The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

[FLMike]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Satan used the words from scripture but not scripture itself. He distorted it and lifted it out of context calling it scripture. When scripture is distorted it is no longer scripture but a distortion of it. It is simply a lie.

This seems to be the core of the matter. How does one know if one is understanding "words from scripture" but not understanding "scripture itself"?

How do we know, to continue my example, that we understand scripture regarding the Trinity, but that the oneness people are understanding the words of scripture but not scripture itself. To an outsider it looks the same. We provide verses. They (the oneness) provide verses. To an outsider it appears to just be a debate, with the winning side judged on who made the better argument. From the outside it's not at all obvious that one "side" is being guided by the Holy Spirit and the other "side" isn't. In fact, it's not obvious from the inside either...

 

[Eric B]

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".

I meant the "drastic change" of the Church from it's own earlier practice; not even any perceived change from the NT.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Catholics and Orthodox use "tradition" and "Church authority".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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)

And both of these groups differ from each other. All you have done is shift the problem.
Thus, the problem still stands; which is holding that tradition, then?

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")

OK; I think I got my definition by extension, and forgot that it was based on "individual". Still; the comparison is not "individual" versus "church organization"; but rather individual versus inspiiration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit inspires individuals, and whether these individuals form a governing body or not; it must be guidance by the Spirit. It is possible for a big organization to each agree on an interpretation not guided by the Spirit; and then once again; you simply have a collectivization of individualistic "private interpretation"; but now forced on everyone else.

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.

So once again; we can just imagine that they did anything. So what are all of these things they did that were apparently not in question and therfore not discussed? The practices of the second century Church? The practices of the Fourth century Church? THe fourteenth century? (indulgences, etc) The modern Roman Catholic Church? Or is it the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or some of the other sects; and there are many--it is not just Protestantism that is so divided (e.g. Mel Gibson's church, etc).

But with whose interpretation of Scripture? Yours?

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?

No; what God has shown the entire orthodox Church (such as the deity of Christ). This is like what you say; but it is not about an infallible magisterium, or whatever. God has worked outsode of that, and when it crossed a certain line of corrpution, then God did not even use that anymore.

I imagine that the Jews that were not persuaded, ie that rejected the apostolic interpretation of the OT, still maintained that they were the ones who were going "by the Book". To this day Jewish apologists argue from (OT) Scripture that Christ was not the Messiah.

But they also do this by "oral Mosaic tradition"; and today likewise criticize Christians for using "the book" only!

 

[Matt Black]

DHK, yes of course the Scriptures Timothy had were inspired. But, like the Bereans, the only Scriptures he had were the OT, and to say that 2 Tim 3:16 supports SS is to say that the OT alone is sufficient - back to the Ebionite heresy again

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I meant the "drastic change" of the Church from it's own earlier practice; not even any perceived change from the NT.

Can you give us some examples of some of these "drastic changes"?

And both of these groups differ from each other. All you have done is shift the problem.
Thus, the problem still stands; which is holding that tradition, then?

After studying both groups and comparing both with the early church, I would go with the Orthodox. (OTOH, it was studying the early church that made me sadly realize that the early Christians were not Baptists)

OK; I think I got my definition by extension, and forgot that it was based on "individual". Still; the comparison is not "individual" versus "church organization"; but rather individual versus inspiiration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit inspires individuals, and whether these individuals form a governing body or not; it must be guidance by the Spirit.

But when 2 or 3 different "individuals" claiming inspiration by the Holy Spirit proclaim contradictory messages, how do we decide who's right (if anyone) from among them? If an individual comes along and claims inspiration of the Spirit yet teaches something at odds with (claimed) Spirit-guided conciliar decisions (eg Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15), who is to be believed?

It is possible for a big organization to each agree on an interpretation not guided by the Spirit; and then once again; you simply have a collectivization of individualistic "private interpretation"; but now forced on everyone else.

This is true of a "big organization", but not the Church that Christ and the apostles founded, against which the "gates of hell will not prevail".

So once again; we can just imagine that they did anything. So what are all of these things they did that were apparently not in question and therfore not discussed?

The belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and regeneration occuring during water baptism. These beliefs were mentioned in the NT (and in the early fathers) without any hint of debate as to whether these were meant to be symbolic-only(see comments made in that thread below).

No; what God has shown the entire orthodox Church (such as the deity of Christ). This is like what you say; but it is not about an infallible magisterium, or whatever. God has worked outsode of that, and when it crossed a certain line of corrpution, then God did not even use that anymore.

And what is this "certain line of corruption" and when was it allegedly crossed?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
DHK, yes of course the Scriptures Timothy had were inspired. But, like the Bereans, the only Scriptures he had were the OT, and to say that 2 Tim 3:16 supports SS is to say that the OT alone is sufficient - back to the Ebionite heresy again

Yours in Christ

Matt

There is no heresy here. I was merely pointing out to violet that just as one doctrine is taught to Timothy (i.e, inspiration) it is not for Timothy alone, it is for all of us. So the command that I referred to previously in 2Tim.2:15 "Study to show yourselves approved unto God," is not just applicable to Timothy, but to all of us. Over and over again does the Scripture give us the command to Search the Scriptures, to Study, to take heed, to meditate, to think on these things, etc. Just because the command was given to Timothy does not mean that it is not applicable to us. That is the point I was making to Violet. If Violet's contention were true, we might as well throw out all the pastoral epistles.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
[QB] DHK, yes of course the Scriptures Timothy had were inspired. But, like the Bereans, the only Scriptures he had were the OT, and to say that 2 Tim 3:16 supports SS is to say that the OT alone is sufficient - back to the Ebionite heresy again

It is pretty fascinating that "you think" that the Acts 17:11 practice that is COMMENDED by the NT apostles and the statement of Paul to Timothy regarding SCRIPTURE that Timohty had as a child - are in fact statements of "heresy".

It only shows how far down the wrong direction you are taking this instead of looking at the obvious fact - that these examples of sola scriptura are anathema to the way the RCC operates.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said

(Regarding the APPROVED practice in Acts 17 of CHECKING out the Apostle's word against scripture to "SEE IF those things said by the Apostle are SO")

I am simply referring to the "inconvenient detail" that these non-Christians were using scripture to "SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

And I am "noting" that this IS the method of "Sola Scriptura" -- in living color!

It is impossible to miss.

Originally posted by FLMike:

Isn't it the case that every heresy does the same thing?

That is the expected answer dictated by the RCC - but the facinating thing is -- IF it were true then the text of Acts 17:11 would be saying "And they were reprimanded for using scripture to SEE IF those things were so. It was pointed out to them that such a practice would only lead to endless heresies. They must by faith ACCEPT the teaching Word of Paul AND HIS explanation of what scripture MEANS to say. For scripture is far too complex a thing for mere mortals - mere non-Christian Jewish and Gentile mortals to fathom. Much LESS to USE it as a rule or guide by which to TEST the apostle's words to see IF they are SO"

Such a RC-style condemnation -- one that agrees so fully with your myth (your myth that in fact heresies are using the same solid Bible exegesis practices of of the Bereans) -- would be EXPECTED in the text - IF the RC position on sola-scriptura were true.

But as reality would have it -- the RC position is false - and so they are in fact COMMENDED for this practice - this "sola scriptura in the flesh" practice!

How devastating to the blinders-on RCC's position on this feature of the Gosple.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
And if the Bereans had reached an incorrect conclusion...? Does that invalidate Paul's ministry and apostolate?

This is really the strength of the RCC position against sola-scriptura. It is based on conjecture and the "void" of what is not written in the text at all.

The Acts 17:11 statement SHOULD Be saying "And these Bereans were REALLY really LUCKY to just so happen to get the right meaning from scripture and just so happen to find that Paul was correct. Paul informed them that while it was good for them to have finally accepted his teaching - yet they were using a very risky and UNRELIABLE method! Sola Scriptura! Checking out the Apostle's word AGAINST scripture to SEE IF it is so! How dangerous! How very dangerous that is!".

Now what is facinating is the "facts".

