The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

What percentage of all "Christ-affirming" believers (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, LDS, Oneness, JW, etc, etc) hold to the correct core of doctrines?

 

This just isn't that hard Matt. Lets take a really simple example from the list - Acts 17:11.

Here it is in living color

Please show yow you can jam anything ELSE in to the text other than what it ALREADY states to be there?

Show HOW these NOn-Christian JEWS were in fact looking at something ELSE OTHER than scripture to see IF what Paul said was true??

Next we move on to Galatians 1.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In the sola scriptura arguments of today - the MAIN point is to "examine the scriptures to SEE IF those things are true that are being promoted from the front".

How in the world can Acts 17:11 be missed in that regard?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes, the OT is scripture; however, they could only use the OT prophecies about the coming Messiah to study what Paul was telling them had been fulfilled, but they couldn't use the scriptures to verify the miracles that Paul conveyed.</font>[/QUOTE]Any miracles that Paul may have done were done to attest that the message that he was preaching was of God. That was the purpose of miracles in that age--to authenticate the message of the apostles. The gospel message is clearly found in the Old Testament Scriptures. Philip witnessed to the Eunuch (Acts 8) from the Book of Isaiah. It tells us that from there, he preached unto him Christ.

What are you talking about, and what do these have to do with Acts 17:11? You have thrown these issues in here as red herrings to derail the topic. Dancing and watching movies have nothing to do with salvation and you know it. Paul was not preaching about dancing and watching movies to the Bereans. He was sent to preach the gospel. He said: "Woe unto me if I preach not the gospel of Christ." The Bereans were searching the Old Testament to verify a New Testament message concerning Christ the Messiah, and the gospel of Christ. It wasn't about dancing and movies. That is red herring that has nothing to do with this topic.
DHK

 

Probably the Septuagint -- and yes that would be what we call the "OT".

Actually - my argument is that you can SEE them doing the VERY thing in Acts 17:11 that we are arguing for. You may not LIKE the text for some reason - but the METHOD - the PRINCIPLE is there none-the-less.

In Mark 7 Christ CLEARLY shows that they DID know the DIFFERENCe between tradition and scripture and Christ said clearly that a VIOLATION of scripture by the traditions-of-man to be "a bad thing".

Surely we agree to that point.

No - not any more than the book of Daniel is "superfluous".

Isaiah said before Daniel was written "To the Law and to the testimony (written word) if they do NOT agree with this then they have no light for you" Isaiah 8:20.

This just is not as confusing as you would have it be.

God is the one who ordains and writes and defines scripture. So in Acts 17 they are using the entire OT to "test" the Words of Paul to "SEE IF those things are true" that are spoken to them by Paul.

This is THE VERY PRACTICE that the RCC condemns!

No matter what you want to say about the OT text (which IS the SCRIPTURE used by all NT authors as you point out). It is the METHOD, the PROCESS, the MODEL of TESTING an APOSTLE against scripture to SEE IF his word is true that is "APPROVED" in the text.

This is devastating to Catholicism. This is not just testing a priest or a bishop or a 100th successor of the first-order-apostles - this IS testing A FIRST ORDER Apostle DIRECTLY!

And it is not a test done by a bunch of sceptical Catholics testing a priest - NOR even a bunch of Protestant Christians testing a priest -- RATHER it is JEWS and non-Christian GENTILES testing AN APOSTLE!!

So - Tell me this is "not what you object to" in the "Sola scriptura" you are calling bankrupt.

In Christ,

Bob

 

What he's saying is that this was preached to him as "the truth" based on "sola scriptura"; but obviously was not.

Of course; this highlights the problem I've been mentioning. People think Church authority is the answer; but what precisely as this; other than "Church authority". The only difference is the "seniority" issue when coparing these unbiblical rules to the Catholic ones.

Once again; the only difference is in the number of men "doing as they please" with the Bible (each individual, or a small body, or a large body). Otherwise; the problem is exactly the same: it is men!

Those who line up with the Scripture. Yes; they all claim to. But the JW's, for instance; have to change John 1:1 into something that does not line up with any other scripture to arrie at their conclusion. (Yes; grammar may allow an indefinite article; but the scriptures stating their is only ONE God does not!). The LDS add new 'scriptures' altogether. The Catholics and Orthodox use "tradition" and "Church authority". It is not that hard to establish a core of essentials; if people are not willing to twist, supplant, supplement; complement; etc. it to add their preconceived traditions.

