Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[fhansen]

This is exactly the sort of questions to be asked in the "sola scriptura" example given in Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:7-13

In both examples the scriptures are the standard and in both cases the established POV/Tradition/teaching of the nation-church magesterium started by God at Sinai - was found to be in error

In Acts 17:11 it is the case of NonChristian Bible students applying the test - correctly

amen

The Bereans wouldn't have even known the truth to be assessed and tested unless the true teaching authority or magisterium had approached them with it. And multiple interpreters of Scripture, each acting as their own magisteriums, still come up with differing interpretations of that revelation once it was recorded in the New testament. The Bereans, had they lived today and undertook to understand the New testament, would've still required proper guidance to understand it fully and correctly.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bereans wouldn't have even known the truth to be assessed and tested unless the true teaching authority or magisterium had approached them with it.

The Bereans of Acts 17:11 were non-Christian Jews and gentiles - in Jewish Synagogues. And their doctrine to be tested - "sola scriptura" - was the teaching of the Christian Apostle Paul.

Instead of blindly circling back to whatever the Jewish magesterium said that was managing that specific Synagogue - they let scripture take the lead.

This is precisely the sola-scriptura testing model that is so often affirmed in these threads. Even though it appears to be "opposed" by others.

And multiple interpreters of Scripture, each acting as their own magisteriums,

Synagogues were not disconnected tiny-self-denominations - but rather they were under the headship of the Jewish magesterium. Every Bible scholar on the planet will admit that these non-Christian believers attending their synagogue in Berea - were not using Christian leaders "as their guide" for what to believe.

And it is the Christian author of Acts 17 that we find approving of their sola-scriptura method of testing Paul "to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul were SO".

What the text does not say is the much imagined "and so they sought their Jewish magesterium to give the proper guidance on whether scripture was actually affirming or condemning the doctrine of Paul"

(I see this as the "easy part" of the discussion -- no matter which side one's bias leads them to favor)

 

[fhansen]

Instead of blindly circling back to whatever the Jewish magesterium said that was managing that specific Synagogue - they let scripture take the lead.

I think you're saying that, if the Bereans had simply read the OT for themselves then they would've understood the gospel with perfect clarity.. I also think I'd quit beating that horse; it died a long time ago

 

[fhansen]

Synagogues were not disconnected tiny-self-denominations - but rather they were under the headship of the Jewish magesterium. Every Bible scholar on the planet will admit that these non-Christian believers attending their synagogue in Berea - were not using Christian leaders "as their guide" for what to believe.

And it is the Christian author of Acts 17 that we find approving of their sola-scriptura method of testing Paul "to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul were SO".

What the text does not say is the much imagined "and so they sought their Jewish magesterium to give the proper guidance on whether scripture was actually affirming or condemning the doctrine of Paul"

(I see this as the "easy part" of the discussion -- no matter which side one's bias leads them to favor)

I don't know if you're being purposely obtuse or not but you could first admit to the fact that the Bereans required more than scripture in order to understand the gospel. Otherwise they would have just required scripture and nothing else instead of the explanation of it by an external source. Additionally, we know that God must open our eyes in order to understand and accept that explanation.

 

[The Liturgist]

If someone thinks Christianity began with Stone/Campbell instead of the NT writers - feel free to speak up on that point.

It amuses me to note that I never said that or anything that would warrant such a reply.

And why should I, as an Orthodox Christian who regards the Orthodox Church as being the most stalwart defender of the apostolic kerygma? And one thing anyone who reads the Book of Acts knows is that the apostles were first called Christians in Antioch. The idea the Church was called “the Way” by St. Paul as a proper name, as opposed to as a description of it, is unwarranted, since he also referred to it as the Body of Christ, and so on.

Rather, what I actually said, which is historically accurate, is that the use of the specific term “Christian Church” to refer to an individual denomination began in the 19th century with the Stone/Campbell movement, which has intentionally selected rather all-encompassing names (since the other two denominations associated with that movement are the Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ).

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I am frequently reminded of the example of David. Saul was an evil king and was trying to kill David himself, yet David stayed his hand and said I cannot lift my hand against God’s anointed.

Jesus was present Himself in what is being termed magisterial teaching vs scripture. Did He say to break away and start a scripture only sect?
Most certainly not. He recognized the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, yet recognized their authority.
“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, so do what ever they tell you, but do not do what they do. Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus recognized that the authority of Moses was passed down by priestly succession, and He made an emphatic point when you look at it. You can’t start another Israel just because your priests are corrupt. There is only one. He did not say to launch a rebellion and start a scripture only people. He preached the unity of the Covenant.

