Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,

I am with our sister Dorothea on this. What that thread shows is how dangerous it is to rely upon one's own reading of Scripture. To criticise an Apostle of Christ and to call him an heretic just because of a 'gut feeling' would be enough to make me think Sola/o Scriptura dangerous - even if I could find something in Scripture which told me what should be in it

Thanks any way bro;

peace,

Anglian

Greeting Anglian. Thank you for your thoughts on that.

As you noticed, that one poster put up a few "anti-Paul" sites, and evidently he is more "sola" than "solo" scriptura or else he would have just stuck to the Bible instead of reading outside sources concerning how they interpret the Bible.

I myself delve more deeply in the greek/hebrew texts to better understand the written word, and some of my views are also not considered being of "mainstream Churchianity".

Btw, I could use your and others view on my translation of Hebrews which I am currently working on [I finished Galatians and am also working on Romans]. Tis awsome reading it in the original greek!!!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7426625/
Book of Hebrews verse by verse

 

[Athanasias]

2 Thes 2:
2:15 Therefore, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.

Handed down in letters yes, and what have remained are in a book that is the Christian standard. When the letter to Thes was written there were those who didn't need letters when they heard it firsthand from the authors. As there were also many who heard it from those who had directly been with Jesus as Hebrews states.

No. Handed down in word of mouth (Orally) or in epistle(writing) that is the charge we Christian are to receive the word of God in. It nowhere describes anywhere that everything they taught that we are supposed to hold fast to got written down and put in the bible. I am afraid that is something that protestant tradition adds to this passage but the text itself demonstrates just the opposite. How ironic!

 

[Anglian]

Dear LLOJ,

Your contributions here are greatly appreciated by all of us bro'. You draw us constantly to the words of Holy Scripture, and that cannot but be good for us all.

But I do think that the 'Paul' threads show the danger of going further than you do and applying one's own unaided reason to interpretation. You, wisely, give us your wonderful 'Yoda' bible, which actually reminds many of us of how delicate the translations can be at times. You do not go beyond that, and we all appreciate that.

For me, and for others, the key thing is how one establishes what books are Scripture - what books you need to be translating. Scripture itself does not tell us that. That being so, there should be no problem in going to the tradition which gives us Scripture; indeed, though (unlike you) no Greek scholar, I am told that the Greek of the ECFs can be a great help in reading the Greek of the NT.

peace,

Anglian

 

[racer]

Did Jesus quote from Revelation?

Exactly how does this address the OP?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

2 Thes 2:
2:15 Therefore, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.

Handed down in letters yes, and what have remained are in a book that is the Christian standard. When the letter to Thes was written there were those who didn't need letters when they heard it firsthand from the authors. As there were also many who heard it from those who had directly been with Jesus as Hebrews states.

No. Handed down in word of mouth (Orally) or in epistle(writing) that is the charge we Christian are to receive the word of God in. It nowhere describes anywhere that everything they taught that we are supposed to hold fast to got written down and put in the bible. I am afraid that is something that protestant tradition adds to this passage but the text itself demonstrates just the opposite. How ironic!

I see the message from a scriptural view and you from a traditionists view. Nothing ironic about that.

 

[chestertonrules]

I see the message from a scriptural view and you from a traditionists view. Nothing ironic about that.

From a scriptural view, can you tell us what Jesus taught the apostles during these 40 days?

Acts 1
3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

From a scriptural view, can you tell us what Jesus taught the apostles during these 40 days?

Acts 1
3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Luke 24: 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

 

[racer]

No. Handed down in word of mouth (Orally) or in epistle(writing) that is the charge we Christian are to receive the word of God in. It nowhere describes anywhere that everything they taught that we are supposed to hold fast to got written down and put in the bible. I am afraid that is something that protestant tradition adds to this passage but the text itself demonstrates just the opposite. How ironic!

What is your evidence that there is a distinct group of teachings handed down by mouth only? Would you say that those teachings are still preserved in oral form only?

 

[chestertonrules]

Luke 24: 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

That was on an afternoon walk. He spent 40 days teaching the apostles and there is no written record of what he said in the New Testament.

