Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

[ebedmelech]

Very good. When did that become binding upon Christians? Was it when the council announced their decision? Or was it when their decision was codified in writing?

I'm not following you. You have it right there in Acts 15 when Jews insisted "except you be circumcised according to the law of Moses you cannot be saved". Gentiles were not being circumcised anyway even after salvation. The council simply affirmed that. It tells you right there after the decision was made (which was what the apostles were doing anyway) that letters were sent to the churches. That simply made it more clear to Gentiles.

If I'm not answering your question...please state your question more clearly.

 

[Albion]

You're right. The attempt to show that the early church believed something prior to it's being written down doesn't have a thing to do with "proving" Tradition or with the effort to disprove Sola Scriptura (which is supposed to be the topic of this thread). It's completely unrelated to the subject.

 

[now faith]

It is all there in Scripture. The only problem is that Scripture does not read and study and pore over and contemplate itself and understand itself. Being sola scripture means that people actually got to study scripture and glean the meaning from scripture. Just like sitting at the weight set does not build muscle, it is necessary to actually open up the Bible and read it.

It is the task of a lifetime and more actually.

True,the Bible commands us to study.

 

[now faith]

Yeah regrettably so.



I guess pastors do become like a mini-pope in a sense, not that they'd agree.



I've seen the Logos correlated to Wisdom of Proverbs 8, but have you considered how the Voice of the Lord God walked around in the Garden during the cool of the day?

Fascinating subject the Logos, thanks for that

Good stuff,we often think of God as this being who we cannot look upon.
But Christ could walk on earth with his children,through the Spirit.

 

[now faith]

ANd in fact, since we manufacture our DOCTRINES, and Theologies on OUR INTERPRETATIONS of the Word, rather that on the WORD ITSELF, "Sola Scriptura" has become become "Sola my interpretation of Scriptura", and so the term is pretty Meaningless in the practical sense anyway.

Bob I know you remember this Dad Hagin qoute:
Theology is base on opinion and opinions are based on ignorance of fact.
God Bless

 

[chilehed]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irrational

Which exact definition of irrational is being used here to describe the Bible?

Typo corrected; I intended to say "sola scriptura is...", not "scriptural is...".

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Pastors? Ha! Every Protestant is his own pope. Sacred Scripture doesn't interpret itself. If it did, nobody would disagree on the meaning. So some people like me trust in the Magisterium (which I at least consider a good alternative considering they've had 2,000 years to study the scriptures and figure out what it means) while others exercise their own personal magisterium which results in thousands of different denominations.

Hmmmmm, so popes are wrong?

 

[Uber Genius]

@amariselle - I love scripture, I find church tradition's understanding of the Sola Scriptura context hinders real conversation of it.

I think you may have to provide both a definition of sola and examples of the hinderance.

That scripture, not church authority, interprets scripture seems to be in line not only with the best biblical understanding of what the original audience would have understood, but is also how all ancient texts are interpreted, religious or not.

Letting other scripture and context and lexical domain of words and figures of speech, etc. determine meaning, rather than a pope or collection of Cardinals saying here is how to understand these passages. Which is an argument from authority, since no pope or collection of Cardnoals has demonstrated an ability to have a consistent revelation from the Holy Spirit enabling them to uniquely find the proper interpretation.

To L uther's point the popes were incoherent and used kettle logic in their justifications.

Reaching to dissemination of the scriptures to the common man by trying to kill every Bible translator they (The Catholic Church) could get there hands on. Hardly showe San interest in getting Jesus teaching to any but the cultural elite.

Is this what is meant by "child-like faith?" That is to say, kept ignorant of the scripture that record men's testimonies of Jesus, signed in blood by its authors?

Jesus was an intellectual giant! He amazed the religious leaders in the Temple at age 12. He crushed his opponents using carefully researched arguments that struck at the center of his opponents world views. Why think that Paul's advise to Timothy in 2 Tim 3:16 is mitigated by church authority?

"15From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work." (2Tim 3:15,16)

 

[Uber Genius]

Hmmmmm, so popes are wrong?

So the point that is important and missing from the discussion is the exegetical rule that a passage can't mean what it never meant to the original audience!

This is why there is a process known as exegesis. It gets at the passages original meaning to its original audience. Then another process, hermeneutics helps us understand what timeless truths can be pulled forward and applied in our own situation.

In fact we are encouraged not to be childish in our understanding!

"11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil." (Heb. 5:11-14)

Jesus' reference to being childlike was in the context of coming to God and receiving him. What Jesus calls in John 3, being born again. We must have a childlike trust in God not an infantile understanding of things like Christ being our only perfect high priest and mediator, the context of Hebrews chapter 5.

Hope this helps.

 

[1213]

Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

So why did they write and declare the message, if it was not needed?

 

[Job8]

Hmmmmm, so popes are wrong?

When were they ever right?????

 

[Open Heart]

No...you didn't cite any. Sigh

My apologies. I respond in so many similar threads that sometimes I get them confused. Here are the verses where Jesus supports the ORAL TORAH:

1. Jesus got all over the Pharisees' cases because they were only following the Oral Torah and not the basics of the Torah, when, as Jesus said in Matthew 23:23, they should be doing BOTH.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

2. In Matthew 23:1-3, Christ confirms the AUTHORITY of the Pharisees to correctly teach (based on Deuteronomy 17:8-13) and instructs his Jewish followers to do ALL they instruct. ALL instructions include both Torah AND Oral Torah (Talmud).

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you."

 

[Open Heart]

So why did they write and declare the message, if it was not needed?

Where? Chapter and verse where it says ONLY scripture is suitable to base doctrine on.

 

[Open Heart]

the passage I cited is right there in scripture. Jesus got on them because they put burdens on the people with their "Oral Torah".

Here is the passage you cited:
3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

No where in that verse does it say to stop observing the traditions (Oral Torah). The emphasis is to get them to get back to the basics of observing Torah. Which is WHY I directed you to Matthew 23:23, where Jesus quite clearly says to do BOTH.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So why did they write and declare the message, if it was not needed?

Sola scriptura is a philosophy on how to use scripture. Scripture is a separate thing, watch your strawmen.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So the point that is important and missing from the discussion is the exegetical rule that a passage can't mean what it never meant to the original audience!

This is why there is a process known as exegesis. It gets at the passages original meaning to its original audience. Then another process, hermeneutics helps us understand what timeless truths can be pulled forward and applied in our own situation.

In fact we are encouraged not to be childish in our understanding!

"11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil." (Heb. 5:11-14)

Jesus' reference to being childlike was in the context of coming to God and receiving him. What Jesus calls in John 3, being born again. We must have a childlike trust in God not an infantile understanding of things like Christ being our only perfect high priest and mediator, the context of Hebrews chapter 5.

Hope this helps.

Oh I was joking. thanks for the reply.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

When were they ever right?????

was joking

 

[thecolorsblend]

Hmmmmm, so popes are wrong?

Did I say that?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Did I say that?

You said every protestant was a pope, so as a catholic it is assumed they are considered wrong, so then taking the pattern back to it's root .. is the concept of the pope wrong? But I was half joking.

 

[thecolorsblend]

You said every protestant was a pope, so as a catholic it is assumed they are considered wrong, so then taking the pattern back to it's root .. is the concept of the pope wrong? But I was half joking.

My point in calling every Protestant his own pope (an observation I wasn't the first and won't be the last to make) is a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that rather than look to an external source for guidance on studying Sacred Scripture, Protestants trust in their own judgments and interpretations. A plethora of interpretations has led to a plethora of denominations, some of which are at each other's throats. This cannot be what Our Lord meant when He prayed to God the Father for unity.