Proof for Sola Scriptura - is irrefutable

[JAL]

Those who already know what the Bible teaches (2 Timothy 3:15) are able to immediately judge (1 Corinthians 14:29) whether a prophecy in a church meeting is in line with the Bible or not (e.g. 1 John 4:1-3).

Regarding 1Cor 14:29:
"Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge."
My opinion, again, is that the Inward Witness (feelings of certainty) is the criterion of judgment. Earlier I discussed Paul's 4-pronged argument for defining spirituality/maturity as prophetic maturity. In one of those prongs, the key passage was 2:15-16:

"He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we [apostles and prophets] have the mind of Christ."

As noted earlier, this describes a man who is so in tune with the mind of the Lord that no human can hope to correct his thinking any further. Thus the 'spiritual man' can only refer to a prophet, as 14:37 suggests, "If any man considers himself a prophet, or spiritual". Such a man is very capable of judging, as cited above. Thus, even though 14:29 isn't lucid, most likely it refers to relying upon the Inward Witness (self-authenticating revelation) to judge the utterances of a fellow believer.

Again, I'm NOT saying that Scripture can't play a role but, ideally, it's the Inward Witness that, authoritatively, both clarifies and ramifies the meanings of the verses. He tells us what they mean instead of us allowing our deductive reasoning and hermeneutical techniques to have the final say. GOD is supposed to have the final say (although He must speak through conscience/certainty for the system to work).

 

[fhansen]

BobRyan said: ↑
Or prayers to the dead
Purgatory
Indulgences
etc.



I have no doubt at all that over the centuries many traditions did arise - not found in the Bible, and filled with error.

But that's the point. You have no way of knowing whether these are error-filled traditions or some of the oral teachings/ traditions spoken of in Scripture. You can only speculate.

 

[fhansen]

No NT writer identifies the LORD with any other day but Sabbath "the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28. Never is that said of week-day-1

The Bible says "the seventh-day is the Sabbath of the LORD" Exodus 20:10
The Bible says the Sabbath is "The Holy Day of the LORD" Isaiah 58:13
but never says "week-day-1 is the LORD's day"



1. Not one NT writer calls week-day-1 "The Lord's day" as already pointed out. man made tradition in later centuries made that claim after-the-fact.

2. Paul says "though we Apostles or an Angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed!" Gal 1:6-9

And so you're preaching the different gospel. The church has always known the truth regarding the day of the week identified as "The Lord's Day", from the beginning, corroborated by early fathers. As opposed to yourself, picking up a Bible 2 millenia later and giving us your best guess.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, sola scriptura definitely teaches that.

For it shows that Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:6, Matthew 1:23). And He is uncreated God, just as God the Father is uncreated God. For everything created was created by Jesus (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). Because Jesus is uncreated, there was never a time when He was not. He has always existed. He's YHWH the Holy One, from everlasting (Habakkuk 1:12a, Acts 3:14, Micah 5:2c). He's YHWH the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11, Titus 2:13), YHWH the good shepherd (Psalms 23:1, John 10:11, Mark 10:18), YHWH who will set His feet on the Mount of Olives at His return (Zechariah 14:3-4, Acts 1:11-12), YHWH the first and last (Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 2:8), YHWH the great I AM (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58), the great God (Titus 2:13), the mighty God (Isaiah 9:6), one God with God the Father (John 10:30, John 20:28), equal in divinity with God the Father (Philippians 2:6).

Just as the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) is the three distinct, coexisting Persons (Mark 1:9-11) of God the Father (Galatians 1:3), God the Son (Hebrews 1:8) and God the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:19-20; Acts 5:3-4), so the Trinity is YHWH the Father, YHWH the Son and YHWH the Holy Spirit. For YHWH is the only God (Isaiah 45:5-6). He has always been and forever will be the only God (Isaiah 43:10b).

John 14:28 says, “You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.”

Matthew 19:16, 17 says, “Now behold, one came and said to Him, ‘Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?’ So He said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God'."

