Show me in Scripture

[Albion]

Well the answer to the flaw would be a consensus.

Well, wait a minute. A consensus is not unanimity. You said that the problem was diverse interpretations. There already is a consensus on many doctrinal matters, if not 100% agreement. And achieving a consensus doesn't guarantee truth. There are many examples in life where the majority was wrong.

When a large body uniformly accepts certain interpretationsm, as was done in the various ecumenical councils.

OK, we have several churches that accept seven of them, one that generally accepts 4 out of 7, one that accepts only 3, and (so I'm told) one that accepts 2 only. Of course, at least 1/3 of Christianity doesn't accept any of them as authoritative. I don't see any uniformity there, and that's just about how many there are to follow, not anything about their contents.

So it looks to me that this is an ideal -- but nothing that can be accomplished, not any more than getting everyone to accept the same interpretation of Scripture.

 

[MrPolo]

If it wasn't for scripture you wouldn't know what happened in Acts 15.

So what.

 

[childofdust]

In response to another thread that was recently closed, can anyone show me in scripture where it says scripture alone is not enough? Please show me where scriptures say we need anything else.

God bless

Do not quench the Spirit.
Do not despise prophecies,
but test everything; hold fast what is good.
1 Thess 5:19-21 ESV

Prophecy is something that existed outside scripture – it was even a spiritual gift! - and scripture itself tells us not to despise it but to test it and hold fast to it. If scripture alone was good enough, then why should anyone listen to prophecies? Why should any prophets exist in the church at all? Why would Thessalonians tell us to listen to them and to test them to hold fast to what is good?

The only answer I can come up with is because they may have something to say that scripture does not and it is important to listen to the Spirit, which is not bound by the texts alone, but exists in the world and in history beyond the limits of a written document.

Again:

And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
Deut 18:22 ESV

According to scripture, the standard by which we test if something that claims to be the word of God truly is (or is not) the word of God lies outside of it. If scripture is the word of God, the only way to know is to test it according to that which is not scripture. Therefore, according to scripture, it, alone, is not sufficient for anything. Two witnesses are necessary: one that is not scripture.

 

[mathetes123]

The flaw with that is that no matter what anybody says, scripture is always being interpreted. We interpret it through our past church experiences (or lack thereof), through how we were raised, what kind of socio-economic environment we live (and have lived) in, our political persuasions, et al.

So many times I've heard people say "I'm just taking Scripture for what it says" but what they're saying it says is riddled with their own interpretation. It's in inevitable. We all have our lenses.

Isn't it the Holy Spirit that indwells all believers that leads them into all truth. If you can't trust the Holy Spirit to lead you into truth through personal study of scripture, and rely instead on what the priest tells you, how will you ever know if that priest is led by the Holy Spirit or is misleading you when you have no standard to compare his teaching to because you cannot trust your own interpretation of scripture?

Look at the Bereans. They did not simply accept what Paul had to say, but checked it against scripture.

 

[Nanopants]

Look at the Bereans. They did not simply accept what Paul had to say, but checked it against scripture.

Not only that, but they were commended as being "fair-minded" for it.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Well, wait a minute. A consensus is not unanimity. You said that the problem was diverse interpretations. There already is a consensus on many doctrinal matters, if not 100% agreement. And achieving a consensus doesn't guarantee truth. There are many examples in life where the majority was wrong.

OK, we have several churches that accept seven of them, one that generally accepts 4 out of 7, one that accepts only 3, and (so I'm told) one that accepts 2 only. Of course, at least 1/3 of Christianity doesn't accept any of them as authoritative. I don't see any uniformity there, and that's just about how many there are to follow, not anything about their contents.

So it looks to me that this is an ideal -- but nothing that can be accomplished, not any more than getting everyone to accept the same interpretation of Scripture.

You have some good points. What I'm getting at is that is if we rely on our own interpretations alone and don't cross-reference these interpretations with the historic faith there's the risk of detouring way of course a la Harold Camping.

There's a balance to be struck, and it never hurts to question what kind of factors influence our own interpretations of the text.

Isn't it the Holy Spirit that indwells all believers that leads them into all truth. If you can't trust the Holy Spirit to lead you into truth through personal study of scripture, and rely instead on what the priest tells you, how will you ever know if that priest is led by the Holy Spirit or is misleading you when you have no standard to compare his teaching to because you cannot trust your own interpretation of scripture?

