SOLA SCRIPTURA is not biblical...

sculleywr said:

The problem is that you make the claim that they are wrong without actually PROVING that they are.

Click to expand...

You may have missed my last post. You are attributing a different meaning to Sola Scriptura than it has and historically was intended to mean. Until you correct that, I cannot help you, and your demands (^) are not even on topic!

Now are you willing to contribute to the discussion by substantiating your claims?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But we have to be talking about Sola Scriptura. I should think that anyone would recognize that as essential.

Albion said:

Oh, I see. The problem is really that you don't know what "Sola Scriptura" means and so are using it to suggest something else!

I think I recognized this earlier, but you haven't been posting lately, so it slipped my mind. I'd recommend that you correct that shortcoming, and then we'll resume the discussion.

Click to expand...

No. I'm using the definition used by many, if not most, Protestants: That Scripture is the highest (or sometimes only) authority in the Church.

In reality, NONE of them practically follow this, because they INTERPRET scripture according to their denominational traditions, many times called "Confessions", "Catechisms", or "systematic theologies" (to even attempt to list all the terms they come up with would be a ludicrous thing to attempt). They also interpret Scripture according to the Five Solas BEFORE the Scripture. The Five Solas are traditions that stand as the primary means by which Scripture is interpreted, to one degree or another. Each of these five Solas has a spectrum which each Protestant follows to one extent or another, with each one having a different level of importance for each Sola, even though many wouldn't be able to name the five Solas. That is how ingrained the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is. It is a tradition whereby men interpret Scripture. It takes precedence over Scripture. And it replaces the Church with the Scripture. Scripture declares the Church as Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Protestants declare Scripture as Pillar and Ground of the Truth.

sculleywr said:

No. I'm using the definition used by many, if not most, Protestants: That Scripture is the highest (or sometimes only) authority in the Church.

Click to expand...

But that isn't the approach you've been taking in this exchange.

Hank77 said:

Actually no it didn't.
As Paul pointed out from OT scriptures, Abraham was found to be righteous before he was circumcised and proved, with OT scripture, that Abraham is the father of us all, both the circumcised and the uncircumcised. Abraham was found to be righteous 430 yrs. before the Law was given. Therefore, one is not found to be righteous by the Law of Moses but by faith.

Click to expand...

Despite that, the Scriptural commands are VERY clear. Scripture commands the following of the food laws. Sola Scriptura declares that Scripture is a higher authority than the Church. Therefore, the Scripture, in a SS following church, would lead to a Judaizing belief. This is exactly how the Messianic Jews and SDA churches came about. They read the Scripture, and in its PLAIN SENSE, all followers of God are commanded to follow the Law and the Prophets. The Council of Acts REVISED the laws one must follow, in a most audacious way.

Albion said:

But that isn't the approach you've been taking in this exchange.

Click to expand...

I'm not Protestant. I've been saying that such a claim was impossible for a Church in which Scripture was either incomplete or unavailable. How could you follow Scripture alone if you didn't have a written language in which Scripture existed. This is why it is impossible for 95% of early Christians to follow SS. You're essentially saying that God was sitting up there knowingly giving a commandment that was impossible, He knew was impossible, and did so anyways. How capricious is He?

Albion said:

You may have missed my last post. You are attributing a different meaning to Sola Scriptura than it has and historically was intended to mean. Until you correct that, I cannot help you, and your demands (^) are not even on topic!


Absolutely. But we have to be talking about Sola Scriptura. I should think that anyone would recognize that as essential.

Click to expand...

I'm attributing EXACTLY what people practice now. Just because you REFUSE to define your approach to SS doesn't mean I'm not responding to it. It just means you're being a cloaked vessel. You refuse to actually make an argument.

MY statement is that the modern approaches to SS are impossible. Shoot, even the approach defined by Martin Luther himself is impossible in the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic eras. Much less the modern approach.

sculleywr said:

Scripture commands the following of the food laws.

Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken. The Judaizers thought that one must follow the Law of Moses in order to be considered part of the assembly, the peculiar people of God.
Most any Messianic Jew will tell you that one is only justified by their faith in the Messiah and His work on the Cross. But they will also say that they follow parts of the Law because it is pleasing to God for them to do so because they are Jewish.
When you only look at part of the scriptures, the Law of Moses, it would appear that one must follow the Law in order to be justified, but when one looks at the whole of the OT scriptures, as Paul points out, we see that Abraham was a Gentile and justified by faith before the Law of Moses existed.
Sola Scriptura takes all scripture into account not just a portion of it. The Bereans believed in Sola Scriptura and that is good enough for me.
Again Sola Scriptura does not rule out studying what the early church fathers wrote and the writings of other church teachers in order to understand the scriptures.