Yes, Scripture is definitive on this matter, crystal clear. Clear as mud at least.

No, for sola scriptura shows that Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, don't have to keep the sabbath of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For even the letter of the 10 commandments written and engraven in stones (2 Corinthians 3:7, Deuteronomy 4:13) was part of the abolished Old Covenant Mosaic law's ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3:6-7, Exodus 31:15b), which has been replaced by the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34) ministration of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6-18), in which Christians are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law and keep the spirit (Romans 7:6) of all the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments by loving others (Romans 13:8-10).

Saying Christians have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law sabbath is just as mistaken as saying Christians have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law circumcision (Acts 15:1-11). If Christians keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law sabbath thinking they have to because it's part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, they're as fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4) as Christians who keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law circumcision thinking they have to because it's part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 5:2). They've become debtors to perform the letter of the entire Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 5:3). They've placed themselves under its curse (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26).

So no Christian should ever desire to go back into bondage under the letter of any part of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 4:21 to 5:8). Christians need to keep the sabbath only in spirit, not in the letter (Romans 7:6). Christians must never judge other Christians for not keeping the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law sabbath (Colossians 2:16), which letter was abolished on the New Covenant Cross of Jesus Christ along with all the rest of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Colossians 2:14-17, Ephesians 2:15-16, Romans 7:6, Hebrews 7:18-19, Hebrews 10:9b, Hebrews 10:1-23, Matthew 26:28).

For its letter was merely a shadow; now it all comes down to Jesus Christ Himself (Colossians 2:17). Jesus' New Covenant sabbath rest (Matthew 11:28-30), which all Christians enter by faith (Hebrews 4:3-4), exceeds in righteousness (cf. Matthew 5:20) the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law sabbath. For under the New Covenant sabbath, Christians must cease from their own works, as in those done apart from abiding in Jesus (John 15:4-5), every day of the week (Hebrews 4:3,10, Luke 9:23). And they can esteem every day of the week (Romans 14:5).

-

Also, Christians should be worshipping God every day of the week (Hebrews 13:15, cf. Psalms 145:2). And they should be meeting together every day of the week (Hebrews 3:13, Hebrews 10:25), at least in some fashion (Matthew 18:20), such as on this forum. The early Church started assembling together on the Lord's day (commonly called Sunday) instead of on the sabbath (commonly called Saturday) because the Lord's day, the 1st day of the week, was the day on which Jesus Christ physically resurrected (Mark 16:9) from the dead: "no longer observing the sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him" (Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, chapter 9. Ignatius was a contemporary of the apostle John. Compare John's reference to "the Lord's day" in Revelation 1:10).

But it's not a requirement for Christians to assemble together only on the Lord's day or to esteem the Lord's day above every other day of the week. It's also okay for Christians to choose to assemble together on the sabbath because they esteem the sabbath above every other day of the week. It's also okay for Christians to esteem every day of the week (Romans 14:5). Christians are never to judge each other over this matter but are simply to do what they believe Jesus Christ wants them as individuals to do (Romans 14:4-13). So the point isn't for Christians to esteem days but to focus on the person of Jesus Himself (Colossians 2:16-17).

Also, how do those who think they must keep the letter of the Old Covenant sabbath, keep the letter of the sabbath of Leviticus 25?

Well, you should take the Sabbath issue up with Bob then, another Sola Scriptura adherent who disagrees with you over the meaning of Scripture here, definitive as it is and all.

 

[Bible2+]

Root of Jesse said in post #178:

Even Scripture doesn't say that Scripture is the only thing.

Note that the Bible does say that it is all that a Christian needs in order to become perfect in doctrine and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 

[Bible2+]

JAL said in post #179:

That conscience is NOT authoritative?

Not when it contradicts the Bible (cf. Proverbs 14:12).

JAL said in post #179:

All this talk about how the elect alone can believe is further concession to the Inwward Witness.

It's okay when it's in line with the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

JAL said in post #179:

Either the written Word is the divine Word or it isn't.

