A Biblical Defense of Bible Alone + The Anointing to Understand It
- Thread starter Bible Highlighter
- Start date
Whether Sola Scriptura means "the Bible is the only authority" or "the Bible is the only infallible authority", the followings should be enough to refute it:
Please consider:
- The Bible was not put under one cover until the Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and 3rd Council of Carthage (AD 397) accepted the official list of books.
- Not for over 1000 years after these early Councils was the printing press invented (~1450), so Bible manuscripts were quite rare and costly before the printing press came about.
Between AD 33 and 1450 then, how did most people learn about the contents of Scripture, and who was the authoritative figure for the early Church during these centuries?
(One Protestant defined Sola Scriptura as the position that "Scripture alone is your sole authority for your faith and life". Another Protestant defined it as "The Bible is the only infallible authority" after people are refuting it. This is like keep moving the goal post in a soccer game so that your opponent won't be able to score a goal.)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,314
- 10,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Already refuted by the OP details. At every step (see Isaiah 8:19-20) "sola scriptura" testing was the rule.
Already in use in Acts 17:11 BEFORE the NT was even written.
Your argument does not survive the Bible details - or the OP.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,314
- 10,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Obviously nobody in the first century was saying "we won't read scripture until the 4th century A.D."...
How is this concept so difficult for some folks???
Your argument is "with the text" in that you argue "it should not exist" as accepted text for first century saints - but should have magically "appeared" in the 4th century. How odd.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
What Christ hammered was the false traditions of his days, not Church traditions.
All your statements make me wonder whether you have been reading and thinking carefully or not. I haven't come across worse arguments.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,314
- 10,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
And gave us an example of how it is done... "sola scriptura".
Interesting that it was the magesterium of the "one true nation church" started by God at sinai... totally slammed "sola scriptura" by Christ
And continued at "the test" as we see in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"
Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,314
- 10,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
More Bible -- less "making stuff up"...
1 Thess 2
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Obviously nobody in the first century was saying "we won't read scripture until the 4th century A.D."...
How is this concept so difficult for some folks???
And continued at "the test" as we see in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"
Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??
Luke 24:27 " And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."
Just when some folks were wishing to use creative writing to suggest that Christ "could not do that" until after 2 Corinthians was written.
I just did. I show that the question is irrelevant ... and has been going all the way back to Isaiah 8:20
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Jason0047, you reminded me of how Dr Scott Hahn was trying to defend Sola Scriptura:
The students were supposed to ask him a question or two. He said, "Can I first ask you a question, Professor Hahn? You know how Luther really had two slogans, not just sola fide, but the second slogan he used to revolt against Rome was sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. My question is, 'Where does the Bible teach that?'"
I looked at him with a blank stare. I could feel sweat coming to my forehead. I used to take pride in asking my professors the most stumping questions, but I never heard this one before. And so I heard myself say words that I had sworn I'd never speak; I said, "John, what a dumb question." He was not intimidated. He look at me and said, "Give me a dumb answer."
I said, "All right, I'll try." I just began to wing it. I said, "Well, Timothy 3:16 is the key: 'All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for correction, for training and righteousness, for reproof that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work....'"
He said, "Wait a second, that only says that Scripture is inspired and profitable; it doesn't say ONLY Scripture is inspired or even better, only Scripture's profitable for those things. We need other things like prayer," and then he said, "What about 2 Thessalonians 2:15?" I said, "What's that again?" He said, "Well, there Paul tells the Thessalonians that they have to hold fast, they have to cling to the traditions that Paul has taught them either in writing or by word of mouth." Whoa! I wasn't ready. I said, "Well, let's move on with the questions and answers; I'll deal with this next week. Let's go on."
Click to Read the Whole Story
The students were supposed to ask him a question or two. He said, "Can I first ask you a question, Professor Hahn? You know how Luther really had two slogans, not just sola fide, but the second slogan he used to revolt against Rome was sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. My question is, 'Where does the Bible teach that?'"
I looked at him with a blank stare. I could feel sweat coming to my forehead. I used to take pride in asking my professors the most stumping questions, but I never heard this one before. And so I heard myself say words that I had sworn I'd never speak; I said, "John, what a dumb question." He was not intimidated. He look at me and said, "Give me a dumb answer."
I said, "All right, I'll try." I just began to wing it. I said, "Well, Timothy 3:16 is the key: 'All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for correction, for training and righteousness, for reproof that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work....'"