 

Not to a mere "organization" or "group of men" but to the Church "which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23) and which is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). The Church is no more just a mere "group of men" than the Bible is just a bunch of books written by a bunch of mere men. The same Spirit, who inspired men to write Scriptures, guides the men who constitute the Church into the correct identification of the canon (a process completed at the end of the 4th century) and the correct interpretation of the fundamental teaching of Scripture.

Also, I submit that the charge of "drastic change" of a given organization with time, must be balanced by the strong probability that the one making that claim is more than likely using an anachronistic interpretation of the NT as the standard by which that alleged "drastic change" is being "measured".

"Private" there means "esoteric"; meaning arrived at by some secret means not obvious to any reader. </font>[/QUOTE]Really? This from Strong's definition for the word translated "private" in that verse:

of any private
New Testament Greek Definition:
2398 idios {id'-ee-os}
of uncertain affinity;; adj
AV - his own 48, their own 13, privately 8, apart 7, your own 6,
his 5, own 5, not tr 1, misc 20; 113
1) pertaining to one's self, one's own, belonging to one's self

(See a lot pertaining to the individual, nothing necessarily in regards to the "esoteric")

Yet you've asserted, without proving, that every detail and nuance of oral apostlic teaching was ultimately committed to Scripture. (There is certainly not a statement in Scripture that teaches this alleged eventuality.) The NT wasn't written in a vacuum, nor was it meant to be a systematic catechism. It's various books (primarily epistles) were written to local congregations (or individuals), founded by the apostles and thus already familiar with their teaching and praxis, to correct certain extant misconceptions and heresies and not to be stand-alone comprehensive handbooks for the Christian life divorced of the ecclessiastical context in which they were written.

 

Red herring? I thought we were talking about Sola Scripture.

 

Those who line up with the Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Help me out here. Give me a number. 5%? 50%? 90%? How many Christians who think they have the truth are in fact deceived?

 

Those who line up with the Scripture</font>[/QUOTE]But with whose interpretation of Scripture? Yours?

And both can point to Scriptures which support both the keeping of Apostolic tradition (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15) and Church authority (Matt 16:18-19 and 18:17-18; John 20:22-23)

But that's begging the question--who's to say your "core of essentials" is correct when they differ with another's "core of essentials" when both claim to be using Scripture only?

Who's not to say that you (or your group) are interpreting Scripture according to your preconceived traditions, traditions which do not date back past the 15th century?

 

Who is to say that your Pope is leader of the church when others have their own leadership?

Who is to say your view of the Bible is correct when others have their own views of the Bible.

The RCC "historically" has had "others who have their view" (hence the reformation where Catholic theologians discovered the errors in the Catholic doctrines and tried to correct them).

In Mark 7 Christ said that the magesterium of the ONE TRUE CHURCH started by God at Sinai was in ERROR. That it HAD replaced the commandments of GOD with man-made traditions.

And that was WITHOUT the many different variations that we have today. In a MUCH MORE unified group - they STILL were wrong in tossing in man-made-traditions.

Hmmm -

In Christ,

Bob

 

Interpretation must be perfectly correct for true and completely accurate servitude to God. Something tells me that there are more learned and more religiously devout people than you who have interpreted it more accurately, although, maybe not perfectly.
I rest my case.

 

Red herring? I thought we were talking about Sola Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes we were--in the context of Acts 17:11 which has nothing to do with current social issues. The Bereans searched the Scriptures. They would not take Paul's word, as great a teacher as he was, without proving from the Scriptures that what he was preaching was true according to the Word. It was sola scriptura in practice. The topic being preached, of course, was salvation, not the movies, thus your points were red herrings.
DHK

 

2Ti 3:16
All scripture *and Tradition, and Church Fathers, and Clerics, and Opinions, and Commentaries, and Dictionaries, and Lexicons and Theologians are * given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Is THAT what *your Bible says?

(*generically speaking to the whole group)

My Bible doesn't.

The case SHOULD be closed at this point.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Matt Black,

Those Bereans had all the scriptures that God had inscripturated up to that time.

Today, we have all the scriptures that God has inscripturated up to this time...period.

No difference. God is not going to hold the Bereans accountable regarding scriptures that had not been given yet.

In the Bereans case and with us today....

We are to "search the scriptures daily, to see if these things be so"

The scriptures...and the scriptures alone...are out truth standard to test all things.

God bless,

Mike

 

So, do you believe in sola scripture for salvation matters only?

Or like the point I was trying to make, do you deal with social issues by Sola Scripture?