Against Sola Scriptura...

[GingerBeer]

I guess I just never questioned that the Bible is the word of God, I just never understood the introduction of that single term, 'alone'

My guess is that you also never questioned the edition of the bible that you read. You received it from "institutional Christianity", specifically from Protestant tradition. And I'd hazard the guess that you still use the 66 book bible without really asking yourself why and how you came to be given a 66 book bible. It is worth asking why. This thread specifically asks for arguments against the definition of sola scriptura contained in the original post. I will not post it again in this message. You are familiar enough with it by now. But the definition assumes a 66 book bible and so do you I think. Ask yourself why.

 

[GingerBeer]

Estimates vary but most of the New Testament was written between 60 AD and 70 AD. Romans seems like it was one of the earlier books so that sounds about right.

Romans is one of Paul's more "mature" letters, it is like Ephesians but more complete and more carefully thought through so many scholars who attribute it to Paul attribute it to his later years in the 50s AD. Paul is thought to have been beheaded in Rome around 64 AD or possibly 67 AD.

 

[GingerBeer]

I'm rather curious, what exactly is the point your trying to make here? Genesis 1:1 is a stand alone text, no hyperbole intended, it is written in the most absolute terms in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is the only time the plural form of Elohim is used, sometimes refereed to as plurality of majesty. I'm just wondering why you brought up that text.

I was reporting what the link showed me. It showed me Genesis 1:1. There is no special significance to it, it was not my link, wasn't it a link in one of your posts?

 

[mark kennedy]

My guess is that you also never questioned the edition of the bible that you read. You received it from "institutional Christianity", specifically from Protestant tradition. And I'd hazard the guess that you still use the 66 book bible without really asking yourself why and how you came to be given a 66 book bible. It is worth asking why. This thread specifically asks for arguments against the definition of sola scriptura contained in the original post. I will not post it again in this message. You are familiar enough with it by now. But the definition assumes a 66 book bible and so do you I think. Ask yourself why.

I don't know why you would assume I never asked the question of why those 66 books, of course I've explored that. That's not the same thing as never really questioning that the Scriptures are the word of God. I've studied the history of the Bible and I confident in the care and meticulous nature of the preservation of the Scriptures to affirm the authority of them as the canon. With the New Testament it was their connection to Apostolic authority and as I mentioned previously, they have been connected to a living witness, the Christian community, their entire history.

 

[mark kennedy]

Romans is one of Paul's more "mature" letters, it is like Ephesians but more complete and more carefully thought through so many scholars who attribute it to Paul attribute it to his later years in the 50s AD. Paul is thought to have been beheaded in Rome around 64 AD or possibly 67 AD.

It kind of makes sense that Romans might have been on of Paul's earlier letters, I'm just not sure. The church had already been founded and Paul had not reached Rome yet, probably on one of his missionary journeys. Galatians was certainly one of his earliest books but I remain convinced most of the New Testament was written between 60 AD and 70 AD.

 

[mark kennedy]

I was reporting what the link showed me. It showed me Genesis 1:1. There is no special significance to it, it was not my link, wasn't it a link in one of your posts?

I was just curious, no big deal really.

 

[GingerBeer]

I don't know why you would assume I never asked the question of why those 66 books, of course I've explored that. That's not the same thing as never really questioning that the Scriptures are the word of God. I've studied the history of the Bible and I confident in the care and meticulous nature of the preservation of the Scriptures to affirm the authority of them as the canon. With the New Testament it was their connection to Apostolic authority and as I mentioned previously, they have been connected to a living witness, the Christian community, their entire history.

Then you must know that the canonical books are never listed in the scriptures and the decision about what books were canonical and which books were not canonical was made by men and their decisions were transmitted over the ages by men so no matter what canon you accept it is a man made tradition and not a divine revelation unless you believe that man made traditions can sometimes be of as much authority as divine revelation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Then you must know that the canonical books are never listed in the scriptures and the decision about what books were canonical and which books were not canonical was made by men and their decisions were transmitted over the ages by men so no matter what canon you accept it is a man made tradition and not a divine revelation unless you believe that man made traditions can sometimes be of as much authority as divine revelation.

I don't know where you get that, the canon of Scripture was established because books the church had not seen were being included. They knew the ones attributed to the Apostles or those closely associated with them but new scrolls were being circulated and it became necessary to identify which ones belonged to Apostolic tradition. The gospel is communicated from faith to faith, the early church knew it's own sacred writings, give them some credit.