We as Catholics see it the same way. The Apostles, Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and priests sit in Peter’s seat, so do whatever they tell you, but do not do what they do. Unless the righteousness of the laity exceeds the righteousness of the ordained, they will not enter the kingdom of heaven. There is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Like the Pharisees and scribes of Jesus’ day, her members may be corrupt, but her teaching is pure.

I know because I fought her for over 20 years, but God had mercy and showed me the evil I had done by lifting my hand against God’s anointed. There is no justification for the spirit of rebellion. I am reminded of the evil spirit nephariamous in the movie Nefarius. When James was arguing with the demon, and the demon pointed out his sin, James said you can’t judge me. The demon rejoiced and said “That’s my boy, James, that’s my boy!” So it is with all rebellion against God’s anointed

Do you think Jesus would have praised the disciples if they left the Temple because the Pharisees were corrupt and started a scripture only sect? His words to them say otherwise. He denied rebellion and said He came not rebel against the law and the prophets, not rebel but fulfill.

It took humility for me to come back to the Church, when I knew I was wrong. It would take humility for all those that have rebelled against her to return, but I can tell you, when you drop your sword, God gives you infinite blessings far exceeding the righteousness you feel in rebellion

 

[BobRyan]

I think you're saying that, if the Bereans had simply read the OT for themselves then they would've understood the gospel with perfect clarity

I think the actual text says that when they heard someone of a different denomination preaching a Christian doctrine -- they were able to read their Bible for themselves to "SEE IF" those things were SO - rather than blindly listening to their own magisterium's traditions and teachings and condemning Paul's teaching just as the magisterium for their Synagogue had dictated.

Let's see if the Bible affirms this obvious detail.

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks

so then ... obvious for all to see that these were NOT Christians testing out their OWN Christian leadership - rather they were NON-Christians choosing to TEST the doctrine they had just heard in their Synagogue - against the Bible "alone" -- to "SEE IF" those things were so.

.. I also think I'd quit beating that horse;

The point that is right there in the text is so glaringly obvious - perhaps this is why you object to the details we see IN the text AS it reads while your posts keep a certain distance from the quote, and the details..

You have free will and can reject whatever you wish.

 

[BobRyan]

what I actually said, which is historically accurate, is that the use of the specific term “Christian Church” to refer to an individual denomination began in the 19th century

I don' know of any group of Catholics or Protestants or ... that refused to identify as a "Christian Church" -- at any point in history.

Feel free to post historic facts to the contrary if you have one.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know if you're being purposely obtuse or not but you could first admit to the fact that the Bereans required more than scripture in order to understand the gospel.

They only needed scripture to test what Paul said -- according to the text you keep refusing to quote.

And they chose to accept the teaching of Paul despite the fact that their own magisterium was on record as condemning it.

not sure how you find this detail even a little bit confusing given what the text you are not quoting - actually says for those of us reading it.

If you are trying to argue that the common practice was to assume anyone not of their own religion always teaches right doctrine so just learn to accept whatever the new person says above your own magesterium when it comes to the meaning of scripture -- but IF that is your suggestion it is not at all inline with the text you are still not quoting.

 

[BobRyan]

Out of curiosity - are there any examples of participants here - other than Catholics - seeing this as anything other than Jewish believers in an actual Jewish Synagogue - reading their Bible to "see IF those things are SO" --- when confronted with the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Berea?

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks

so then ... obvious for all to see that these were NOT Christians testing out their OWN Christian leadership - rather they were NON-Christians choosing to TEST the doctrine they had just heard in their Synagogue - against the Bible "alone" -- to "SEE IF" those things were so.


The point that is right there in the text is so glaringly obvious

Is this detail even a tiny bit confusing for such non-Catholic participants??

 

[fhansen]

Out of curiosity - are there any examples of participants here - other than Catholics - seeing this as anything other than Jewish believers in an actual Jewish Synagogue - reading their Bible to "see IF those things are SO" --- when confronted with the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Berea?

Is this detail even a tiny bit confusing for such non-Catholic participants??

Ah, but there's a crucial difference. In Orthodoxy or Catholicism, we don't present people with truth claims that originate in Scripture. We present truth claims that originated in experience as was the case with Paul. Without that experience, Paul, himself would not have been able to understand and interpret the Old Testament, let alone share that truth with others.

And there's no correlation to this by using scripture alone, as many Protestants do, because in that case scripture, itself, is the proposed source of the truth claims, and scripture, as the Bereans make obvious, cannot guarantee to communicate it's truths to you on it's own.