Look at the Bereans. They did not simply accept what Paul had to say, but checked it against scripture.

Yes, I think it was the same Holy Spirit that presided over the ecumenical councils and inspired the Fathers to design the Creeds.

I think it's also possible for people confuse their own interpretations with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Albion]

You have some good points. What I'm getting at is that is if we rely on our own interpretations alone and don't cross-reference these interpretations with the historic faith there's the risk of detouring way of course a la Harold Camping.

I do appreciate the concern but, after all, no system can prevent individuals from going their own way, coming up with their own understandings or interpretations. The question still is, "Is that source correct, whether or not every last person thinks so or gets its message right." If Scripture is really the word of God, all our energies ought logically go into understanding it, not opting for some other, and less reliable, guide. When you think carefully about it, isn't this just as uncertain as Scripture except that 1) we all agree that scripture is divine revelation; there is no such consensus about the councils, and 2) turning to Tradition/councils just removes us one additional step away from what we all want--God's truth imparted to us.

Yes, I think it was the same Holy Spirit that presided over the ecumenical councils and inspired the Fathers to design the Creeds.

Ouch. Well, we're on different wavelengths in that case, and I'm sorry to say it. What you just said seems to me completely unpersuasive. Who says that the HS presided? What evidence is there of that? It's just a presumption, from what I can tell. Yes, the church of that time said that this is the way it was, but that's about all. Also, there are plenty of dissenters from the decisions of the councils as well as that definition of what the councils were all about. Doesn't that matter as much as the fact that there are different Bible interpretations?

I think it's also possible for people confuse their own interpretations with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I agree.

 

[mathetes123]

I do appreciate the concern but, after all, no system can prevent individuals from going their own way, coming up with their own understandings or interpretations. The question still is, "Is that source correct, whether or not every last person thinks so or gets its message right." If Scripture is really the word of God, all our energies ought logically go into understanding it, not opting for some other, and less reliable, guide.




Oh. Well, we're on different wavelenghts in that case. What you just said seems to me completely unpersuasive. Who says that the HS presided? What evidence is there of that? It's just a presumption, from what I can tell. Yes, the church of that time said that this is the way it was, but that's about all. Also, there are plenty of dissenters from the decisions of the councils as well as that definition of what the councils were all about. Doesn't that matter as much as the fact that there are different Bible interpretations?



I agree.

The Bible clearly says that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. It says nothing about the priesthood or a pope being the mediator between God and man.

 

[MrPolo]

The Bible clearly says that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. It says nothing about the priesthood or a pope being the mediator between God and man.

So why do we need Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc... Why use the mediation of these men? Or any Apostles? Or the "office of bishop" spoken of in the NT? Or the "presbyters" spoken of in the NT? Have you fully considered the sense in which Christ is "mediator"? Because the verse you cite doesn't apply here regarding the ministerial priesthood.

 

[Standing Up]

So why do we need Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc... Why use the mediation of these men? Or any Apostles? Or the "office of bishop" spoken of in the NT? Or the "presbyters" spoken of in the NT? Have you fully considered the sense in which Christ is "mediator"? Because the verse you cite doesn't apply here regarding the ministerial priesthood.

This word (etymologically "elder", from presbyteros, presbyter) has taken the meaning of "sacerdos
-NewAdvent-

When did presbyter take on the meaning of priest?

 

[Albion]

The Bible clearly says that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. It says nothing about the priesthood or a pope being the mediator between God and man.

You seem to have intended that as an answer to something I wrote, but I can't figure out the connection. Reply if you want to clarify.

 

[Rick Otto]

This word (etymologically "elder", from presbyteros, presbyter) has taken the meaning of "sacerdos
-NewAdvent-

When did presbyter take on the meaning of priest?

I'm guessing about the same time the literalization of the eucharist metaphor demanded a ritual consecration & rituals always need an MC (master of ceremonies) & a miracle needs that person to be worthy of the task.

 

[from scratch]

nm

 

[spiritwarrior37]

Prophecy is something that existed outside scripture – it was even a spiritual gift! - and scripture itself tells us not to despise it but to test it and hold fast to it. If scripture alone was good enough, then why should anyone listen to prophecies? Why should any prophets exist in the church at all? Why would Thessalonians tell us to listen to them and to test them to hold fast to what is good?

