you as to Mike: you totally fail to engage with the issue, and continue to dodge the question

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.

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.

Nothing there about Scripture alone, so you'll have to try again.

 

[Matt Black]

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?

Completely obvious, I'd say. Yet again a complete failure to engage; every time you duck and dive, you raise my suspicions further

 

[Matt Black]

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

Yeah, right....

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

Wow, just wow. So you are qualified to interpret the Scriptures and a Methodist isn't? Tell me, who died and put you in charge of determining who interprets Scripture aright? Just...wow. The arrogance of your posting style is scarcely aiding your cause...but do please keep shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bo, SS means 'a Pope in every pew'. That's it. I've seen it.

Not sure what "Bo" means. I don't mean to be rude, but you are simply wrong. You are confusing people's response to an authority with the authority itself. Let’s use an example that might help to illustrate this: If a policeman turns on his lights to pull someone over, and that person takes off running, that doesn’t mean that the policeman is not an authority. It means that the person is disobeying the authority. Likewise, the fact that some disagree with Scripture does not mean that Scripture is not the authority. It means that some are disobeying authority.

you totally fail to engage with the issue, and continue to dodge the question

You have me confused with someone else I think. I haven’t dodged any question that I know of.

Nothing there about Scripture alone, so you'll have to try again.

2 Tim 3:16-17 is clear on Scripture alone. To deny that is the deny the plain meaning of the words. 2 Peter 1 is clear on Scripture’s authority coming from God. Again, to deny that is to deny the plain meaning of the words.

Completely obvious, I'd say.

Somehow, I don’t think you’d say that. In fact, you are explicitly arguing against it. Which helps to make my point. My words have meaning, but you have rejected that meaning. The problem is not in my words; the problem is in your response to them. Now, with my words, it is not a big deal. Feel free to disagree with me. But the issue of SS is similar. The problem is not that Scripture is not sufficient. It most certainly is. The problem is that people disobey them and do not submit themselves to them.

Yet again a complete failure to engage; every time you duck and dive, you raise my suspicions further

Again, you seem confused. I have yet to “duck and dive.” I haven’t even been participating in this thread.

Those who understand the doctrine of SS will readily find your explanation laughable. That should cause you to turn back and study some more.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yeah, right....

Yes, right. The differences between Baptists are relatively minor compared to differences with other denominations such as Catholics, Lutherans, the Orthodox, or some such. That is simply a matter of fact. It doesn't mean that differences don't exist, or that they are not significant in some way.

Wow, just wow. So you are qualified to interpret the Scriptures and a Methodist isn't?

No, I didn't say that. You need to read more carefully. Assuming that a Methodist is saved, we are both qualified to interpret the Scriptures. It is simply a matter that we do it differently and on issues of difference only one of us is right. I think a Methodist is demonstrably inconsistent. I have yet to be shown such in my own understanding that I have not changed. If you can demonstrate that I am inconsistent, I will change.

Tell me, who died and put you in charge of determining who interprets Scripture aright? Just...wow.

No one. Again, please be more careful to read and think before responding. You misread my words. Don't do it again, please.

The arrogance of your posting style is scarcely aiding your cause...but do please keep shooting yourself in the foot.

I am not arrogant in the least. This is now several times just in a few posts where you have misread what I wrote. That doesn't make me arrogant. Seriously, Matt, please be more careful. We cannot have a constructive conversation if you continue to misread.

 

[DHK]

Why then DHK, did St. Paul use non-biblical oral Tradition in II Timothy 3:8, when St. Paul refers to Jannes and Jambres as opposing Moses.

2 Timothy 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
--What tradition?
Is it Catholic tradition if I pick up a history book and find out what involvement the Catholics played (if any) in WWII, or is it history? Why must you call history, "tradition"? Sounds a bit ridiculous doesn't it? The apostles had numerous historical sources available to them, and many of them still exist today--mostly of Jewish descent. That is not 'tradition,' it is historical. And the Holy Spirit inspired it.

Show the classes where these two names appear in the OT. Even though the event is recorded in Exodus, but their names aren’t.

There are other historical events mentioned outside of the Bible referred to in Scripture. Is this against a law of yours?
A full collection of the Jewish statements in regard to them may be found in Wetstein, in loc. They are
also mentioned by Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxx. 7; and by Numenius, the philosopher, as quoted by Eusebius,
ix. 8; and Origen, against Celsus, p. 199. See Wetstein. (Barnes)

Same can be said with St. Jude quoting the Book of Enoch…Jude 14-15 cf. Enoch 1:9.

In XC
-

And your point is??
Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch, a book extant at that time. The book itself is not inspired. But the Holy Spirit chose to inspire that part of the book which Jude quoted from.

In Titus chapter one, Paul quotes a Cretian philosopher. Does that mean that all Cretian philosophers are inspired? You can draw your own conclusions.

In his sermon on Mars Hill, Paul quotes a Greek poet. Does that mean that all Greek poetry is inspired? No, but it does mean that the portion of poetry quoted is part of the inspired Word of God. It has become inspired, just as the words of the Cretian philosopher have become inspired. If God inspires it, then it is true. No more need to be said. Tradition has nothing to do with; but the Holy Spirit certainly does.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

So you are qualified to interpret the Scriptures and a Methodist isn't? Tell me, who died and put you in charge of determining who interprets Scripture aright?

I wonder who would be the one to rightly divide the truth of God's Word, DHK or Pastor Larry or even D28Guy?

