Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Rick Otto]

qu

ote=Montalban;Problems 1So, we've got an example of Bereans using OT scripture to 'prove' Paul's teachings about the NT. Does this mean that scripture alone should be the way?

To verify truth? Why not? It worked & was commended. Not good enough for ya?

It doesn't say so. How do we know then this is the example we're to follow?

It says nothing more & nothing less. Ignore it at your own peril.

Some believe it's because they were by 'witnesses' though Paul didn't witness ANY of Jesus' mission.

In your most humble opinion, contrary to scripture. They met on the road to Damascus. It was Jesus' ministry that Paul was dedicated against before his conversion. Your statement doesn't make any sense.

Problem 3

There's been some wonderfully colourful random bible quotes that are posted. I ask why and I'm told that the author of these won't respond to me. Others jump in to say I'm missing the point - none of which helps explain whatever point these people think there is - unless their only point is to repeat often that they think I don't 'get it'.

You demonstrate it repeatedly and are constantly distracted & distracting, and none of it surprisingly, is your own fault. (lol)

 

[Montalban]

Now we have to argue semantics and grammar?

I'm not arguing.

I'm asking.

You've not answered me either

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*

John 10:16
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

1Peter 5:4 And of being made manifest the Chief-Shepherd/arci-poimenoV <750>, ye shall be being requitted the unfading crown of the glory

Reve 19:15 And out of the mouth of Him is going forth a sword keen, that in it/her He should be *smiting the nations,
and He shall be Shepherding/poimanei <4165> (5692) them in rod iron.
And He is treading the winepress of the wine of the fury [*and] of the wrath of the God the Almighty

 

[Montalban]

quTo verify truth? Why not? It worked & was commended. Not good enough for ya?

I've gone over this problem with a lot of other people and am quite happy to go over it with you as well.

There's a difference between

a) Example 'a' used scripture to discern the truth
and
b) Example 'b' should ONLY use scripture to discern the truth.

I've never argued that we shouldn't ever use scripture to discern the truth. I've just argued that nowhere should we restrict ourselves to ONLY using scripture

The 'only' word is very important between what you're trying to demonstrate to what you actually believe in. So far you've not matched evidence with belief.

It says nothing more & nothing less. Ignore it at your own peril.

In your most humble opinion, contrary to scripture. They met on the road to Damascus.

Who? Jesus and Paul? Did Jesus fill Paul in with all that Paul had missed? According to StandingUp Jesus asked that everything was written down. We know that the Gospels were written after Paul's epistles, so it seems it's okay for Paul to be taught 'by tradition' because the NT scriptures didn't yet exist!

It was Jesus' ministry that Paul was dedicated against before his conversion. Your statement doesn't make any sense.

No. It was against the mission of the followers of Jesus. I'm not aware that Paul met Jesus during Jesus' 'mission'. I could be wrong. But it still doesn't show how some, such as Luke were a witness to Jesus' birth

You demonstrate it repeatedly and are constantly distracted & distracting, and none of it surprisingly, is your own fault. (lol)

Again this adds nothing to the meaning.

Just pretend I'm as dumb as you'd like to think I am. I ask the author what's the meaning. I'm told she'll never speak to me again. I ask antoher what's the meaning. I'm told I just don't get it. I ask you. I'm told it 'just is' and I just don't get it. I see several others congratulating each other on the words. IF you all get it, and I'm really stupid, then telling me I don't get it is of no help whatsoever.

Perhaps you feel that this is a way of 'discussing' things. I don't. Pretend I'm stupid and tell me, if you can, what you think the significance of the words are to the context of this OP

 

[Montalban]

Yes, I thought that random bible verses with random words within that quote in different colours would impress some people here.

I've picked more colours then you, so that makes my random quotes more impressive

 

[Montalban]

personally I still don't get what random coloured bible verses have to do with this thread, but it seems to have impressed some

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, I thought that random bible verses with random words within that quote in different colours would impress some people here.