#1. The text does NOT give that "expected" RCC judgment and condemnation of the sola-scriptura practice we SEE in the text.

#2. Your own statement above admits to the devastating point that THIS IS a case of sola-scriptura IN SCRIPTURE and IT IS approved IN SCRIPTURE. This devastates your "not recommended in scripture" idea.

#3. The text actually APPROVES and BLESSES the method rather than outright condemnation or warning of the dangers of such a risky practice or even just showing "passive tolerance" for it. The text actually explicitly BLESSES it!

A case of PURE sola scriptura!!

And notice that your only objection can be found in the form of a "yes. But what if..." kind of speculation - which is neither proof nor exegesis.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[qb] And what was their BASIS for interpreting the text of scripture to SEE IF Paul the Apostle is correct?

Come on - you know this one.

Originally posted by Matt Black:

No, I don't - pray enlighten me. It can't have been the Holy Spirit

Or could it?!!

See?!! You DID know the answer!

That is your Baptist training telling you that this is not only sola-scriptura - but it is scripture interpreted BY the Holy Spirit JUST as Christ stated HE would do in John 16!

See? It is all coming back!

In John 16 Christ said that the "SPIRIT OF TRUTH" would "CONVICT THE WORLD" of sin and righteousness and judgment.

It does not say "will convict only the saved of sin and righteousness and judgment".

details. details.

Matt (argues that the Holy Spirit CAN NOT be working with the Acts 17:11 since ...)

since they were not yet Christians.

But as we can see from John 16 - no such restriction exists for God the Holy Spirit.

And not only that - but you don't have to worry about which man's opinion you need to listen to to get the clear point of the text in Acts 17. Even a child can read it and SEE that they are being COMMENDED for that practice!

How easy to see!

How simple!

How obvious for all - even humans!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jim said --

Bob;
Whether or not the Bereans had the LXX (I submit they didn't) is immaterial. As I said to Matt; The Bereans were looking to see if CHRIST was in the OT Scriptures they had in order to validate or reject what Paul was preaching. He was NOT preaching anything other than Jesus and Him crucified. We know this by the surrounding text. Anyhow, it really doesn't matter now does it? You have effectively answered Matt's objections and yet he insists that SS in not solid doctrinally. Oh well, "que sera', sera'".

There seems to be more to this than simply not having read Acts 17:11. Matt is now admitting that the VERY thing they are practicing could have gone the other way (which is his way of admitting that this IS sola scriptura being practiced in the flesh -- since that is exactly what he thinks can happen "bad" in sola scriptura).

So now all the claims that it is not the blessed and approved method of scripture seem to have been found baseless. (So a step in the right direction - eh?)

The Hebrew OT did not include the Aprocrypha - the Septuagint did - but like Jerome's early copy of it - it may have been identified with a note saying that it was not to be included with the normal canon.

IN fact you would EXPECT some note GIVEN that at the SAME time they had IN HEBREW the actual OT canon WITHOUT the apocrypha. Some note to the reader would be expected.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The Israelites had to check everything by the Word of God. Isaiah 8:20 is sola scriptura "in living color" so to speak.
DHK

 

[Eric B]

Can you give us some examples of some of these "drastic changes"?

One supreme Pope. Infallibility of the Pope. Persecuting "infidels" and "heretics". Then, the just passed Pope apologizing for all of that. Bowing to pictures of saints. Candles; incense. Indulgences. No meat on Fridays; then changed to during Lent only. Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. And it even continues! How about Mary as co-redemptrix; which they had toyed with? (If they had decided on it; would it then have become some new "hidden apostolic tradition" all of a sudden?

After studying both groups and comparing both with the early church, I would go with the Orthodox. (OTOH, it was studying the early church that made me sadly realize that the early Christians were not Baptists)

They're not as bad as the RCC; but they still have some of those doctrines, that were added later.

But when 2 or 3 different "individuals" claiming inspiration by the Holy Spirit proclaim contradictory messages, how do we decide who's right (if anyone) from among them? If an individual comes along and claims inspiration of the Spirit yet teaches something at odds with (claimed) Spirit-guided conciliar decisions (eg Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15), who is to be believed?