 

[GingerBeer]

I don't know where you get that, the canon of Scripture was established because books the church had not seen were being included. They knew the ones attributed to the Apostles or those closely associated with them but new scrolls were being circulated and it became necessary to identify which ones belonged to Apostolic tradition. The gospel is communicated from faith to faith, the early church knew it's own sacred writings, give them some credit.

I was not talking only about new testament canonical books I was talking about the canon of the whole of scripture.

 

[mark kennedy]

I was not talking only about new testament canonical books I was talking about the canon of the whole of scripture.

Most of the Old Testament was the purview of the Levites, they were responsible for teaching the Law. I think they should get the same consideration, certainly the Levitical priesthood knew their own sacred literature.

 

[GingerBeer]

Most of the Old Testament was the purview of the Levites, they were responsible for teaching the Law. I think they should get the same consideration, certainly the Levitical priesthood knew their own sacred literature.

Evidently not since the Levites of Jesus day - mostly members of the Sadducee party - accepted only the five books of Moses. The Pharsees of Jesus day had a larger canon but the Pharisees were "rabbis" not Levites nor priests. The Essenes had a larger canon than the Pharisees. And Christians chose their own canon without being bound by Pharisee or Sadducee or Essene traditions.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evidently not since the Levites of Jesus day - mostly members of the Sadducee party - accepted only the five books of Moses. The Pharsees of Jesus day had a larger canon but the Pharisees were "rabbis" not Levites nor priests. The Essenes had a larger canon than the Pharisees. And Christians chose their own canon without being bound by Pharisee or Sadducee or Essene traditions.

I have often wondered about the priesthood in the first century, they were supposed to be teaching the Law, were they? The Essenes had a larger library, I'm not sure that means they had a larger canon. Christians choose their canon based on Apostolic authority, just like the ancient Levites had a standard by which to determine what scrolls were important and others simply noteworthy.

 

[GingerBeer]

I have often wondered about the priesthood in the first century, they were supposed to be teaching the Law, were they? The Essenes had a larger library, I'm not sure that means they had a larger canon. Christians choose their canon based on Apostolic authority, just like the ancient Levites had a standard by which to determine what scrolls were important and others simply noteworthy.

Apostolic authority yes but not scripture statement. Regardless of what people may think about the canon and no matter which canon they receive the fact is that scripture does not delineate the canon of scripture. Apostolic authority that is not documented in scripture is what Orthodox and Catholic theologians call "Apostolic tradition" and "Holy Tradition". At least the Catholic and Orthodox theologians have the courage to admit that their canon is founded upon what they call Apostolic Tradition without playing sly games with scripture to try to extract a canon from what is written in scripture. The sly games appear to be the province of some evangelical and fundamental Christians.

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

Prima Scriptura: Do you mean that your reason should supposedly overrule Scripture's revelation?

Recently learn this term, I'm not implying anything. What I said was while the Bible should be held as authoritative, it's not all there is to God for us. For example I can read the Bible without understanding and struggle to find answers, but I could also hear in fellowship from fellow Christians getting answers. So seeking God in Christ and Spirit isn't limited to the Bible and our own understanding, but actually the opposite. Simply and clearly my answer is no, as what you suggest is what I think about sola scriptura; while prima scriptura is more rounded as it hold the Bible as authoritative but understand it alone is often misunderstood.

 

[dreadnought]

I have no idea what kind of a point you were making with that reference.

Some people think Paul was always speaking for the Lord in the Bible. I think there is at least once exception to that.

 

[dreadnought]

That scripture says that Jesus did many miracles. It doesn't mention His teaching.

One has to suspect he said more than the things he is quoted as saying in the Bible.

 

[dreadnought]

This is the actual quote:

You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord. (Lev. 19:18)​

And another:

And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:39 RSV

 

[dreadnought]

Luke said Jesus preached from "all the scriptures"

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

So it would be "news to them" that they did not have scriptures or that they did not know what the term "all the scriptures" meant. I think we can agree on at least that part.

Yes, Jesus would quote scripture.

 

[dreadnought]

I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the Holy Scriptures. Jesus did not write down any of His sayings as far as we know. But His apostles did and were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I don't think the Lord inspired Paul to say that women shouldn't speak in church.

 

[dreadnought]

they put it on the level of ultimate authority because it is from God.

I don't think Paul was speaking for God when he said women can't speak in church.