I've picked more colours then you, so that makes my random quotes more impressive

Tis true
I also underline on occasions ehehe

1Peter 5:4 And of being made manifest the Chief-Shepherd/arci-poimenoV <750>, ye shall be being requitted the unfading crown of the glory

Revelation 19:11 And I saw the Heaven having be opened and behold! A horse, white and the One sitting on him being called faithful and true. And in righteousness He is judging and battling.
15 ......and He shall be Shepherding/poimanei <4165> (5692) them in rod iron.

 

[Montalban]

Apparently the early church was able to decide which books are genuine and should be included in the NT by checking books against the NT

Wow!

 

[Montalban]

Tis true
I also underline

Some people are easily impressed

I don't know what <750> means in your last quote. It may be you've cut 'n' pasted with a footnote or reference?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Some people are easily impressed

I don't know what <750> means in your last quote. It may be you've cut 'n' pasted with a footnote or reference?

How bouts a Lexicon reference

1Peter 5:4 And of being made manifest the Chief-Shepherd/arci-poimenoV <750>, ye shall be being requitted the unfading crown of the glory

Revelation 19:11 And I saw the Heaven having be opened and behold! A horse, white and the One sitting on him being called faithful and true. And in righteousness He is judging and battling.
15 ......and He shall be Shepherding/poimanei <4165> (5692) them in rod iron.

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

750. archipoimen ar-khee-poy'-mane from 746 and 4166; a head shepherd:--chief shepherd.
746. arche ar-khay' from 756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank):--beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.
4166. poimen poy-mane' of uncertain affinity; a shepherd (literally or figuratively):--shepherd, pastor.
4165. poimaino poy-mah'-ee-no from 4166; to tend as a shepherd of (figuratively, superviser):--feed (cattle), rule.

 

[Standing Up]

The irony is you only know that these events were written down because a particular book, not authorising itself was authorised by the church. You've not yet shown how you know a particular book is of those events.

I've started a thread on that. Paul signed his letters, providing a token (sign) that they were authentic.

I already talked about the formula of the trinity. The formula itself is not in scriptures, but certainly not contrary to scripture.

No. You said you could provide an oral tradition not written down. They argued about the trinity for hundreds of years hundreds of years after Jesus walked the earth.

I provided some oral traditions that Paul then wrote down. So did you ironically. But what you haven't provided is an oral tradition that existed c30-c90 that still continues today.

 

[Hentenza]

I've gone over this problem with a lot of other people and am quite happy to go over it with you as well.

There's a difference between

a) Example 'a' used scripture to discern the truth
and
b) Example 'b' should ONLY use scripture to discern the truth.

I've never argued that we shouldn't ever use scripture to discern the truth. I've just argued that nowhere should we restrict ourselves to ONLY using scripture

I just noticed that this thread is about solo scriptura not sola scriptura. lol My arguments would regard the praxis of sola scriptura and consequently the sole authority of scripture. I don't consider tradition to be a bad thing but I do consider the use of tradition as co-authoritative with scripture problematic. One only has to read about Jesus's condemnation of the pharisees and other Jews that elevated their traditions above or on par with scripture to understand that tradition can be problematic.

 

[Standing Up]

Then how can he write about what he was not witness too? StandingUp said that they gospels were chosen because they were written by 'witnesses'

Jn. 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Again, beginning of His ministry to the death, burial, and resurrection. Did Mary tell them He was born in a manager or did He know it being God? We can speculate or agree that like with Paul, things were spoken between them before they were written down. But the point is those things were written down. There is no valid, useful unwritten tradition that we need for any reason whatsoever.

Further, this is the reason, this is the point, that Clement of Rome's letter was not canonized. It is the reason that only the first council is canonized. Everything else that has come later is subordinate to eyewitness accounts.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
I just noticed that this thread is about solo scriptura not sola scriptura. lol .

 

[Fireinfolding]

What the heck is the difference? I dont know what either mean in pure definition save I only regard it as Gods words alone nessesary for us as it pertains to equipping the man of God that he might be perfect and as it pertains to every good work, whats the difference of a solO verses a solA?