The written Word, the Bible, is the divine Word because it is from the divine (2 Timothy 3:16). It is not from men (2 Peter 1:20-21).

JAL said in post #179:

Sola Scriptura contradicts self-authenticating revelation because it holds that one MUST test revelations against the Bible to deem them authoritative.

Note that sola scriptura doesn't contradict self-authenticating revelation per se, because the Bible itself is self-authenticating revelation (2 Timothy 3:16) for those who have received God's miraculous gift of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8).

*******

JAL said in post #181:

As noted earlier, this describes a man who is so in tune with the mind of the Lord that no human can hope to correct his thinking any further.

Note what the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 8:2 and Philippians 3:12.

JAL said in post #181:

Thus, even though [1 Corinthians] 14:29 isn't lucid, most likely it refers to relying upon the Inward Witness (self-authenticating revelation) to judge the utterances of a fellow believer.

But the judgment cannot contradict the Bible (e.g. 1 John 4:1-3).

 

[Bible2+]

fhansen said in post #184:

John 14:28 says, “You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.”

Note that John 14:28c doesn't contradict other Bible passages which prove the Trinity. For just as a human father is greater than his son in his authority, but not in his humanity, for a human son is equal to his father in his humanity; so God the Father is greater than God the Son (John 14:28c, Hebrews 1:8) in His authority (1 Corinthians 15:28), but not in His divinity. For God the Son, Jesus Christ, is equal to God the Father in His divinity (Philippians 2:6, John 1:1,14, John 10:30).

fhansen said in post #184:

Matthew 19:16, 17 says, “Now behold, one came and said to Him, ‘Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?’ So He said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God'."

Note that Matthew 19:17 doesn't contradict other Bible passages which prove the Trinity. For Jesus Christ allowed people to call Him God (John 20:28), and He affirmed that He is good (John 10:11), and one with God (John 10:30). So the point of His question in Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, and Luke 18:19 wasn't to deny that He is God or good, but "Why" was the man calling him good. Jesus knew that the man didn't believe that Jesus was God. So Jesus was warning him not to just go around calling different people good, but to call only God good.

fhansen said in post #184:

Yes, Scripture is definitive on this matter, crystal clear. Clear as mud at least.

Note that we should not say that God's own Word the Bible is as clear as mud. For it is as clear and beneficial as the rain (Isaiah 55:10-11).

 

[JAL]

Not when it contradicts the Bible (cf. Proverbs 14:12).

So extrapolating your claims we have:
(1)The Inward Witness (experienced as voice of conscience/certainty) is telling me to accept the Bible as inspired.
(2) But I shouldn't do this immediately (step #1 is still pending) since every voice must be tested against a reliable source. I'm stuck. I can't assume the Bible to be my reliable source, because step #1 is still pending.

This is ludicrous, and easily shown self-contradictory. You called saving faith 'God's miraculous gift of faith'. What is faith in the gospel? It is the BELIEF in one or more fundamental claims such as 'Jesus is Lord'. But belief is just conscience/certainty. So if God gives me this faith/belief, it MEANS He has given me certainty. Therefore I CANNOT say, 'I need to test it (against Scripture) before I believe it.' I already believe it.

So again, conscience/certainty is authoritative (morally binding/obligatory) for a tautological reason - it simply claims that I currently must believe that which I currently believe (i.e. that which I already feel certain about). The tautology holds true REGARDLESS whether that belief contradicts Scripture. So you're asking me the impossible. You're asking me to PEND my decision to believe - that which I already believe !!! - until I've tested it against Scripture. Since that's absolute nonsense, conscience/certainty is authoritative (it's binding on me) regardless of whether the belief contradicts Scripture. That in a nutshell is my objection to both you and Bob.

The written Word, the Bible, is the divine Word because it is from the divine (2 Timothy 3:16). It is not from men (2 Peter 1:20-21).

So if a cow is from the divine it is the divine Word? I'm not denying that God authored the book, that He is the creator of the book. The created is not, however, God.