He said, "Wait a second, that only says that Scripture is inspired and profitable; it doesn't say ONLY Scripture is inspired or even better, only Scripture's profitable for those things. We need other things like prayer," and then he said, "What about 2 Thessalonians 2:15?" I said, "What's that again?" He said, "Well, there Paul tells the Thessalonians that they have to hold fast, they have to cling to the traditions that Paul has taught them either in writing or by word of mouth." Whoa! I wasn't ready. I said, "Well, let's move on with the questions and answers; I'll deal with this next week. Let's go on."
Click to Read the Whole Story
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
You are just parroting the party line which had been refuted. Here, what you correctly attest to as the "teaching of the apostles being inspired whether they wrote it down or spoke it" is contrary to the Catholic alternative to SS, which is that of sola ecclesia, under the premise that like as the apostles orally passed on some of the word of God, so also does the Catholic church.
However, while men such as the apostles could sometimes speak and write as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public revelation thereby, Catholic popes and councils do neither, nor does Catholic theology teach that even "infallible" statements are inspired of God as Scripture was, regardless of some RCs posters on a hill who argue that they were. Nor were so-called church "fathers."
Moreover, the speaking and writing of inspired men was not ensured by a scope and subject-based criteria as is the case with the Cath substitute for Divinely-breathed words, that of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. And in fact, nowhere was any magisterium of mortals in Scripture promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office, that whenever that office as a body defined something on faith or morals for the whole church then it would be protected from error.
In addition, the word of God is not simply true, but has a special powerful anointing as per Hebrews 4:12. Thus they cannot be equal.
While under SS it is held that councils can settle controversies, yet the veracity of their teaching rests upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, for by such the NT church began, and not under the Cath. premise.
And God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture. (Acts 17:11)
Therefore, unless we have apostles who speak and write as wholly inspired of God then we must rest upon Scripture as being the sure and supreme and sufficient (in its formal and material senses) word of God and standard on Truth.
Your mountain man comrade already tried this one Also Don't you guys have anything but reruns?
The power of binding loosing, like that of "whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do," (John 14:13,14) is not an autocratic power, one that can add to the word of God such as inventing ordained church offices, but such is subject to the will of God, and conformity with Scripture. This applies to the church and it also did to the Scribes and Pharisees. Who, though they sat in the seat of Moses, were reproved by the Lord from Scripture for teaching as doctrines the traditions of men. Based on Catholic logic, they had that power, however, the Lord makes it clear they were not above Scripture. (Mark 7:2-16)
The power of binding loosing actually flows from the OT, judicially to bind or loose one from guilt, (Dt. 17:8-13) and even civil courts have that power (Matthew 18:34) as well as husbands or fathers to bind or loose a wife or daughter to her vow. (Numbers 30:1-15) Yet formal judicial actions by the church are executed under leadership, normally in union with the church. (Matthew 18:16-18; though which text in context deals with personal disputes). A formal corporate judicial example of binding is seen in action in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 along with the corporate nature of forgiveness (loosing) by the body that was harmed by public sin. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)
But as seen in Matthew 18:19-20 and James 5:16-18, the spiritual power of binding and loosing are is not restricted to clergy, but as many of Elijah-type righteousness and fervent prayer (Elijah bound and loosed the heavens), though that is sadly not me.
The power of binding loosing actually flows from the OT, judicially to bind or loose one from guilt, (Dt. 17:8-13) and even civil courts have that power (Matthew 18:34) as well as husbands or fathers to bind or loose a wife or daughter to her vow. (Numbers 30:1-15) Yet formal judicial actions by the church are executed under leadership, normally in union with the church. (Matthew 18:16-18; though which text in context deals with personal disputes). A formal corporate judicial example of binding is seen in action in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 along with the corporate nature of forgiveness (loosing) by the body that was harmed by public sin. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)
But as seen in Matthew 18:19-20 and James 5:16-18, the spiritual power of binding and loosing are is not restricted to clergy, but as many of Elijah-type righteousness and fervent prayer (Elijah bound and loosed the heavens), though that is sadly not me.
That is no more restricted to the apostles and those who claim to descend from them - and RC priests do not - than casting out devils in the name of the Lord was restricted to them even while the Lord was on the earth. "And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." (Luke 9:50) But RCs are against those are on the Lord's side.
