Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[bbbbbbb]

Luther didn't, true. And honestly, I don't teach, as a teacher, anything at all about Luther, unless I'm teaching a history class. As for Jerome, he was an orthodox Catholic and obeyed those he was supposed to obey, whether he agreed with them or not. We call the Deuterocanon that for a reason...

Thank you for the excellent post.

 

[Wgw]

You might add to that Lutherans. Luther did not reject the deutercanonical books, as many Roman Catholics are taught. What he, as well as the vast majority of Protestants, did was to agree with Jerome's assessment that these books are not in the same category as those protocanonical books. I think everyone agrees on this point, although the Council of Trent really tried its best to blend them together.

Orthodoxy does not have the protocanon/deuterocanon distinction in any formal sense. The closest thing might ne the Narrow Canon vs. Broad Canon of the Ethiopian church; both include 1 Enoch interestingly.

 

[BobRyan]

2 Thessalonians 2: 13-15 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. To this end he has [also] called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

What gospel is Paul talking about? Oral. What tradition is Paul talking about? Oral. Only his written letters are actually written.

Gal 3:7 "the Gospel was preached to Abraham"
Gal 1:6-9 "There is only ONE gospel. if WE (Apostles) or an Angel from heaven should bring to you a different gospel let him be accursed"
Heb 4:2 "The Gospel was preached to US just as it was to THEM also"

 

[BobRyan]

Hence our insistence on the "Sola Scriptura" testing model of the NT saints.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the Apostle Paul) were SO"

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.



1. The Holy Spirit did not say that the apocrypha is scripturel
2. The Holy Spirit did not say that Josephus' statement about the canon was wrong.
3. I did not say that the Holy Spirit makes mistaks. Rather I said that Christ tells the truth.

so then ... sola scriptura testing it is.

 

[Wgw]

Hence our insistence on the "Sola Scriptura" testing model of the NT saints.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the Apostle Paul) were SO"

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.



1. The Holy Spirit did not say that the apocrypha is scripturel
2. The Holy Spirit did not say that Josephus' statement about the canon was wrong.
3. I did not say that the Holy Spirit makes mistaks. Rather I said that Christ tells the truth.

so then ... sola scriptura testing it is.

The Holy Spirit also did not say the so called "apocrypha" was not Scripture. So since the early Church used it, since St.mJude even quoted 1 Enoch in his epistle, I am inclined to accept ecclesiastical wisdom over the man-made traditions of Josephus and certain post-Pharisaic sects of Judaism who rejected the Seltuagint on account of the numerous explicit Christological references.

Such as the very clear prophecy of the passion of our Lord found in Wisdom ch. 2:

[1] For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell: [2] For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart, [3] Which being put out, our body shall be ashes, and our spirit shall be poured abroad as soft air, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, which is driven away by the beams of the sun, and overpowered with the heat thereof: [4] And our name in time shall be forgotten, and no man shall have any remembrance of our works. [5] For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth.

[6] Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth. [7] Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments: and let not the flower of the time pass by us. [8] Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they be withered: let no meadow escape our riot. [9] Let none of us go without his part in luxury: let us everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion, and this our lot. [10] Let us oppress the poor just man, and not spare the widow, nor honour the ancient grey hairs of the aged.

[11] But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth. [12] Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. [13] He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. [14] He is become a censurer of our thoughts. [15] He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men' s, and his ways are very different.

[16] We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. [17] Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. [18] For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. [19] Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. [20] Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.

[21] These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. [22] And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls. [23] For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. [24] But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: [25] And they follow him that are of his side.

 

[BobRyan]

The Holy Spirit also did not say the so called "apocrypha" was not Scripture. .

Nor did the Holy Spirit mention the Bhagavad Gita by name.

Fortunately Jerome stated explicitly that we should reject the apocryphal books thus agreeing with the Jews on their OWN OT - who also point out that it is not part of the approved Hebrew text and the Catholics came along too late to have any say at all in the matter.

And of course Paul in Rom 3:1-4 point out that the Jews own the OT

 

[Wgw]

Nor did the Holy Spirit mention the Bhagavad Gita by name.

Fortunately Jerome stated explicitly that we should reject the apocryphal books thus agreeing with the Jews on their OWN OT - who also point out that it is not part of the approved Hebrew text and the Catholics came along too late to have any say at all in the matter.

And of course Paul in Rom 3:1-4 point out that the Jews own the OT

No, it does not; rather it refers to the Judaic identity of the OT prophets.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Gal 3:7 "the Gospel was preached to Abraham"
Gal 1:6-9 "There is only ONE gospel. if WE (Apostles) or an Angel from heaven should bring to you a different gospel let him be accursed"
Heb 4:2 "The Gospel was preached to US just as it was to THEM also"

If it was PREACHED it was SPOKEN.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hence our insistence on the "Sola Scriptura" testing model of the NT saints.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the Apostle Paul) were SO"

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.



1. The Holy Spirit did not say that the apocrypha is scripturel

The Holy Spirit did not say that the Deuterocanon is not Scriptural, either. He did tell the Councils of Rome and Carthage that they belonged in our Canon.

2. The Holy Spirit did not say that Josephus' statement about the canon was wrong.

Nor did He say Josephus was right.