Note that sola scriptura doesn't contradict self-authenticating revelation per se, because the Bible itself is self-authenticating revelation (2 Timothy 3:16) for those who have received God's miraculous gift of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8).

You're merely talking nebulously, in circles, to avoid my charges of contradiction.
You claim that the BIBLE is self-authenticating but, now that we are already 185 posts deep into this thread, it's hardly appropriate to continue making such a claim without being perfectly clear on what it means. Whereas I was quite clear, by classifying a reality as self-authenticating if and only if it automatically activates conscience (i.e. triggers feelings of certainty regarding my moral obligations).

Your words are deliberately nebulous. You're not even clear on what PROPOSITION is self-authenticating, for instance are you saying:
(A) The authenticity of the Bible is self-evident (self-authenticating), OR
(B) The doctrines enunciated in the Bible are all self-evident (but why then would we need to do exegetical research and debate in efforts to understand it and hopefully come to an agreement?)

If you still can't use clear language after 185 posts, I can only assume it's because you don't have a defensible position.

Note what the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 8:2 and Philippians 3:12.

Again, why should I continue looking up a million verses at your request, when touted in support of a position inherently self-contradictory, or in support of claims too nebulous to comprehend?

But the judgment cannot contradict the Bible (e.g. 1 John 4:1-3).

Self-authentication doesn't have to test against the Bible. That's the whole point.

As I don't see much going on here with you and Bob except talking in circles, using nebulous language, and dodging the force of my objections, I think this will be my last post. I really need to get back to focusing on my career and responsibilities.

 

[Bible2+]

JAL said in post #188:

So extrapolating your claims we have:
(1)The Inward Witness (experienced as voice of conscience/certainty) is telling me to accept the Bible as inspired.

That's right. And that is also what the Bible says (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

JAL said in post #188:

(2) But I shouldn't do this immediately (step #1 is still pending) since every voice must be tested against a reliable source. I'm stuck. I can't assume the Bible to be my reliable source, because step #1 is still pending.

There is no mere assumption that the Bible is a reliable source, because faith in it comes only as a miraculous gift from God (Ephesians 2:8).

JAL said in post #188:

What is faith in the gospel? It is the BELIEF in one or more fundamental claims such as 'Jesus is Lord'.

That's right.

For the Gospel of our salvation (Ephesians 1:13) is that we can be initially saved by believing that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (John 20:31, John 3:36; 1 John 2:23), and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins and rose physically from the dead on the 3rd day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:39,46-47, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 26:28).

And the Gospel is that we can be ultimately saved if we continue to believe this to the end (Hebrews 3:6,12,14, Colossians 1:23), and continue to perform good works of faith to the end (Romans 2:6-8; 1 Thessalonians 1:3), and repent from any sin we commit (Hebrews 10:26-29), and get water-immersion (burial) baptized into Jesus Christ (Mark 16:16, Romans 6:3-11), and partake of Jesus' divine flesh and blood in the bread and wine of Communion (John 6:53; 1 Corinthians 11:23-30), and forgive everyone for everything (Matthew 6:14-15), and do all we can (Romans 12:18) to make reparations to and peace with everyone whom we've ever wronged (Matthew 5:23-26), and help Christians in need (Matthew 25:34-46), and provide for our families (1 Timothy 5:8), and don't blaspheme God's Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29), and don't remove words from the book of Revelation (Revelation 22:19), and don't worship the future Antichrist or his image or willingly receive his mark (Revelation 14:9-12), and continue in God's goodness to the end (Romans 11:22), and overcome to the end (Revelation 3:5, Revelation 2:26).

JAL said in post #188:

But belief is just conscience/certainty.

In what the Bible teaches (2 Timothy 3:15).

JAL said in post #188:

Therefore I CANNOT say, 'I need to test it (against Scripture) before I believe it.' I already believe it.

You believe it because of hearing or reading what God's Word the Bible teaches (Romans 10:17).

JAL said in post #188:

So again, conscience/certainty is authoritative . . .