Man... all these weird defs

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What the heck is the difference? I dont know what either mean in pure definition save I only regard it as Gods words alone nessesary for us as it pertains to equipping the man of God that he might be perfect and as it pertains to every good work, whats the difference of a solO verses a solA?

Man... all these weird defs

Our sis Sunlover had a thread on "sola scriptura"

edit to add: I just bumped it up ehehe

http://www.christianforums.com/t6682949/
Define Sola Scriptura

quote OP:

So we can have a level
playing field and some
frame of reference,
I thought this might
be a good idea.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Montalban;55308I've gone over this problem with a lot of other people and am quite happy to go over it with you as well.

Again.

There's a difference betweena) Example 'a' used scripture to discern the truth and b) Example 'b' should ONLY use scripture to discern the truth.

hat's only what they only did.

I've never argued that we shouldn't ever use scripture to discern the truth. I've just argued that nowhere should we restrict ourselves to ONLY using scripture

We know. We also know using anything else subjegates scripture to whatever else.

The 'only' word is very important between what you're trying to demonstrate to what you actually believe in. So far you've not matched evidence with belief.

In your prejudiced opinion.

Who? Jesus and Paul? Did Jesus fill Paul in with all that Paul had missed? According to StandingUp Jesus asked that everything was written down. We know that the Gospels were written after Paul's epistles, so it seems it's okay for Paul to be taught 'by tradition' because the NT scriptures didn't yet exist!

Teaching isn't the subject. Verifying the truth of what's taught is the subject. As far as traditions go I follow Ronald Reagan's advice to the nuke inspectors: "Trust, but verify."

No. It was against the mission of the followers of Jesus. I'm not aware that Paul met Jesus during Jesus' 'mission'. I could be wrong. But it still doesn't show how some, such as Luke were a witness to Jesus' birth

Their meeting was part of His mission.

Just pretend I'm as dumb as you'd like to think I am.

Just keep making it easy.


Perhaps you feel that this is a way of 'discussing' things. I don't. Pretend I'm stupid and tell me, if you can, what you think the significance of the words are to the context of this OP[/quote]
No pretense here. You're asking for a repeat of your repetitious contentions.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Our sis Sunlover had a thread on "sola scriptura"

http://www.christianforums.com/t6682949/
Define Sola Scriptura

quote OP:

So we can have a level
playing field and some
frame of reference,
I thought this might
be a good idea.

Thanks Lamb, Im heading out grocery shopping right now but I'll take a look at it. I did notice they pulled in Abraham but even Abraham (as Paul said) had the gospel preached to him by God, so it was Gods word preached unto Abraham.

Though, my question would be is why call it sola scripture and not simply Gods words? Afterall they were given by God and Jesus himself says, he that loveth me NOT will NOT keep MY SAYINGS (nough said) and He said (additionally) the word that you hear is NOT MINE but the Fathers (by which God used to prove them (to know whether they loved him, in accord with Jesus's own words and agrees also with Paul who also said (likewise) to prove all things and letting God be true and every man a liar which is in the context of ones sayings (wherein Jesus affirms, by thy words thou shalt be JUSTIFIED or condemned, but Paul says (again) in the context of ones sayings "that thou mightest be JUSTIFIED in thy sayings and overcome when thou are judged (even when one is proved by the same). Theres much more but Im finding they are in agreement when you seek out what is said, the more I look the more confirmation I get, though I dont claim to know everything (far from it) but the more I hang with it and seek the more affirming these things become.

 

[Standing Up]

I just noticed that this thread is about solo scriptura not sola scriptura. lol My arguments would regard the praxis of sola scriptura and consequently the sole authority of scripture. I don't consider tradition to be a bad thing but I do consider the use of tradition as co-authoritative with scripture problematic. One only has to read about Jesus's condemnation of the pharisees and other Jews that elevated their traditions above or on par with scripture to understand that tradition can be problematic.

We may use tradition to discern what's scriptural and what's not.

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

But those who were zealous for tradition may yet be useful.

Gal 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

1 Peter 1:18-19 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

 

[Standing Up]

1 Cor. 11:23 For I have received of (from, some translations) the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:

1 Cor. 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

A Jewish teaching technique.