Jesus Held to Sola Scriptura

[stuart lawrence]

Yes, that would be a good legal move. Jesus didn't need to say anything, that anything he said would have been used against him. He took his fifth amendment, so to speak. The jury was out!

In legal proceeding, there needs to be contention. Since Jesus didn't contend with the accusations, the burden of proof is on those making the accusations.

That did make me smile

 

[The Times]

There is no law that says you cannot get angry.
There is no law that says you cannot plead ignorance, unless you do something wilfully after you have received counselling to do the right thing.

Your interpretation of the law is wrong.

People can be angry at people, but they cannot hold that anger to the point of hatred, where there is no closure and peace made between you and God. You see when you hate, there is an interruption of peace between you and God. If you are numb to this disharmony then you have relationship issues with God.

When you find it hard to do charity, someone counsels you to do something, then if you continue to ignore that counsell, you become irritated with that to the point where disharmony will motivate you to empathise and do charity. The weight is lifted and then you know you done what was required. But if you carry the Wright from situation to situation, then you become grumpy and miserable and this leads to disharmony.

The law is of the heart of flesh and you will know that harmony to the heart is in compliance with the law of God. Disharmony brings wrestlesness and much anguish.

These teachings are all Paul's and John's.

 

[stuart lawrence]

There is no law that says you cannot get angry.
There is no law that says you cannot plead ignorance, unless you do something wilfully after you have received counselling to do the right thing.

Your interpretation of the law is wrong.

People can be angry at people, but they cannot hold that anger to the point of hatred, where there is no closure and peace made between you and God. You see when you hate, there is an interruption of peace between you and God. If you are numb to this disharmony then you have relationship issues with God.

When you find it hard to do charity, someone counsels you to do something, then if you continue to ignore that counsell, you become irritated with that to the point where disharmony will motivate you to empathise and do charity. The weight is lifted and then you know you done what was required. But if you carry the weigh from situation to situation, then you become grumpy and miserable and this leads to disharmony.

The law is of the heart of flesh and you will know that harmony to the heart is in compliance with the law of God. Disharmony brings wrestlesness and much anguish.

These teachings are all Paul's and John's.

But you said we must obey Jesus commands. Yet according to sola scripture you don't.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

So you don't always support sola scripture.
Look, I was raised in a fundamentalist church. I know all about sola scripture. I'm sure I followed it more resolutely than you do now.
Didn't know much in those days though

Sola scriptura does not equate to legalism.

 

[The Times]

That did make me smile

I ask wellness for you. Have a blessed day, I will call it a day. Thankyou for your dialogue.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Sola scriptura does not equate to legalism.

Doesn't it?
I was raised in a church that proudly proclaimed it stood on sola scripture. But as is normally the case in such churches, people do not and cannot practice what they then preach.
I guess it's OK for those who excuse themselves not following what they insist others must. But it isn't ok, for those who in simple child-like trust believe they do

 

[stuart lawrence]

I ask wellness for you. Have a blessed day, I will call it a day. Thankyou for your dialogue.

Thank you also for the chat. You too have a great day

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Doesn't it?
I was raised in a church that proudly proclaimed it stood on sola scripture. But as is normally the case in such churches, people do not and cannot practice what they then preach.
I guess it's OK for those who excuse themselves not following what they insist others must. But it isn't ok, for those who in simple child-like trust believe they do

No I think you are confusing the two and I can't blame you. It sounds like a legalistic church who meshed the two ideas. Galatians stands in the face of legalism in that sense.

On the other hand it is not ok for those who excuse themselves, who preach one thing, impose laws on others they are not willing to follow themselves. This is one of the main issues Jesus had with the Pharisees, they put yokes on people they themselves did not follow. Also, the reason the Pharisees hated Jesus was because what he preached, was the heart of the law, and he was destroying and nullifying their whole system and destroying the very power base they used to abuse people.

The whole point of the law is to point to man's need of a perfect savior. Men can never ever fulfill the entire law, which is why we need a perfect savior in Jesus, the Son of the Living God.

 

[stuart lawrence]

No I think you are confusing the two and I can't blame you. It sounds like a legalistic church who meshed the two ideas. Galatians stands in the face of legalism in that sense.

On the other hand it is not ok for those who excuse themselves, who preach one thing, impose laws on others they are not willing to follow themselves. This is one of the main issues Jesus had with the Pharisees, they put yokes on people they themselves did not follow. Also, the reason the Pharisees hated Jesus was because what he preached, was the heart of the law, and he was destroying and nullifying their whole system and destroying the very power base they used to abuse people.

Could we not say the Pharisees followed a form of sola scripture?

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Could we not say the Pharisees followed a form of sola scripture?

I think to do so is missing the point. Sola scriptura is really a made up term anyhow. It is something that was labeled in order to justify man's tradition when it is direct conflict with the word of God. The Pharisees also injected things like the Talmud and Kabalah which was not the word of God and made up from men and created a tradition that usurped the word entirely.....which is not holding the word in a position of ultimate authority.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I think to do so is missing the point. Sola scriptura is really a made up term anyhow. It is something that was labeled in order to justify man's tradition when it is direct conflict with the word of God. The Pharisees also injected things like the Talmud and Kabalah which was not the word of God and made up from men and created a tradition that usurped the word entirely.....which is not holding the word in a position of ultimate authority.