Not when it contradicts the Bible (cf. Jeremiah 17:9).

JAL said in post #188:

The tautology holds true REGARDLESS whether that belief contradicts Scripture.

Note that it doesn't (e.g. 1 John 4:1-3).

JAL said in post #188:

So you're asking me the impossible.

It is impossible for humans on their own to believe the Bible (cf. Romans 9:16, John 6:65). But with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).

JAL said in post #188:

So if a cow is from the divine it is the divine Word?

No, it's a cow from the divine, not men. That is, it would be a divine cow not in the sense of it being God, but in the sense of it being a miraculous creation of God, instead of the work of men.

JAL said in post #188:

The created is not, however, God.

That's right, the Bible is not God. But it is the Word of the divine (2 Timothy 3:16).

JAL said in post #188:

. . . are you saying:
(A) The authenticity of the Bible is self-evident (self-authenticating) . . .

Yes, but only for those who have received God's miraculous gift of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8).

JAL said in post #188:

. . .OR
(B) The doctrines enunciated in the Bible are all self-evident . . .

They become self-evident to Christians so long as they take the Bible in its entirety (Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16). That is, a verse in one place in the Bible must be compared with (qualified by) other, related verses elsewhere in the Bible (Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13).

2 Timothy 2:15

2 Timothy 4:2-4

 

[BobRyan]

Or that they couldn't practice the observance of a day of rest and worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath?

No NT writer identifies the LORD with any other day but Sabbath "the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28. Never is that said of week-day-1

The Bible says "the seventh-day is the Sabbath of the LORD" Exodus 20:10
The Bible says the Sabbath is "The Holy Day of the LORD" Isaiah 58:13
but never says "week-day-1 is the LORD's day"

.
So? Did the apostles tell them "that they couldn't practice the observance of a day of rest and worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath?" Did the apostles tell or show them that they should practice it that new way?

1. Not one NT writer calls week-day-1 "The Lord's day" as already pointed out. man made tradition in later centuries made that claim after-the-fact.

2. Paul says "though we Apostles or an Angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed!" Gal 1:6-9

And so you're preaching the different gospel.

to some the mere quote of the text appears to be a "different gospel".

The church has always known the truth regarding the day of the week identified as "The Lord's Day", from the beginning, .

True of the Catholic church from about the 4th century A.D. Not an actual Bible text that you have there -- just saying.


now back to the "more general case" as the focus in the OP
======================================

Someone has posted that there are problems with sola scriptura. Through a process of philosophy and extreme inference.

[There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.[/QUOTE]

The error there - is that the entire argument above relies on ignoring what the Bible has to say on that subject - and simply "quoting yourself" relying on extreme inference alone.

There is... another way.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - none of those texts should exist!

 

[fhansen]

No NT writer identifies the LORD with any other day but Sabbath "the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28. Never is that said of week-day-1

The Bible says "the seventh-day is the Sabbath of the LORD" Exodus 20:10
The Bible says the Sabbath is "The Holy Day of the LORD" Isaiah 58:13
but never says "week-day-1 is the LORD's day"

We know what day the Lord's Day was, Sunday, the day of our Lord's Resurrection-there's never been a question on it simply because it's been the continuous practice of the Church to preach and break bread on that day, just as infant Baptism has been practiced since time immemorial despite the fact that little is mentioned about it in Scripture. The only other early support we have for either practice, little as it may be, comes from patristic writings.

1. Not one NT writer calls week-day-1 "The Lord's day" as already pointed out. man made tradition in later centuries made that claim after-the-fact.

No, the after-the-fact claim is now being made by you-you simply have no way of knowing the history on it. And it matters not at all whether it was explicitly mentioned in Scripture. The Church received and preached the gospel before a word of the NT was written-and the NT itself tells us that not everything was written. I'm sorry, but the bible was never intended to be a catechism or some sort of systematic instruction manual, even though many have come to treat it as such.

2. Paul says "though we Apostles or an Angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed!" Gal 1:6-9

Well, stop then!

to some the mere quote of the text appears to be a "different gospel".

