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

Albion said:

I don't see any conflict there.

Click to expand...

This is amazing! First you say

Albion said:

On the first point, the idea is not that it contains "the entirety of God's revealed truth." It does mean that it contains all of it that which is necessary to salvation and which any church can require of its people.

Click to expand...

Then when I quote one of the earliest Protestant statements of faith, which explicitly says that God's divine revelation was committed wholly to writing, you don't see any conflict.

FireDragon76 said:

Sola Scripture means so many things it's become little more than an anti-Catholic slogan.

Click to expand...

The Council of Trent decreed sola-scriptura anathema. Anti-Bible decrees sort of can't be surprised when there arises an anti movement in return. Can they?

thecolorsblend said:

He also attended services for Hanukkah, a commemoration of an event that never occurred in Sacred Scripture. At least none that Protestants recognize.

Your move.

Click to expand...

Don't make it so easy. The celebration of Hanukkah first occurred during the "400 silent years", where God spoke through no prophet after Malachi prophesied the coming of John the Baptist in the spirit and power of Elijah. Hanukkah, also know as the "Festival of Lights" celebrates the cleansing of the temple after the Maccabbean Revolt that re-captured the temple from Antiochus IV Epiphanes.That Israel celebrated such an event doesn't mean they were wrong to do so. That Jesus was at the festival neither supports nor takes away from Sola Scriptura as Israel still kept all festivals the Law required.

Jesus attended a wedding too...what's your point?

ebedmelech said:

Don't make it so easy. The celebration of Hanukkah first occurred during the "400 silent years", where God spoke through no prophet after Malachi prophesied the coming of John the Baptist in the spirit and power of Elijah. Hanukkah, also know as the "Festival of Lights" celebrates the cleansing of the temple after the Maccabbean Revolt that re-captured the temple from Antiochus IV Epiphanes.That Israel celebrated such an event doesn't mean they were wrong to do so. That Jesus was at the festival neither supports nor takes away from Sola Scriptura as Israel still kept all festivals the Law required.

Jesus attended a wedding too...what's your point?

Click to expand...

You have to ask WHY Jesus celebrated Chanukah. The answer is ORAL TORAH. He recognized authority over Jews that is not Scripture.

ebedmelech said:

Don't make it so easy. The celebration of Hanukkah first occurred during the "400 silent years", where God spoke through no prophet after Malachi prophesied the coming of John the Baptist in the spirit and power of Elijah. Hanukkah, also know as the "Festival of Lights" celebrates the cleansing of the temple after the Maccabbean Revolt that re-captured the temple from Antiochus IV Epiphanes.That Israel celebrated such an event doesn't mean they were wrong to do so. That Jesus was at the festival neither supports nor takes away from Sola Scriptura as Israel still kept all festivals the Law required.

Click to expand...

He participated in a festival that is not required anywhere in the abridged Scriptures available to Protestants. Clearly there's a requirement for Israelites to attend the festival. And yet it seems to originate from somewhere outside of Sacred Scripture. It's almost as though Sacred Scripture isn't the sole authority or something. Weird, eh? Eh, ebedmelech? Eh?

Open Heart said:

You have to ask WHY Jesus celebrated Chanukah. The answer is ORAL TORAH. He recognized authority over Jews that is not Scripture.

Click to expand...

No you don't! That Jesus was there doesn't affect Sola Scriptura, Hanukkah was celebrated as a significant event in Jewish history, but the "Oral Torah" meant nothing to Jesus because it was Jesus Himself that said to the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 15:1-6:
Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’
5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,”
6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Oral Torah was not from scripture..it was the interpretation of the Torah. That's why Jesus refuted anything that was not scriptural.

Jesus mission was clearly stated after His temptation when He said "Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand" he went to the Hanukkah celebration for that purpose. The passage is John 10:22-23 which says:
22 At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem;
23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon.

Nothing says Jesus celebrated anything...so again...what's the point?

chilehed said:

This is amazing! First you say Then when I quote one of the earliest Protestant statements of faith, which explicitly says that God's divine revelation was committed wholly to writing, you don't see any conflict.

Click to expand...

No, there isn't.

thecolorsblend said:

He participated in a festival that is not required anywhere in the abridged Scriptures available to Protestants. Clearly there's a requirement for Israelites to attend the festival. And yet it seems to originate from somewhere outside of Sacred Scripture. It's almost as though Sacred Scripture isn't the sole authority or something. Weird, eh? Eh, ebedmelech? Eh?

Click to expand...

Look at the passage...John 10:22-23:
22 At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem;
23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon.

Could you please show where it says Jesus celebrated anything? We know He was there...but where does it say Jesus celebrated?

Albion said:

No, there isn't.

Click to expand...

Again, more irrationality. You've proven my point admirably: sola scriptura is an irrational teaching, and only irrational thought can support it.