The people were not crushed by the Pharisees man made rules for they faultlessly obeyed them. They were crushed concerning what the Pharisees preached but did not practice( matt23:2-4)

Look you seem a nice guy, and I dont wish to offend.
But after five years in the church i was raised in rom 7:7-11 was my EXACT same experience. Paul is recalling his life as a pharisee, once he made a commitment to God
Looking back now as Paul did then, I could quote those verses word for word concerning my own experience in my youth( KJV)

 

[2Timothy2:15]

The people were not crushed by the Pharisees man made rules for they faultlessly obeyed them. They were crushed concerning what the Pharisees preached but did not practice( matt23:2-4)

Look you seem a nice guy, and I dont wish to offend.
But after five years in the church i was raised in rom 7:7-11 was my EXACT same experience. Paul is recalling his life as a pharisee, once he made a commitment to God
Looking back now as Paul did then, I could quote those verses word for word concerning my own experience in my youth( KJV)

I too was involved in a church/fellowship that were wrong for different reasons and instead of a legalistic view the main false teaching was the opposite. Hyper grace, false prosperity gospel. Never the less the only way I became free was to call upon the Lord and ask him to show me truth in the word, the true gospel. Just be careful to not mix or hold God accountable or mesh men's agenda with God's truth found in his word. Also be careful to not let your heart become hard and bitterness to set in. God Bless

 

[stuart lawrence]

I too was involved in a church/fellowship that were wrong for different reasons and instead of a legalistic view the main false teaching was the opposite. Hyper grace, false prosperity gospel. Never the less the only way I became free was to call upon the Lord and ask him to show me truth in the word, the true gospel. Just be careful to not mix or hold God accountable or mesh men's agenda with God's truth found in his word. Also be careful to not let your heart become hard and bitterness to set in. God Bless

God was gracious to me, through my experience he revealed grace to me.

For sin shall no longer be your master, for you are not under law but under grace
Rom6:14

Pauls core message in a nutshell

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus held to the idea that scripture, not church office-holder, is the ultimate authority for the believer, so why don't you?

There wasn't even a church when Jesus was on earth, never mind a church office holder.

 

[AarontheStudent]

Jesus submitted Himself to scripture countless times. If you have never read the New Testament, I can list list them for you, otherwise, you would easily understand that.

It would have been better than your thinly veiled ad hominem, but still doesn't prove your point. The posts you haven't addressed show just the opposite.

Jesus quoted from scripture. He didn't submit himself to it. Unless you deny the divinity of Jesus, he doesn't even have to do that. As mentioned earlier, he quoted from the Book of Enoch -- a book not included in the canon for its gnostic doctrines that contradict other texts in our canon.

But Jesus quite clearly called Enoch scripture. How do you reconcile that? (psst.. the answer is below)

You know who else quotes from scripture to prove points? The Catholic Church.

Jesus could have quoted from scriptures 1,000,000,000 times... That doesn't prove your leap that he taught sola scriptura. The many instances of oral tradition being mentioned in the epistles suggest otherwise.

The simple fact that you have let your own personal bias toward sola scriptura get in the way of is that Jesus taught HE is the ultimate authority:
"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18, NRSV)

Scripture's authority is the Word of God -- not the other way around.

 

[Dartman]

Jesus held to the idea that scripture, not church office-holder, is the ultimate authority for the believer, so why don't you?

AWESOME POINT!

 

[Dartman]

There wasn't even a church when Jesus was on earth, never mind a church office holder.

Of course there was.
Acts 7:38
This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us:

 

[redleghunter]

Addressed earlier in the thread:
"Good point about Enoch. Jesus may have quoted from it himself. In this example he may even have called it scripture:
"Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:29-30, NRSV)

"But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever. Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven." Enoch 19 :6-7

The passage from Enoch is talking about the angels."

If Jesus in fact was quoting from Enoch and referring to it as scripture, there's a problem here: Enoch includes some doctrines we would have to conclude, from using other scriptures, are false.

The only way to reconcile this is Jesus did not teach sola scriptura, but that he is the ultimate authority.

That was not a quote Jesus used from Enoch.

It however, poses no problems given Jesus spoke the words and is The Logos. The OP made that point pages ago.

 

[redleghunter]

Cause simply put, among a certain section of Protestants, there are varying ideas about what Sola Scriptura is.

That was not an answer.

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus was authority unto himself, being the very word of God and all. Sola Scriptura as practiced by Protestants today cannot apply to Jesus any more than saying Jesus held to a traditional Christian perspective because he experiences authority differently than the rest of us.

It makes more sense to ask if the Apostles held to Sola Scriptura or if the early Church held to Sola Scriptura. As for why I don't, that I don't think sola Scriptura solves the problem of interpretation and authority. It's one extreme of individualism which cannot sustain unity or cohesion within Christianity.

Define Sola Scriptura.