This is true of a "big organization", but not the Church that Christ and the apostles founded, against which the "gates of hell will not prevail".

Once again; you have 2 or 3 different "Churches that Christ and the apostles founded" claiming "oral apostolic tradition"; and even reading them back into the early Church (that is how the RCC would explain the practices that the EOC does not adhere to; and accuse them of breaking from the "Tradition". I believe filioque is a prime example of this). I repeat; this is just shifting the problem to a different number of individuals involved in a particular message.

The belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and regeneration occuring during water baptism. These beliefs were mentioned in the NT (and in the early fathers) without any hint of debate as to whether these were meant to be symbolic-only(see comments made in that thread below).

That's really what all of this is about. No; you don't believe in all of the later additions of the RCC and others; it is those two doctrines and the method of sunbstantiating them that you agree with these Churches on. So you do not seem to follow any of these bodies. The RCC is the main one; but everyone on this board pitching this "One Church"; from you now, to ol' Ed and "Converted Catholic" and "Born Again Catholic" last year disclaims "uh, well; I don't agree with everything the RCC does"; or "I do believe the RCC needs 'reform'", or something like that. You say you "would go with" the EOC; but that is NOT submitting to "Christ's one holy apostolic Church". So are these bodies; or ANY out there the "infallible Church that Christ and the apostles founded; that follows in all the inspired traditions"; or are they not?
Or are you doing the same exact thing you criticize us for: you coming, thousands of years later, and correcting Christ's Church with your own "private interpretations"; only difference from us being those two doctrines you happen to agree with them on? Or is there some small "little flock" that keeps only those two doctrines, that goes all the way back through history that isn't well known; like the JW's, Church of Christ and even some Baptists teach, and you also criticize? Mel Gibson's church makes these same claims; but rejected the current Pope and Church over doctrines it supposedly softened on. But then you all are saying that the "one true Church" DID go astray; and that you had to separate from it. This is Just what Luther and the rest of the Reformers did!
Sorry, but you are trying to eat your cake and have it too. If you reject sola scriptura in favor of Church authority, then you have to accept everything this authority says; whether you think it is true and biblical or not.
The only way out of this is admitting an invisible Body, composed of those who have read the Bible with the Holy Spirit "teaching them all things" (meaning the true interpretation of the Scriptures), realizing that they may get some things wrong, but agree on the essentials of Christ!

And what is this "certain line of corruption" and when was it allegedly crossed?

That's not for me to determine; but apparently even to you, these bodies cross a line somewhere that prevents you from fully agreeing with and submitting to them.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by DHK:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The Israelites had to check everything by the Word of God. Isaiah 8:20 is sola scriptura "in living color" so to speak.
DHK

Hard to miss!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Can you give us some examples of some of these "drastic changes"?

One supreme Pope. Infallibility of the Pope. Persecuting "infidels" and "heretics". Then, the just passed Pope apologizing for all of that. Bowing to pictures of saints. Candles; incense. Indulgences. No meat on Fridays; then changed to during Lent only. Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. And it even continues! How about Mary as co-redemptrix; which they had toyed with? (If they had decided on it; would it then have become some new "hidden apostolic tradition" all of a sudden?</font>[/QUOTE]So, for the most part, Roman innovations. (As for some of the others you listed: What's wrong with incense and candles? And at what date were those allegedly added? Also when do you suppose Christians started using icons in worship? As for Mary and the other saints, what's wrong with honoring those whom God has honored? Christians have been doing that from the beginning.)

Once again; you have 2 or 3 different "Churches that Christ and the apostles founded" claiming "oral apostolic tradition"; and even reading them back into the early Church (that is how the RCC would explain the practices that the EOC does not adhere to; and accuse them of breaking from the "Tradition". I believe filioque is a prime example of this). I repeat; this is just shifting the problem to a different number of individuals involved in a particular message.