Could this be part of his teaching?

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

 

[racer]

An interesting idea, but I don't know of anything which supports the idea that NT Scripture had to relate to OT Scripture.

We know that as early as the 120s the 4 Gospels we receive were in circulation, but we also know they were not received everywhere. We know that about 7 of St. Paul's letters were in circulation along with Acts, but again, not everywhere.

So, when you say "not in circulation" do you mean the letters only or the teachings contained in Pauls letters?

So to say one has to 'go to the source' begs the question of who decided which of the many writings in circulation were authentically Apostolic and which were not?

So, if a teaching is deemed "oral" no source is required to authenticate it?

As late as the 300s some books, notably James, 2 and 3 John and Revelation were still not received in many places, whilst books we do not receive, such as 1 Clement and Barnabas were.

What is y our point?

It was the early Church in its councils which decided which books were genuine, so if we are going to the original source, stopping at the Bible does not get us all the way there.

So, how is it you know the process the "early church" followed to determine what was or wasn't scriptural?

What do you consider to be the original source? And by what method have you come to know the identity of this source? Is your knowledge based upon teachings that you have only received by word of mouth?

 

[racer]

Sorry but to me that's no different than saying the author of a biography has as much authority over a person's historical account as the source they were obtained from because they chose what to include in their book and what to leave out. They have informed knowledge but not authority over the history of the text.

Amen!! I've been trying to articulate that thought for years!!!

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That was on an afternoon walk. He spent 40 days teaching the apostles and there is no written record of what he said in the New Testament.

Could this be part of his teaching?

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

You believe that eating orally is edifying. I believe that reading the Word is edifying. Assimulating the Word. So no, I don't think He taught that. You do that in remembrence of Him periodically, abiding in Him is two becoming one. That's what that means.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Originally Posted by maid in His image

Sorry but to me that's no different than saying the author of a biography has as much authority over a person's historical account as the source they were obtained from because they chose what to include in their book and what to leave out. They have informed knowledge but not authority over the history of the text.
​

Amen!! I've been trying to articulate that thought for years!!!

The church 'father's are a common history to all of the church. But they didn't hold authority of the text. Nor the final word. Only Jesus ahs the word and He gave the church revelation. Not just the church 'fathers'

 

[chestertonrules]

You believe that eating orally is edifying. I believe that reading the Word is edifying. Assimulating the Word. So no, I don't think He taught that. You do that in remembrence of Him periodically, abiding in Him is two becoming one. That's what that means.

You are expressing an opinion that was considered heresy by the early Church.

Where do you think they got that idea? Do you think they made it up?

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

1 Cor 11
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

You are expressing an opinion that was considered heresy by the early Church.

Where do you think they got that idea? Do you think they made it up?

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

1 Cor 11
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

What goes into your body is nothing, Jesus said, it's what comes out of it that is at the heart.

They disallowed the bible so folks couldn't get the real food. Protestants died so you could have it today

 

[chestertonrules]

What goes into your body is nothing, Jesus said, it's what comes out of it that is at the heart.

Jesus also said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood.


Why do you think the early church unanimously believed in the literal presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist?

Where do you think that belief came from?

FYI, here's an interesting quote from Martin Luther which shows how far protestants have drifted:

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
​

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

.

They disallowed the bible so folks couldn't get the real food. Protestants died so you could have it today

The supper is still practised but they don't believe it's literal.

 

[Thekla]

They disallowed the bible so folks couldn't get the real food. Protestants died so you could have it today

That's not quite accurate

I can only comment on the east, but the Bible was never "withheld" -- in fact there are countless extant ECF writings over the centuries exhorting the daily reading of the Holy Scriptures !

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

You are expressing an opinion that was considered heresy by the early Church.

Where do you think they got that idea? Do you think they made it up?

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

1 Cor 11
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

You have no right to insinuate my beliefs heresay.

 

[Thekla]

Then, on the Eucharist, the words of Christ (this is my body ...) have been understood just as He stated them since the beginning. If others interpret differently, ok, but the realness is fully supported by the Holy Scriptures.