For that we need a human teacher who received and possesses the experience itself that scripture is based on along with the guidance by the Holy Spirit, which God would necessarily assure to that same teacher who had received it. Going by scripture alone is an exercise in speculation and guess work to a large extent and that's why there's so much plausible disagreement over the meaning of scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Ah, but there's a crucial difference. In Orthodoxy or Catholicism, we don't present people with truth claims that originate in Scripture.

Perhaps that is your practice - but in most other Christian churches we do that very thing. Presenting truth found in scripture.

So then the Acts 17 statement was specifically about the example we have "in scripture" in Acts 17:11 where that very thing is being done. And the "sola scriptura" testing method is being used successfully even by non-Christians.

 

[fhansen]

Perhaps that is your practice - but in most other Christian churches we do that very thing. Presenting truth found in scripture.

So then statement was specifically about the example we have "in scripture" in Acts 17:11 where that very thing is being done. And the "sola scriptura" testing method is being used successfully even by non-Christians.

And this is exactly why Tradition (experience and understanding continuously handed down) as a parallel source of revelation is so critically important. What was happening in Acts 17 was a non or pre-scriptural truth was being presented and then checking was done to see if that claim is consistent with and reflected in OT scripture. Otherwise, again, the Bereans would have been able to figure out the gospel on their own simply by studying the Old testament.

 

[concretecamper]

Perhaps that is your practice - but in most other Christian churches we do that very thing. Presenting truth found in scripture.

So then statement was specifically about the example we have "in scripture" in Acts 17:11 where that very thing is being done. And the "sola scriptura" testing method is being used successfully even by non-Christians.

Sola Scriptura method divides.

They had already received the word from the Apostles. It must have been a great comfort to them to find that what was taught to them about Christ was present in the Old Testament (Scripture at that time).

It's all there in the Old Testament.

 

[BobRyan]

Sola Scriptura method divides.

Jesus said -- HE divides. He says the CROSS divides

Matt 10 -
34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to turn a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a person’s enemies will be the members of his household.
37 “The one who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and the one who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And the one who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

They had already received the word from the Apostles.

Not true. Acts 17 - they were in the Jewish Synagogue in Berea and were then confronted by the Gospel message from Paul

It must have been a great comfort to them to find that what was taught to them about Christ was present in the Old Testament (Scripture at that time).

Indeed.

Their own magisterium had condemned that teaching -- but when they heard it from Paul they chose to go to scripture to 'SEE IF" those things 'WERE SO".

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks

so then ... obvious for all to see that these were NOT Christians testing out their OWN Christian leadership - rather they were NON-Christians choosing to TEST the doctrine they had just heard in their Synagogue - against the Bible "alone" -- to "SEE IF" those things were so.


The point that is right there in the text is so glaringly obvious

"to SEE IF -- those things WERE SO"

 

[The Liturgist]

I don' know of any group of Catholics or Protestants or ... that refused to identify as a "Christian Church" -- at any point in history.

Again, that’s not what I am talking about. The first church to use call itself “The Christian Church” as its official denominational name was the 19th century Stone/Campbell movement church. Just as your church was the first to call itself the “Seventh Day Adventist Church”. Obviously every Christian church, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Assyrian or Restorationist, would have identified if asked as a Christian church, since this is self-evident, but The Christian Church as a proper name was first used by that denomination which is now part of The Christian Church/Disciples of Christ.

Prior to the 17th century, very few churches had brand names as it were not related to their country of origin. For example, the Lutheran churches only really started officially branding themselves as Lutheran on a large scale in the US in with immigration from Europe (except perhaps in the Netherlands where there was a Lutheran minority, but the state church was Calvinist, whereas in Prussia, the Lutheran and Calvinist churches were forcibly merged) since before that time, the majority of Lutheran churches were state churches with names like the Church of Sweden, the Church of Saxony and so on. Likewise before expansion into England and settlement in the US required a differentiating identity most Presbyterians were either part of the Church of Scotland, or a similar organization in Ulster, or identified as Covenanters (now the Reformed Presbyterian Church).

Geographical identification was the primary way individual churches were historically known, with the remaining identifier primarily used with respect to the communion, for example, the Eastern Orthodox called themselves Orthodox, Catholic, Romioii or Rum, meaning Roman, because they hailed from the Eastern Roman Empire, and Pravoslav. a Church Slavonic word which translates to Orthodox. Those churches that subscribed to Lutheranism would have identified each other as Lutheran, but not included the word in their name in most cases, and the terms Anglican and Episcopalian likewise only became necessary when you had competing claimants to geographical names, for example, there was the Stuart attempt to establish an Anglican church as the official Church of Scotland, which failed, but the church remained and was known as the Scottish Episcopal Church.