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not sure what "Bo" means. I don't mean to be rude, but you are simply wrong. You are confusing people's response to an authority with the authority itself. Let’s use an example that might help to illustrate this: If a policeman turns on his lights to pull someone over, and that person takes off running, that doesn’t mean that the policeman is not an authority. It means that the person is disobeying the authority. Likewise, the fact that some disagree with Scripture does not mean that Scripture is not the authority. It means that some are disobeying authority.

You have me confused with someone else I think. I haven’t dodged any question that I know of.
2 Tim 3:16-17 is clear on Scripture alone. To deny that is the deny the plain meaning of the words. 2 Peter 1 is clear on Scripture’s authority coming from God. Again, to deny that is to deny the plain meaning of the words.

Somehow, I don’t think you’d say that. In fact, you are explicitly arguing against it. Which helps to make my point. My words have meaning, but you have rejected that meaning. The problem is not in my words; the problem is in your response to them. Now, with my words, it is not a big deal. Feel free to disagree with me. But the issue of SS is similar. The problem is not that Scripture is not sufficient. It most certainly is. The problem is that people disobey them and do not submit themselves to them.

Again, you seem confused. I have yet to “duck and dive.” I haven’t even been participating in this thread.

Those who understand the doctrine of SS will readily find your explanation laughable. That should cause you to turn back and study some more.

Just to be an advocate. Lets look at those verses:

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The problem is it dosen't specify which scripture. Does this include 1 Enoch?

16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit

So the gospels are included. But prophets and prophesies? Assumption of Moses as well? Apocalypse of Baruk? The apocrypha? Not so straight foward. You have to rely on extra biblical sources to choose which scriptures you're talking about. Such as church councils or the Jewish Jamina council. etc...

 

[Agnus_Dei]

2 Timothy 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
--What tradition?

Again DHK, show the class where St. Paul read from the OT Scriptures these names. St. Paul dosen't b/c their names are not recorded in the OT. St. Paul is clearly drawing upon non-Biblical Tradition here.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

Again DHK, show the class where St. Paul read from the OT Scriptures these names. St. Paul dosen't b/c their names are not recorded in the OT. St. Paul is clearly drawing upon non-Biblical Tradition here.

In XC
-

History, not tradition.
Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
--What was the name of this prophet or philosopher? Does the lack of it invalidate the quote? Does the lack of the book that it is quoted from invalidate the quote? You are asking the same question.

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
--What was the poet's name? Does the lack of the poet, or even the book of poetry invalidate the quote or the Scripture? Not at all. So, why are you trying to discredit Scripture by the same way. There is no tradition involved here. It is simple history.
You do believe in historical research don't you?

 

[Matt Black]

Not sure what "Bo" means.

Should have been "no"

You have me confused with someone else I think. I haven’t dodged any question that I know of.
2 Tim 3:16-17 is clear on Scripture alone. To deny that is the deny the plain meaning of the words. 2 Peter 1 is clear on Scripture’s authority coming from God. Again, to deny that is to deny the plain meaning of the words.

The question being ducked is the sola in SS. I've asked time and again for where it says 'alone'. Each time the likes of you and Mike have avoided answering or glibly said "it's clear." Er...no it isn't. It isn't clear because it doesn't say it.

The problem is not that Scripture is not sufficient. It most certainly is.

Again, you're attributing a characteristic to Scripture which it itself does not claim

Again, you seem confused. I have yet to “duck and dive.” I haven’t even been participating in this thread.

See above re justification for sola.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, right. The differences between Baptists are relatively minor compared to differences with other denominations such as Catholics, Lutherans, the Orthodox, or some such. That is simply a matter of fact. It doesn't mean that differences don't exist, or that they are not significant in some way.

So, given that the Reformed Baptists attribute a partial soteriology to God, and General Baptists say that He loves and wishes to save everybody (to cite just one difference), are you seriously saying that a disagreement so fundamental as to be about the very nature of God Himself is "relatively minor"?

No, I didn't say that. You need to read more carefully. Assuming that a Methodist is saved, we are both qualified to interpret the Scriptures. It is simply a matter that we do it differently and on issues of difference only one of us is right. I think a Methodist is demonstrably inconsistent. I have yet to be shown such in my own understanding that I have not changed. If you can demonstrate that I am inconsistent, I will change.

Doubtless the Methodist would say the same about you. You're discounting a third possibility - perhaps you're both wrong

 

[Agnus_Dei]

It is simple history. You do believe in historical research don't you?

Sure, why do you think I left the Baptist Protestantism for the Orthodox Church...one of the reasons is History...

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

Sure, why do you think I left the Baptist Protestantism for the Orthodox Church...one of the reasons is History...

In XC
-

The beauty of sola scriptura is that history never can over-ride Scripture. In both RCC and Orthodox, the Tradition, and other authorities, even the ECF (as far as I know) can. Their "authoritative" interpretations, become of greater importance than what the Holy Spirit says through the very Word of God itself. As one who believes in sola scriptura I am a priest before God, having the ability and right to go straight to God, and God speaks directly to me through His Word. I need no other person to intercede for me on my behalf, and no other person to inerpret the Scripture for me (as the RCC claims it must do).

 

[Amy.G]

Doubtless the Methodist would say the same about you. You're discounting a third possibility - perhaps you're both wrong

Perhaps you're wrong. Perhaps the Pope is wrong. Perhaps this system is wrong and that system is wrong? What have you gained by including tradition in the interpretation of scripture? What have you gained by giving tradition any authority? You still have fallible men telling you what the Bible says.

If the Bible really is the infallible word of the living God, given to man, there is NO greater authority. God chose to leave the interpretation of His word to His children. Each one of them.