The only answer I can come up with is because they may have something to say that scripture does not and it is important to listen to the Spirit, which is not bound by the texts alone, but exists in the world and in history beyond the limits of a written document.

Again:



According to scripture, the standard by which we test if something that claims to be the word of God truly is (or is not) the word of God lies outside of it. If scripture is the word of God, the only way to know is to test it according to that which is not scripture. Therefore, according to scripture, it, alone, is not sufficient for anything. Two witnesses are necessary: one that is not scripture.

So let me get this right. You are saying that we cannot rely on scripture unless we test it against something outside of scripture? That is blasphemy. There is nothing written or spoken that could compare to the written Word of God. And as far as prophecy goes, the scriptures give us the guidlines for testing that. And I know of no prophets alive and well in the world today. But again that is another thread. This one is show me in scripture where it says scripture alone is not enough for doctrine, teaching, etc.

God bless

 

[Standing Up]

Prophecy is something that existed outside scripture – it was even a spiritual gift! - and scripture itself tells us not to despise it but to test it and hold fast to it. -snip-

There is the rhema word of God. But how do you propose one TEST prophecy? No scripture allowed. What will you use?

 

[childofdust]

So let me get this right. You are saying that we cannot rely on scripture unless we test it against something outside of scripture?

I'm saying that that's what Deut 18:22 says directly and also what 1 Thess 5:19-21 says indirectly.

That is blasphemy.

If you want to call Deut 18:22 and 1 Thess 5:19-21 blasphemy, that's your prerogative. It did not escape my notice that you completely ignored those scriptures from your quote of mine as if you didn't want to pay attention to what they said. I prefer to listen to what scripture says.

There is nothing written or spoken that could compare to the written Word of God.

I agree. It is unique. Incomparable. And so is Yeshua, who is not the written Word of God. And if the written Word of God were all we needed, then Yeshua is irrelevant. The fact Yeshua came means Yeshua is greater than the written Word of God and that the written Word of God alone was insufficient.

And as far as prophecy goes, the scriptures give us the guidlines for testing that.

That's right: see Deut 18:22. You test what is supposedly the word of God by that which is not.

show me in scripture where it says scripture alone is not enough for doctrine, teaching, etc.

Here you go:

And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
Deut 18:22 ESV

But how do you propose one TEST prophecy? No scripture allowed. What will you use?

Here you go:

And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
Deut 18:22 ESV

You're both welcome

 

[Albion]

And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
Deut 18:22 ESV

That only instructs us about what is NOT the word of God.

 

[Standing Up]

Here you go:

And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
Deut 18:22 ESV

You're both welcome

I may have misunderstood you. I understand about how to test the OT prophets, but I though you were referring to NT prophets.

I'd suggest that what the OT prophets said, came to pass in Christ and the NT. It was then written.

Would you say that NT prophets have a new revelation from God? If so, how will you test that?

 

[spiritwarrior37]

I'm saying that that's what Deut 18:22 says directly and also what 1 Thess 5:19-21 says indirectly.



If you want to call Deut 18:22 and 1 Thess 5:19-21 blasphemy, that's your prerogative. It did not escape my notice that you completely ignored those scriptures from your quote of mine as if you didn't want to pay attention to what they said. I prefer to listen to what scripture says.



I agree. It is unique. Incomparable. And so is Yeshua, who is not the written Word of God. And if the written Word of God were all we needed, then Yeshua is irrelevant. The fact Yeshua came means Yeshua is greater than the written Word of God and that the written Word of God alone was insufficient.




That's right: see Deut 18:22. You test what is supposedly the word of God by that which is not.



Here you go:

And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
Deut 18:22 ESV



Here you go:

And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
Deut 18:22 ESV

You're both welcome

You still have not shown me where it is written in scripture where it says that scriptures alone are not enough for doctrine, teaching, etc. What prophets do we have today? None.
Seems you are also forgetting one thing in saying that Jesus is not the written Word of God. All of the NT was written after Jesus was sitting at the right hand of the Father. Now let me ask you this. Does or did Jesus come and teach you your doctrines? No. It is all contained in the scriptures, therefore they are all we need.

God bless

 

[whitetiger1]

You keep say that, Scripture alone has given man a myriad of denominations. Everyone says Scripture is all we need but they forget that each person gets their own "truth" from Scripture. If Scripture alone were true Christians would be united and there would be no relativism is Christianity