3. I did not say that the Holy Spirit makes mistaks. Rather I said that Christ tells the truth.

There is no conflict, in my mind, between Christ and the Holy Spirit. Apparently you believe otherwise.

so then ... sola scriptura testing it is.

Yeah, we go with the entire Word of God...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Nor did the Holy Spirit mention the Bhagavad Gita by name.

Fortunately Jerome stated explicitly that we should reject the apocryphal books thus agreeing with the Jews on their OWN OT - who also point out that it is not part of the approved Hebrew text and the Catholics came along too late to have any say at all in the matter.

And of course Paul in Rom 3:1-4 point out that the Jews own the OT

If SAINT Jerome actually believed that and dissented from his hierarchy, he wouldn't be a saint and Doctor of the Church. So your one little snippet of SAINT Jerome's opinion, which he never acted out, is not consequential. And there you go misinterpreting Scripture again... Paul stresses that Jews have remained the vehicle of God’s revelation despite their sins, though this depends on the fidelity of God.

 

[Standing Up]

The Holy Spirit also did not say the so called "apocrypha" was not Scripture.

On the contrary, this is that to which was said in 1 Maccabee's and to which Josephus refers and about which Paul refers in Romans 3 is the "valid prophetic line". The inspired books of the OT were written during a valid prophet's time from Moses to Malachi. That's the "oracles of God" to which Paul refers, Josephus declares, and 1 Maccabee's affirms was missing during its writing.

 

[Root of Jesse]

On the contrary, this is that to which was said in 1 Maccabee's and to which Josephus refers and about which Paul refers in Romans 3 is the "valid prophetic line". The inspired books of the OT were written during a valid prophet's time from Moses to Malachi. That's the "oracles of God" to which Paul refers, Josephus declares, and 1 Maccabee's affirms was missing during its writing.

You need to quote where 1 Maccabbees affirms itself as uninspired. I've never seen you do that.

 

[Standing Up]

You need to quote where 1 Maccabbees affirms itself as uninspired. I've never seen you do that.

1 Mac9:27] Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.
1 Mac 14:41] "And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise,

No valid prophetic line existed at the time of its writing (uninspired). This is to what Paul alludes in Roman 3 (oracles of God), Christ says (law and prophets), and Josephus say (no prophets).

 

[Wgw]

1 Mac9:27] Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.
1 Mac 14:41] "And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise,

No valid prophetic line existed at the time of its writing (uninspired). This is to what Paul alludes in Roman 3 (oracles of God), Christ says (law and prophets), and Josephus say (no prophets).

This does not mean Maccabees is uninspired, or rather, if it does, you would be obliged to reject Esther on the same grounds. Which some did, by the way, but I regard this as a poor way of understanding the OT.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This does not mean Maccabees is uninspired, or rather, if it does, you would be obliged to reject Esther on the same grounds. Which some did, by the way, but I regard this as a poor way of understanding the OT.

The significant difference between Esther and Maccabees is that the writer of Maccabees stated clearly that there was no prophet in Israel at that time. Hence, he did not think he was a prophet (i.e. that his writing was inspired by God). The writer of Esther makes no such statement.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This does not mean Maccabees is uninspired, or rather, if it does, you would be obliged to reject Esther on the same grounds. Which some did, by the way, but I regard this as a poor way of understanding the OT.

I couldn't have said this better myself. Job, too. Judith, too. Many books not written by prophets, but seen as inspired. The ball is still in their court...

 

[Root of Jesse]

The significant difference between Esther and Maccabees is that the writer of Maccabees stated clearly that there was no prophet in Israel at that time. Hence, he did not think he was a prophet (i.e. that his writing was inspired by God). The writer of Esther makes no such statement.

But who was the prophet when Esther was written? But where does it say that there must be a prophet in Israel when an inspired book is written, or that the prophet must be the author? I'm pretty sure several prophets didn't write their books themselves...

 

[Standing Up]

But who was the prophet when Esther was written? But where does it say that there must be a prophet in Israel when an inspired book is written, or that the prophet must be the author? I'm pretty sure several prophets didn't write their books themselves...

Time of prophets, though not necessarily written by a prophet. That's the criteria.

As to Esther, traditional dating puts its writing in the time of Xerxes or Ezra/Nehemiah.

Josephus defines Esther as part of Hebrew Scripture (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.xii.vi.html (about Esther) with: 2. Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks2828 That is, all the Gentiles, both Greeks and Romans. worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.i.html

 

[Standing Up]

I couldn't have said this better myself. Job, too. Judith, too. Many books not written by prophets, but seen as inspired. The ball is still in their court...

It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.iv.i.html

That's the idea. A succession (lineage) of prophets when written. This is to what Paul writes in Romans 3:2--entrusted with oracles of God. Christ--Law and prophets. And 1 Macc saying there were no prophets at the time of its writing (c125bc).

 

[Root of Jesse]

Time of prophets, though not necessarily written by a prophet. That's the criteria.

Who set that criteria?

As to Esther, traditional dating puts its writing in the time of Xerxes or Ezra/Nehemiah.

Josephus defines Esther as part of Hebrew Scripture (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.xii.vi.html (about Esther) with: 2. Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks2828 That is, all the Gentiles, both Greeks and Romans. worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.i.html

Josephus is hardly an authority on anything but general history of the time. His opinion, which is what it is, is noted, but not authoritative.