People quote texts all day long, and disagree with each other over their meaning all day long. Better to rely on the historical entity which was established for that purpose-and has actually lived through the history of our faith, a history that included writing the NT.

True of the Catholic church from about the 4th century A.D. Not an actual Bible text that you have there -- just saying.

LOL. PURE SPECULATION on the timing. It's very easy to be an expert on the past-where little is written regarding it. Easy, and not particularly responsible. The Eastern Church, it just happens, also holds Sunday as their most important day, as a matter of practice--just saying. So this practice predates any concilliar or other decrees, etc, just as was the case with the Trinitarian decrees that issued from Nicea.

 

[Bible2+]

BobRyan said in post #190:

Not one NT writer calls week-day-1 "The Lord's day" . . .

Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet . . .

This means the apostle John was in the Spirit on the 1st day of the week, which is now commonly called Sunday. For after the Lord Jesus Christ rose physically from the dead on the 1st day of the week (Mark 16:9), the early Church referred to the 1st day of the week as the Lord's day: "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him" (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, chapter 9. Ignatius was a contemporary of John).

So Revelation 1:10 is speaking of Sunday: John was in the Spirit on a Sunday in the 1st century AD when he heard behind him a great voice.

BobRyan said in post #190:

Paul says "though we Apostles or an Angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed!" Gal 1:6-9

Note that the Gospel doesn't require observance of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law sabbath. For:

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Romans 14:5 would apply to how some Christians choose to esteem the sabbath day, while others choose to esteem every day. And Romans 14:6b would apply to how some Christians choose not to eat certain foods, while others choose to eat all foods (1 Timothy 4:4).

 

[Bible2+]

fhansen said in post #191:

. . . the bible was never intended to be a catechism or some sort of systematic instruction manual . . .

Note that it was. For:

2 Timothy 3:15 . . . from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 4:1 ¶I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

 

[FireDragon76]

two Lutheran objections:

1. Sola Scriptura is merely a proposed dogma in our church. It's not a free-wheeling excuse to create a new religion. We uphold nothing that is not essential to the catholic faith.

2. The Bible itself, in its aparrent original manuscripts, contains no defined list of sacred books. We must use a theological method, including analysis of what the early Church had to say on the books (the earliest textual criticism we have), to determine which books are properly authoritative. It's not simply a given.

So, I tend to come down more on the side of the Catholics on this issue, as would Lutherans in general. We don't just accept the Bible as a given, we realize it was collated by the Church through an historical process which can be analyzed and understood. Therefore, we also read it critically.

 

[BobRyan]

Or that they couldn't practice the observance of a day of rest and worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath?

No NT writer identifies the LORD with any other day but Sabbath "the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28. Never is that said of week-day-1

The Bible says "the seventh-day is the Sabbath of the LORD" Exodus 20:10
The Bible says the Sabbath is "The Holy Day of the LORD" Isaiah 58:13
but never says "week-day-1 is the LORD's day"

.
So? Did the apostles tell them "that they couldn't practice the observance of a day of rest and worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath?" Did the apostles tell or show them that they should practice it that new way?

1. Not one NT writer calls week-day-1 "The Lord's day" as already pointed out. man made tradition in later centuries made that claim after-the-fact.

2. Paul says "though we Apostles or an Angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed!" Gal 1:6-9

And so you're preaching the different gospel.

to some the mere quote of the text appears to be a "different gospel".

The church has always known the truth regarding the day of the week identified as "The Lord's Day", from the beginning, .

True of the Catholic church from about the 4th century A.D. Not an actual Bible text that you have there -- just saying.


now back to the "more general case" as the focus in the OP
======================================

Someone has posted that there are problems with sola scriptura. Through a process of philosophy and extreme inference.

[There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.[/QUOTE]

The error there - is that the entire argument above relies on ignoring what the Bible has to say on that subject - and simply "quoting yourself" relying on extreme inference alone.

