The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

[FLMike]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Just like what you said; by God's providence, the core of doctrines agreed on in evangelical protestantism or nondenominationalis.

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

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Bob, re your post at the end of page 4, (a) show me where any of these verses has the word 'alone' in them and (b) the Scriptures referred to by Paul are the Old Testament - the New had not then been written - so are you seriously saying that the Old Testament 'alone' is sufficient?

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

10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.

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

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[Matt Black]

Bob, to follow your argument that Acts 17:11 proves that Scripture alone is sufficient, the Scriptures the Bereans had were the OT (including, since they were Greek-speaking, the DCs/Apocrypha); therefore your argument seems to be that the OT (and indeed that version) alone is sufficient, which means the NT is superfluous. Am I following your reasoning correctly, that the OT alone is sufficient?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Did they need them? They were able to study the Scriptures, as the Bible says, (the Old Testament happens to be Scripture also), and verify a New Testament message using the Old Testament.

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.

When I was growing up, we were taught the doctrine of "Sola Scripture" and we don't believe it if it's not in the Bible. Also, we are silent where the scriptures are silent. Really? What about impossing your own belief?

Well, let's take a look at a few of these.

1. Infant Baptism - although it is not specifically written out, there are plenty of passages that elude to it. The Baptist church rejected infant Baptism based on the assumption that there were not any infants where passages state "whole household" was baptized. Here they are adding their own belief to the scripture and state that the scripture is silent.

2. Women not wearing pants - this is not forbidden in the Bible. They use the passage that women should be modest to back up their belief. So, from the time I was in elementary school up through the 8th grade, we were not allowed to wear pants to church activities. Yeah, those cullocks (sp?)with the big baggy leg holes where sure modest. Not! Whenever we went horseback riding, the boys wanted to help the girls get on their horse so they could get a peek. Let's not forget how after you sat down, the cullocks bunched up around your upper thigh and you were giving the boys an eye full. How about playing softball in those things and sliding into home plate showing your unmentionables off to God and everyone else. When I was in 9th grade, the church decided to do away with cullocks and said that the girls could wear loose fitting pants to youth group activities.

3. Movies - couldn't go. Where in the Bible is this found? I couldn't go with my little neighborhood friends to see Snow White, Dumbo, Lady & The Tramp, Mary Poppins, Sound of Music, etc. I never saw these movies until I was 24 and then it was on VHS when I bought them for my daughter.

4. Dancing - forbidden. Kind of reminds me of Footloose. However, the Bible does mention in several places in the OT where dancing was not forbidden, even a time to dance. Whenever I would ask about this, I was told that the NT was our standard of living, so since it wasn't in the NT it was a sin. (Whatever)

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

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
[QB] Bob, to follow your argument that Acts 17:11 proves that Scripture alone is sufficient, the Scriptures the Bereans had were the OT (including, since they were Greek-speaking, the DCs/Apocrypha);

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

Matt
therefore your argument seems to be that the OT (and indeed that version) alone is sufficient,

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.

Matt --
which means the NT is superfluous.

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

 

[Eric B]

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!

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

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.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
The same can be asked; whose organization, are we bound instead? Just the one with the most seniority? Then, the question becomes which time period of this organization; since it has changed drastically oover the centuries?
All you are doing is shifting the problem from individual men to a group of men.

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".

Also, just noticed:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yet despite these realities, many folks here will persist in proclaiming their right to privately interpret Scripture, apart from the Spirit guided tradition of the Church, despite the fact that Peter said Scripture is not of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).

"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")

This is what "apostolic tradition" would come into play. But this tradition would not be anything other than what was in what became eventually written down and circulated as the NT.

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.

 

[Living4Him]

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.

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

 

[FLMike]

Originally posted by Eric B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What percentage of all "Christ-affirming" believers (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, LDS, Oneness, JW, etc, etc) hold to the correct core of doctrines?

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?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What percentage of all "Christ-affirming" believers (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, LDS, Oneness, JW, etc, etc) hold to the correct core of doctrines?

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

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)

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.

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?

 

[BobRyan]

None of these (apocryphal) books are included in the Hebrew canon of Holy Scripture. All of them however, with the exception of 2 Esdras, are present in copies of the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint...

In the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of prefaces called the readers attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the Latin bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome’s prefaces, and during the medieval period the western church generally regarded these books as part of the Holy Scriptures. In 1546 the council of Trent decreed that the canon of the old testament includes them (except for the prayer of Manasseh, and 1,2 Esdras).

Subsequent editions of the Latin vulgate text, officially approved by the Roman Catholic Church, contain these books incorporated within the sequence of the Old Testament books. Thus Tobit and Judith stand after Nehemiah; the wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus stand after the Song of Solomon.... And 1,2 Maccabees concludes the Old Testament.

Editions of the bible prepared by Protestants have followed the Hebrew canon. The disputed books have generally been placed in a separate section, usually bound between old and new testaments, but occasionally placed after the close of the New Testament....

"The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha p xii"

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[Cavsfan2005]

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.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

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

 

[av1611jim]

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]

Guys, you're still stuck with insisting on the LXX alone if you're relying on Acts 17 to prove SS, beacuse if ALL the Bereans had to do was to search the Scriptures, then they would have had no need of Paul's preaching of the Gospel to them, but it would on the contrary have been sufficient for them to remain Greek-speaking Jews who believed in prayers to and for the dead (after the DCs)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

"Bob, to follow your argument that Acts 17:11 proves that Scripture alone is sufficient, the Scriptures the Bereans had were the OT (including, since they were Greek-speaking, the DCs/Apocrypha); therefore your argument seems to be that the OT (and indeed that version) alone is sufficient, which means the NT is superfluous. Am I following your reasoning correctly, that the OT alone is sufficient"

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

 

[Matt Black]

All the difference - God did hold the Bereans accountable - that's why he sent Paul to them

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Living4Him]

The topic being preached, of course, was salvation, not the movies, thus your points were red herrings.

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?