The filioque was (and is) an innovation. Therefore, Rome deviated from the Truth at this point (and with the increasing pretentions of her monarchial papacy)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and regeneration occuring during water baptism. These beliefs were mentioned in the NT (and in the early fathers) without any hint of debate as to whether these were meant to be symbolic-only(see comments made in that thread below).

That's really what all of this is about.</font>[/QUOTE]No, those were just two examples I used, but two examples that clearly show how several branches of Protestantism have deviated from Apostolic and Patristic teaching.

You say you "would go with" the EOC; but that is NOT submitting to "Christ's one holy apostolic Church".

So who's to say I'm not heading in that direction?

So are these bodies; or ANY out there the "infallible Church that Christ and the apostles founded; that follows in all the inspired traditions"; or are they not?

I believe the Orthodox church is the church of Christ and the apostles, the church of the Creed and the great Trinitarian and Christological Councils. In short, the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church".

Or are you doing the same exact thing you criticize us for: you coming, thousands of years later, and correcting Christ's Church with your own "private interpretations"; only difference from us being those two doctrines you happen to agree with them on?

Not at all--I agree with the Orthodox church. She corrects me.

But then you all are saying that the "one true Church" DID go astray; and that you had to separate from it.

When did I ever say this?

The only way out of this is admitting an invisible Body, composed of those who have read the Bible with the Holy Spirit "teaching them all things" (meaning the true interpretation of the Scriptures), realizing that they may get some things wrong, but agree on the essentials of Christ!

How can they "get some things wrong", if the Holy Spirit is "teaching them all things" thereby giving them the "true interpetation of Scripture? And who's to say that your list of the "essentials" is the correct (and complete) one without begging the question?

What do you consider to be the "essentials" anyway?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And what is this "certain line of corruption" and when was it allegedly crossed?

That's not for me to determine; but apparently even to you, these bodies cross a line somewhere that prevents you from fully agreeing with and submitting to them. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I don't believe the Orthodox Church has crossed any such line.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and regeneration occuring during water baptism. These beliefs were mentioned in the NT (and in the early fathers) without any hint of debate as to whether these were meant to be symbolic-only(see comments made in that thread below).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That has already been completely debunked here.

#1. The details in John 6 SHOW that this is not the case. They were enumerated and the RC response was "deafening silence"!

#2. The ECF sources WERE ALSO given here SHOWING agreement with the "Metaphor and symbol" meaning of John 6 shown in solid exegesis. To which the RC response was simply "look at something else -- read something else".

The "details" have been spelled out - so that now there is "no excuse" for pretending "not to get it".

#.3 The RC documents THEMSELVES SHOW that the errors regarding "baptism" as taught by the RCC - EVOLVED over time!!

Pretending not to read the posts or get the salient points of the arugments listed is not a compelling form of "informed response".

Simply repeating the failed assertions does not "turn them into fact".

So the points remain.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

So, for the most part, Roman innovations.

The filioque was (and is) an innovation. Therefore, Rome deviated from the Truth at this point (and with the increasing pretentions of her monarchial papacy)

say who? Your private interpretation?

(As for some of the others you listed: What's wrong with incense and candles? And at what date were those allegedly added? Also when do you suppose Christians started using icons in worship?

So I take it those must be assumed to be more of those "apostolic traditions" that were skipped over?

As for Mary and the other saints, what's wrong with honoring those whom God has honored? Christians have been doing that from the beginning.)

But not violating "you shall not make any graven image of any thing in heaven above or earth below...you shall not bow down to them".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say you "would go with" the EOC; but that is NOT submitting to "Christ's one holy apostolic Church".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So who's to say I'm not heading in that direction?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So are these bodies; or ANY out there the "infallible Church that Christ and the apostles founded; that follows in all the inspired traditions"; or are they not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe the Orthodox church is the church of Christ and the apostles, the church of the Creed and the great Trinitarian and Christological Councils. In short, the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or are you doing the same exact thing you criticize us for: you coming, thousands of years later, and correcting Christ's Church with your own "private interpretations"; only difference from us being those two doctrines you happen to agree with them on?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all--I agree with the Orthodox church. She corrects me.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then you all are saying that the "one true Church" DID go astray; and that you had to separate from it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When did I ever say this?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what is this "certain line of corruption" and when was it allegedly crossed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not for me to determine; but apparently even to you, these bodies cross a line somewhere that prevents you from fully agreeing with and submitting to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I don't believe the Orthodox Church has crossed any such line.