There is... another way.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - none of those texts should exist!

We know what day the Lord's Day was, Sunday,

Not from any Bible text in OT or NT. In the actual Bible Christ is "LORD of the Sabbath" no such text for "LORD of week-day-1" and we both know it.

Sunday, the day of our Lord's Resurrection-

We all agree that Christ was raised on what the Bible calls -- "week day 1"... it does not say He was "raised on the LORD's day" ... again this is irrefutable.

 

[fhansen]

Note that it was. For:

2 Timothy 3:15 . . . from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 4:1 ¶I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Yes, the most one can say from those passages is that one, as a member of the Church, capable of understanding it correctly, should preach from the Old Testament. We also consider the New Testament to be inspired Scripture and preach from it as well, also with proper understanding necessary, which is not guaranteed as we know, due to the many and varied interpretations we find, and the many and varied churches which have often resulted. In fact, the very reason that the Church came up with such things as creeds and catechisms is because Scripture is not some sort of systematic teaching resource, where the gospel is clarified and explained and outlined in such a way that it can be presented as a complete and unified and easily understood body of teachings.

 

[Bible2+]

fhansen said in post #196:

. . . Scripture is not some sort of systematic teaching resource, where the gospel is clarified and explained and outlined in such a way that it can be presented as a complete and unified and easily understood body of teachings.

Actually, it is. That's what 2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4 means.

Also, any misinterpretation of one verse should be able to be corrected by other verses (2 Timothy 3:16, Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13).

That is, while anyone can string verses together, they can't make the Bible say whatever they want. For if they say something which contradicts what the Bible says when it's taken as a whole, then what they're saying is mistaken.

 

[gordonhooker]

Actually, it is. That's what 2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4 means.

Also, any misinterpretation of one verse should be able to be corrected by other verses (2 Timothy 3:16, Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13).

That is, while anyone can string verses together, they can't make the Bible say whatever they want. For if they say something which contradicts what the Bible says when it's taken as a whole, then what they're saying is mistaken.

Actually people can and do string Bible verses together to make it say what they want it to say. I have seen it done time and time again, and they argue its authenticity till the cows come home.

 

[gordonhooker]

No NT writer identifies the LORD with any other day but Sabbath "the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28. Never is that said of week-day-1

The Bible says "the seventh-day is the Sabbath of the LORD" Exodus 20:10
The Bible says the Sabbath is "The Holy Day of the LORD" Isaiah 58:13
but never says "week-day-1 is the LORD's day"



1. Not one NT writer calls week-day-1 "The Lord's day" as already pointed out. man made tradition in later centuries made that claim after-the-fact.

2. Paul says "though we Apostles or an Angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed!" Gal 1:6-9



to some the mere quote of the text appears to be a "different gospel".



True of the Catholic church from about the 4th century A.D. Not an actual Bible text that you have there -- just saying.


now back to the "more general case" as the focus in the OP
======================================

Someone has posted that there are problems with sola scriptura. Through a process of philosophy and extreme inference.

[There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

The error there - is that the entire argument above relies on ignoring what the Bible has to say on that subject - and simply "quoting yourself" relying on extreme inference alone.

There is... another way.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - none of those texts should exist!



Not from any Bible text in OT or NT. In the actual Bible Christ is "LORD of the Sabbath" no such text for "LORD of week-day-1" and we both know it.



We all agree that Christ was raised on what the Bible calls -- "week day 1"... it does not say He was "raised on the LORD's day" ... again this is irrefutable.

You can argue against these two reasons until you are blue in the face, but the fact is they are true and accurate.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

 

[fhansen]

Actually, it is. That's what 2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4 means.

Also, any misinterpretation of one verse should be able to be corrected by other verses (2 Timothy 3:16, Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13).

That is, while anyone can string verses together, they can't make the Bible say whatever they want. For if they say something which contradicts what the Bible says when it's taken as a whole, then what they're saying is mistaken.

Thank you for your personal opinion. I've been around long enough to recognize it as wishful thinking.