 

[The Liturgist]

And the "sola scriptura" testing method is being used successfully even by non-Christians.

Not the way you define it. The Karaite Jews, the only other group one could call Sola Scriptura, interpret the Tanakh with a formal system of logic called the Kalaam and from this have a standard interpretation and a prevailing tradition in terms of their beliefs and worship practices.

The idea of Scriptural Perspicuity and Scriptural Sufficiency emerged in the Radical Reformation in the 16th century and was opposed by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc, but embraced by the Anabaptists, who soon underwent a massive series of schisms resulting in the formation of various denominations such as the Mennonites, Amish, etc. Likewise the Baptists have produced seemingly endless offshoots.

Basically, since people cannot agree on what scripture means, except through a formal interpretation that is based on logic, tradition or in the case of Adventism, the prophecies of Ellen G. White which are regarded as infallible, the ideas of Scriptural Perspicuity and Scriptural Sufficiency do not work but lead to schisms on a fractal geometric basis.

 

[concretecamper]

Not true. Acts 17 - they were in the Jewish Synagogue in Berea and were then confronted by the Gospel message from Paul

You misunderstood the post. You really have got to read slowly.

Jesus said -- HE divides. He says the CROSS divides

He did bring the sword. It is up to you whether to be His or yours.

 

[BobRyan]

Let's keep this sola-scriptura testing model - demonstrated for us in Acts 17 in mind (since a few of our posts here do not quote it at all)

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks

so then ... obvious for all to see that these were NOT Christians testing out their OWN Christian leadership - rather they were NON-Christians choosing to TEST the doctrine they had just heard in their Synagogue - against the Bible "alone" -- to "SEE IF" those things were so.


The point that is right there in the text is so glaringly obvious - ...

Not the way you define it.

Actually the mere quote of the text above is sufficient to give rise to your objection as you continue the practice of not quoting the verse at all to make an opposing case.

The Karaite Jews, the only other group one could call Sola Scriptura, interpret the Tanakh with a formal system of logic

nonsense.

Almost every Protestant denomination on planet Earth can do it and does do it - so it is not just the non-Christian Jews and gentiles in the synagogue of the Jews in Acts 17:11 that can and do - do it.

How is this easy point getting missed?

The idea of Scriptural Perspicuity and Scriptural Sufficiency emerged in the Radical Reformation in the 16th century

Sadly for your speculation - the Acts 17:11 text that you are avoiding was written long before the 16th century.

How is this easy point getting missed?

and was opposed by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc, but embraced by the Anabaptists

Luther made the case at his own trial that unless he could be convinced of his error from scripture (rather than from flawed traditions of men) well then "here I stand , I can do no other".

The official transcript quotes him as saying, “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason (I do not accept the authority of popes and councils because they have contradicted each other), my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. So help me God. Amen.”​

And of course - Acts 17:11 is long before Luther.

How is this easy and obvious point getting missed.

And of course Christ Himself demonstrated how it is that traditions of his own church magisterium in Mark 7 was to have its traditions slam-hammered "sola scriptura" in Mark 7:7-13 as we saw already in this post #417

====================================================

Once again - the much ignored text makes the following point -- so obvious for the unbiased objective readers to see --
1. The Acts 17 sola-scriptura test of Paul's teaching is NOT done by Christians testing out their OWN Christian leadership
2. Rather they were NON-Christians choosing to TEST the doctrine they had just heard in their Synagogue - against the Bible "alone" -- to "SEE IF" those things were so.

When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks

 

[Gary K]

Ah, but there's a crucial difference. In Orthodoxy or Catholicism, we don't present people with truth claims that originate in Scripture. We present truth claims that originated in experience as was the case with Paul. Without that experience, Paul, himself would not have been able to understand and interpret the Old Testament, let alone share that truth with others.

And there's no correlation to this by using scripture alone, as many Protestants do, because in that case scripture, itself, is the proposed source of the truth claims, and scripture, as the Bereans make obvious, cannot guarantee to communicate it's truths to you on it's own.

For that we need a human teacher who received and possesses the experience itself that scripture is based on along with the guidance by the Holy Spirit, which God would necessarily assure to that same teacher who had received it. Going by scripture alone is an exercise in speculation and guess work to a large extent and that's why there's so much plausible disagreement over the meaning of scripture.

That's odd. Jesus Himself disagrees with you.

Matthew 4: 1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Jesus' own words refute your claims.