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

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

rjs330 said:

But once they got it It became the guiding light for their whole life. So yes sola-scriptura was the way one the law was given. Please read Deuteronomy God commanded that the people learn the law all the time and abide by it.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying but sola scriptura doesn't mean without God.

fat wee robin said:

Oh yes it's a long journey ,and we have learn to navigate 'shark infested waters', as well as seemingly benign, seductive ones .The latter are the most dangerous really ,as they have 'the feel good factor '. Some ,and that includes all of us , at sometime are fooled , so we must continue seeking HIS truth .
P.S. I have no idea who Dr. Jeremiah is ,as am in Europe and just a Christian (ex RCC ) for now ,but am interested in the E.O. more and more .

Click to expand...

Trying to stay on topic the essence of scripture is the Law other wise called the covenant. And it is not simply understanding the importance of the Law but understanding how the Law works; repentance and shedding substitute blood for the remission of sin is as much of the Law as is "do not commit adultery".

As best as I am informed, sola scriptura began not as a doctrine as an argument at the council of Trent; What Protestants were doing at the council of Trent confounds me. The story that I heard from reliable source is at the end of the council the Protestants said "the Bible and the Bible alone", and the Catholics responded, "If you go by the Bible and the Bible alone you will have to keep the Sabbath because the is not authority for keeping Sunday except the Papacy," the Protestants did not want to keep the Sabbath which is a sign of keeping the whole Law, and the reformation collapsed.

I do not know anything about the Eastern Orthodox Church; whether it was at sometime affiliated with the RCC or not; whether it shares doctrine and tradition with the RCC or not; most churches share doctrine with the Papacy, hopefully not Politics. Having come out you should endeavour not to go back in; there are churches that will allow you to believe what you want to believe so long as you don't rock the boat; the main point is do not have men as intermediates between you and God, use only Christ,

ebedmelech said:

No you don't! That Jesus was there doesn't affect Sola Scriptura, Hanukkah was celebrated as a significant event in Jewish history, but the "Oral Torah" meant nothing to Jesus because it was Jesus Himself that said to the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 15:1-6:
Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’
5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,”
6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Click to expand...

You never bothered reading the scriptures I cited, did you? Sigh*

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.

Open Heart said:

You never bothered reading the scriptures I cited, did you? Sigh*

Click to expand...

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

Open Heart said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's your explanation...but the passage I cited is right there in scripture. Jesus got on them because they put burdens on the people with their "Oral Torah". You must don't read the scriptures very much because what I say is right there in the gospels and Jesus is the one saying it. You neglected another of the "woes". Furthermore Jesus is not speaking of "ORAL TORAH" at all. He's speaking of the Law of Moses, ( made it red for you). The point being they were putting emphases on the one portion and not the other.

You're trying hard but Jesus is not saying what you say you need to read ALL of the "woes" of Matthew 23.

ebedmelech said:

That's your explanation...but the passage I cited is right there in scripture.

Click to expand...

I'm curious. In your opinion, has Sacred Scripture always been the sole authority in matters of Christian religious faith?

thecolorsblend said:

I'm curious. In your opinion, has Sacred Scripture always been the sole authority in matters of Christian religious faith?

Click to expand...

Indeed it has. All throughout scripture this has been the case. As God told Joshua in Joshua 1:7-8
7 Only be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go.
8 This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success.

Try Psalm 119 also.

ebedmelech said:

Indeed it has. All throughout scripture this has been the case.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Okay then.

Acts 15 issues specific instructions related to, among other things, circumcision.

Here's my question: When did that become binding upon Christians?

Was it binding when the Council verbally issued their decision? Or was it binding only when their decision was committed to writing years later?

You're apparently working up to saying that tradition governed this rather than Scripture...but it didn't. Holy Tradition is not Scripture delivered by word of mouth; it's a totally different set of ideas that come from men instead of God and are supposed by some denominations to be inspired.

thecolorsblend said:

Interesting. Okay then.

Acts 15 issues specific instructions related to, among other things, circumcision.

Here's my question: When did that become binding upon Christians?

Was it binding when the Council verbally issued their decision? Or was it binding only when their decision was committed to writing years later?

Click to expand...

Circumcision starts with Abraham as God made that covenant with him at Genesis 17 but the fact is God reveals that circumcision is an outward sign of an inward reality, which is the change of one's heart. God made that very clear in Deuteronomy 10:6. Circumcision was commanded under the Old Covenant and abolished under the New Covenant.

Paul makes that very clear in Romans 4:1-15. The point being that Abraham was declared righteous BEFORE he was circumcised...and circumcision was given as a sign of that covenant.

The council of Acts 15 concluded Gentiles DID NOT have to observe circumcision. Christ fulfilled the law for us therefore the Old Covenant command of circumcision no longer stands under the New Covenant. This was the issue when Paul wrote the book of Galatians.

ebedmelech said:

The council of Acts 15 concluded Gentiles DID NOT have to observe circumcision.

Click to expand...

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?