Ordaining and commissioning leadership is supported under SS, but nowhere are NT believers charged with or shown coming to leadership to obtain forgiveness, and the only exhortation to confession of sins other than to God is to other believers in general. (James 5:16-19) The infirm man in James 5:14,15 is not told to confess sins, but obtains deliverance thru the intercession of presbyters, not RC priests . See
Confession of sins "]
and one of whom in particular was instructed, "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17).
And we need more evangelical Peter's today, who nourish souls spiritually, (1Tim. 4:6) which builds them up. (Acts 20:32) with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and thus desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, thereby being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)
But God can raise up Peter's from stones. (Mt. 3:9)
Actually, before there was a Church there was a Bible, that of an established body of wholly inspired writings which were appealed to as authoritative. Without which we would simply have no NT church. The fact that there was more to be added this body does not help your cause, for the fact is that the OT writings the NT appealed to had been established before Catholicism imagined her infallible magisterium was essential for this. And our agreement with some of the judgments of the past does not mean we recognize those in the past as infallible.
The mountain man tried that one also. See here or
The Catholic use here is a case of forcing a text to support the autocratic elitism of Rome as if thru her magisterium she is the basis of Truth, thereby making Scripture subject to her, even though Divine Truth preceded the church, and her Truth claims were established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. The one true church is actually the prophesied "child" of the Truth that preceded it, consisting only of those who were begotten "with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1:18)
Yet what Caths attempt to extrapolate their fantasy out of is actually (based upon what is contained in the Greek) "church living God pillar/support and ground [hedraiōma: said to be unseen in the Hellenistic Jewish literature, or in the LXX or in secular Greek, or it is said to have meant in the latter fixed, steadfast, or immovable] the truth."
That the church of the living God is of the Truth, and supports and is fixed on the Truth is substantiated in Scripture, the Lord Himself taking time to go thru Scripture and show the basis for His Messiaship and ministry, and opening the understanding of the disciples (more than just apostles being present) to them, (Lk. 24:44,45) and with Biblical prophets being foundational. (Eph. 2:20).
Yet what Caths attempt to extrapolate their fantasy out of is actually (based upon what is contained in the Greek) "church living God pillar/support and ground [hedraiōma: said to be unseen in the Hellenistic Jewish literature, or in the LXX or in secular Greek, or it is said to have meant in the latter fixed, steadfast, or immovable] the truth."
That the church of the living God is of the Truth, and supports and is fixed on the Truth is substantiated in Scripture, the Lord Himself taking time to go thru Scripture and show the basis for His Messiaship and ministry, and opening the understanding of the disciples (more than just apostles being present) to them, (Lk. 24:44,45) and with Biblical prophets being foundational. (Eph. 2:20).
Indeed, but the what the NT was not made up of was Catholic distinctive which are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. Deformation of the New Testament Church and history relevant to the Reformation
Which is a false dilemma, a either/or logical fallacy, for there is no mutual opposition. Instead, the Lord established His church upon Scriptural Truth, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and upon "living stones" who prophesied and professed this, the apostles and prophets, (Ephesians 2:20) Christ being the chief cornerstone.
(And in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Of course there is clearly a Scriptural way, as I have shown repeatedly. For it is certainly
incontrovertibly Scriptural that a body of wholly inspired-of-God authoritative writings was discerned and established (essentially due to their unique enduring Divine qualities and attestation) before a church even existed that presumed her infallible magisterium was essential for this. And thus the Lord and His disciples could and did abundantly appeal to writings of that body in establishing the prophetic and doctrinal foundation of the NT church and kingdom of God. (Luke 24:27,44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28)
And if it is Scriptural that a body of wholly inspired-of-God writings was discerned and established as authoritative, then it certainly is Scriptural that more wholly inspired writings and thus a larger canon could likewise be discerned and established. Which it was. The NT church much agreed with the judgment of others before it, and Reformers much agreed with the judgments of others that went before it. But in neither case does agreement mean one must agree with all the judgments of those who went before it.
Upvote
0
Are you sure? Do you know what you are talking about?
Your argument should be based on scripture, and also it must not contradict history.
But you made up your own version of history when you said "that a body of wholly inspired-of-God authoritative writings was discerned and established before a church even existed"
The fact is that the Bible was not put under one cover until the Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and 3rd Council of Carthage (AD 397) accepted the official list of books. Between AD 33 to AD 397, the faithful had no access to the Bible, so who was the authority?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