So then what is holding you? "heading that way"? You either are under her, or not. You must still have some reservations or something. Something you must think is possibly wrong, or don't understand, or don;t see how it is scriptural. (but then you should still submit anyway, trusting God's guidance of her rgardless). You are basically sitting on the fence. Is the EOC the true Church or not? If there is something about it that you question, then you don't agree with it completely (at least right now), and it must have crossed a line somewhere, at least to you. If it is; then remember; you won't be saved until you are baptized and begin taking communion.

See the bind this doctrine places one in?

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is possible for a big organization to each agree on an interpretation not guided by the Spirit; and then once again; you simply have a collectivization of individualistic "private interpretation"; but now forced on everyone else.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DT
This is true of a "big organization", but not the Church that Christ and the apostles founded, against which the "gates of hell will not prevail".

Lets take 1 Timothy 1 as a test case.. and perhaps 1 Timothy 4 and maybe 2Tim 2 as "exhibit A, B and C" And then 2Cor 10, 11 as "exhibit D and E" and then...

The point is that tons of error (different opinions) are being expressed there - documented there - as existing in the church ALREADY.

So much so that by the time you get to Gal 1 you have Paul "cursing" those who differ with him - and in Gal 5 "wishing" that they were damaged in some way.

And that is the "pristine start" where ALL the combined corrective forces of real first century Apostles are there along with the Holy Spirit to keep a lid on that kind of division.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

It seems strange to me that only those who want to deny the Scriptures (basically apostates and unbelievers, or those that are headed in that direction), deny the doctrine of sola acriptura. I find a great parallel here with other religions. Take for example Islam. Concerning our Scriptures--the Bible, they of course deny sola scriptura, and claim that every word of our Bible has been changed, and only what is preserved in the Koran is what remains unchanged.
But as far as the Koran is concerned one can debate with them on any point in the Koran. It is as if they believe in "sola scriptura" concerning the Koran. If you start to gain some ground they may claim you don't have a good translation, or a bad interpretation--arguments we have all heard before. But the basis is still the Koran. Even the Muslims appeal to the Koran for their final authority. Most other religions operate the same way. The "Granth Sahib" is so holy a book among the Sikhs that it is practically worshipped.
It seems that those who want to destroy the authority of the Bible, and replace it with another authority, or even another god, are those that are defiant against sola scriptura. For some reason they are afraid to take God at His Word.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

DHK, I'm puzzled that you think that anyone is trying to destroy the authority of the Bible or apostasise; all we are saying is that SS is insufficient because of the plethora of contradictory doctrines that it so obviously produces. Rather, we wish to enhance the authority of the Scriptures by striving for the correct interpretation through the agency of the Church, the "pillar and foundation of the Truth". It is on the contrary those who adhere to SS who degrade and discredit the Scriptures by producing this doctrinal chaos and using God's words as brickbats against those SSists who arrive at interpretations different to their own

Bob, sorry to disappoint you but I'm admitting nothing wrt to your Berean example! It cannot establish the principle of SS since the Scriptures were not complete; had they followed SS they would have remained Hellenic Jews. The fact that they needed Paul to preach the Good News to them proves that the Scriptures they had were insufficient.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Bro. James]

"Sanctify them in Thy Truth; Thy Word is Truth."--Jesus to The Father regarding His Sheep.

That the Bereans knew to compare proclamations of prophets indicates that they were well aware of "false prophets". The qualification of a prophet in the OT was that everything prophesied had to be true--on penalty of death.

Jesus is the fulfillment of all of the OT. He showed His credentials many times--unto "His own"--yet "His own" received Him not--they continue to reject Him as Messiah--and will continue to do so until they see Him coming--again.

The documents and doctrines of men will fail, The Word of God abides--forever--with every jot and tittle.

We are without excuse.

Selah,

Bro. James