The problem with not accepting sola scriptura is that you then rely on a human to deliver God's words. But Popes have contradicted each other over the years. Here's a sample
John Paul II himself (1978-2005) gave a fatal blow to the doctrine of infallibility. In opposition to the declarations of other popes and to Catholic doctrine itself, this pope declared:

• The Spirit of Christ uses churches and ecclesial communities other than the Catholic Church as means of salvation (1979, 4.32).
• People outside the Catholic Church and the Gospel can attain salvation by the grace of Christ (1990, 1.10).
• People can be saved by living a good moral life, without knowing anything about Christ and the Catholic Church (1993, 3).
• There is sanctification outside the Catholic Church (1995, 1.12).
• The martyrs of any religious community can find the extraordinary grace of the Holy Spirit (1995, 3.84).

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2594

Unless there has been perfect harmony with what one pope said over another, Papal infallibility is a myth. If Papal infallibility isn't true, what are you left with?

Hank77 said:

I think you are mistaken. The Judaizers thought that one must follow the Law of Moses in order to be considered part of the assembly, the peculiar people of God.
Most any Messianic Jew will tell you that one is only justified by their faith in the Messiah and His work on the Cross. But they will also say that they follow parts of the Law because it is pleasing to God for them to do so because they are Jewish.
When you only look at part of the scriptures, the Law of Moses, it would appear that one must follow the Law in order to be justified, but when one looks at the whole of the OT scriptures, as Paul points out, we see that Abraham was a Gentile and justified by faith before the Law of Moses existed.
Sola Scriptura takes all scripture into account not just a portion of it. The Bereans believed in Sola Scriptura and that is good enough for me.
Again Sola Scriptura does not rule out studying what the early church fathers wrote and the writings of other church teachers in order to understand the scriptures.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. But the statement was that at the time the food laws were made, they were requirements to be part of the assembly God had created: the Qahal Israel (in Greek Septuagint called the Ekklesia Israel). The Council of Acts changed that. The new assembly of God did not have to strictly follow the Mosaic law. That is a change.

PapaZoom said:

The problem with not accepting sola scriptura is that you then rely on a human to deliver God's words. But Popes have contradicted each other over the years. Here's a sample
John Paul II himself (1978-2005) gave a fatal blow to the doctrine of infallibility. In opposition to the declarations of other popes and to Catholic doctrine itself, this pope declared:

• The Spirit of Christ uses churches and ecclesial communities other than the Catholic Church as means of salvation (1979, 4.32).
• People outside the Catholic Church and the Gospel can attain salvation by the grace of Christ (1990, 1.10).
• People can be saved by living a good moral life, without knowing anything about Christ and the Catholic Church (1993, 3).
• There is sanctification outside the Catholic Church (1995, 1.12).
• The martyrs of any religious community can find the extraordinary grace of the Holy Spirit (1995, 3.84).

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2594

Unless there has been perfect harmony with what one pope said over another, Papal infallibility is a myth. If Papal infallibility isn't true, what are you left with?

Click to expand...

You don't rid yourself of the human element by divesting the Pope of his position. You simply put the INDIVIDUAL in the position of the Pope. No longer is the locus of interpretation the Pope, the locus of interpretation is the person. In the early Church, NEITHER of these were true. The Locus of Interpretation was the Pillar and Ground of the Truth from I Timothy: the Church. This is why they had a Council.

Here's the problem: why have a Council in Acts if you're Sola Scriptura OR Papally Infallible?

In the first, just see what Scripture says. In the second, just ask Peter. But we see NEITHER in the Council of Jerusalem. Instead, Peter (who the Romans say is the first Pope) is rebuked as a heretic, and the decision is made by the whole gathering, with James being only an administrative authority in the Council. The Scripture is seen as support, but only plays a small role in the Council itself.

I just looked at uses of “Word of God” in the NT. There are 43. Most (though not all) refer to Jesus’ teachings or the teachings of the Apostles. Mark 7:13 and parallels refers to one of the 10 commandments, which would be the OT.

Since I consider Scripture authoritative because it’s our primary source for Jesus’ and the Apostles’ teachings, this use of Word of God is consistent. For other theories of Scripture, maybe not.

sculleywr said:

How could you follow Scripture alone if you didn't have a written language in which Scripture existed. This is why it is impossible for 95% of early Christians to follow SS.

Click to expand...

95% of the Christians in the early church lived in areas that had written languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and dialectics of them. The OT scriptures were translated into Greek very early on for the Jews (Hellenistic) that did not speak and read Hebrew but Greek. It was Hebrew scholars that did the translation, the Septuagint, which Paul quotes from.
Each church had literate members who could certainly read and transcribe the letters that were written by the Apostles. If they didn't there wouldn't have been any copies to assemble together 300 hundred years later.

The Council of Jerusalem is an interesting example. I maintain that Scripture is most directly our source for ideas of God, Jesus, and his work. Those things by definition don’t change. However our actions may well depend upon the context. That’s where the power of the keys applies.

The Council of Jerusalem was called to settle issues of practice.

Oddly, common practice seems to reverse this. Councils are used primarily to decide on developments of doctrine, and people claim (somewhat disingenuously at times) that ethics can’t change.

I have a question for those of you who are against sola scripture. Say your right and that testing our beliefs to see if they line up with scripture, how then do we test to see if our beliefs and views are of man or God? I am not challenging you I am legitimately curious

hedrick said:

I just looked at uses of “Word of God” in the NT. There are 43. Most (though not all) refer to Jesus’ teachings or the teachings of the Apostles. Mark 7:13 and parallels refers to one of the 10 commandments, which would be the OT.

Since I consider Scripture authoritative because it’s our primary source for Jesus’ and the Apostles’ teachings, this use of Word of God is consistent. For other theories of Scripture, maybe not.

Click to expand...

The use of "WORDS of God" may be consistent, but the EXCLUSIVE does not apply here. That's the problem with the usage. By making it exclusive, you create a reality that doesn't exist.

Hank77 said:

95% of the Christians in the early church lived in areas that had written languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and dialectics of them. The OT scriptures were translated into Greek very early on for the Jews (Hellenistic) that did not speak and read Hebrew but Greek. It was Hebrew scholars that did the translation, the Septuagint, which Paul quotes from.
Each church had literate members who could certainly read and transcribe the letters that were written by the Apostles. If they didn't there wouldn't have been any copies to assemble together 300 hundred years later.

Click to expand...

Just because they had a written language doesn't mean they had the documents. And they definitely rarely would have large collections, much less complete collections. And since Sola Scriptura assumes that you have access YOURSELF to the Scripture, then it can't be applied by an illiterate person or a person who didn't have access for one of thousands of reasons that existed at the time. Many places didn't have access to ANY written form of Scripture, despite their literacy.

Besides that, the overall culture of the time was that of ORAL TRADITION! Oral Tradition was not only the cultural norm, but it is proven as part of Christian practice as well. Ignatius, Clement, and Irenaeus all three show the role of Tradition within only two or three generations of the Apostles.

sculleywr said:

I'm not Protestant. I've been saying that such a claim was impossible for a Church in which Scripture was either incomplete or unavailable.

Click to expand...

However, it was NOT unavailable.

How could you follow Scripture alone if you didn't have a written language in which Scripture existed.

Click to expand...

Somewhere along the way you have been misinformed if you think that was the case.

sculleywr said:

Besides that, the overall culture of the time was that of ORAL TRADITION!

Click to expand...

If I read your last post back to you, would you call that "oral tradition" and tell me that it is more authoritative than what you wrote in your post?

FireHeart said:

I have a question for those of you who are against sola scripture. Say your right and that testing our beliefs to see if they line up with scripture, how then do we test to see if our beliefs and views are of man or God? I am not challenging you I am legitimately curious

Click to expand...

That's where we have faith. For one, you already have to trust a belief that objectively cannot be tested by Scripture: The Table of Contents. You can never prove the Canon of Scripture by Scripture. That would be circular. Any writing can call itself Scripture. What authority does the canon, therefore, have? It has the highest authority upon which one can call outside of Christ: the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. If the Church is not the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, then literally everything falls apart. No Church means no Christianity. You wouldn't have the Canon apart from the Church. You wouldn't have the identification of the authors of the gospels apart from the Church.

The Church is the authority behind the Canon. By rejecting the Tradition upon which the canon is founded, you remove the foundation of the canon and thereby its authority. Either Tradition has the authority to both define the content and meaning of Scripture, or it does not have the authority to do either. But the buffet style approach of Relativism has destroyed that concept in the west.

sculleywr said:

You don't rid yourself of the human element by divesting the Pope of his position. You simply put the INDIVIDUAL in the position of the Pope. No longer is the locus of interpretation the Pope, the locus of interpretation is the person. In the early Church, NEITHER of these were true. The Locus of Interpretation was the Pillar and Ground of the Truth from I Timothy: the Church. This is why they had a Council.

Click to expand...

So if we show you that "the pillar and ground" is something entirely different from what you're thinking it is, would this not cause your entire thesis to fall apart?

Here's the problem: why have a Council in Acts if you're Sola Scriptura OR Papally Infallible?

Click to expand...

Once again--and although you seem to be able to define Sola Scriptura when asked--you show that you don't understand what it means.

There is no "Papal Infallibility" parallel in it, nor is it a matter of how one interprets Scripture. The term means that Scripture is what it is and that is the highest possible authority. This doesn't prevent anyone from misunderstanding some or all of it, so if they do, Sola Scriptura is not refuted, not any more than you'd agree that Tradition is refuted when I point to something like the Roman idea of Purgatory and say "You don't believe in this, and yet you say you follow Tradition, but since there's a disagreement with other people who say they followed Tradition, Tradition itself must be false."