Sola Scriptura

[Job8]

I've provided evidence from prior to the Reformation. Why don't you provide us with evidence of 'sola scriptura' from Christ himself?

Oz

Had there been anything outside of the Scriptures which might be considered authoritative, Christ would have certainly indicated that. Furthermore He deliberately and carefully excluded the Apocrypha, while referring to the 24 books of the Hebrew Tanakh.
The Law of Moses = Torah = 5 books
The Prophets = Neviim = 8 books
The Psalms = Ketuvim = 11 books

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. (Matthew 4:4).

And he said unto them,These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures (Luke 24:44,45).

 

[Erose]

Sure it does, but not for Traditionalists. And it actually goes back to Christ Himself.

Yeah prove it.

 

[Erose]

Erose,

That is not the view of scholars and researchers, Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie in 'A Defense of Sola Scriptura' (CRI).

I suggest that you investigate the biblical material in support of this doctrine from Scripture itself.

Seems like a little myopia on your part.

Oz

I have and have found it utterly lacking. I have seen no feasible argument for this idea from Scripture. Why? Because there isn't one.

 

[Erose]

Had there been anything outside of the Scriptures which might be considered authoritative, Christ would have certainly indicated that. Furthermore He deliberately and carefully excluded the Apocrypha, while referring to the 24 books of the Hebrew Tanakh.
The Law of Moses = Torah = 5 books
The Prophets = Neviim = 8 books
The Psalms = Ketuvim = 11 books

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. (Matthew 4:4).

And he said unto them,These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures (Luke 24:44,45).

Man what a stretch. Are you going to start excluding all the writings that Jesus didn't quote from? If so you will have a much smaller Bible. Interesting enough, it would include Tobit, which Jesus quoted and is what is commonly called the Golden Rule:

4:16 See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another.

Your position would be more possible if the Jews had a universally accepted canon, which they didn't. The only writings universally accepted by all Jews were only the Torah. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, Essenes, and the Alexandrian Jews all had differing canons of Scripture.

 

[Korah]

Oz, how do you know that Erose hasn't studied the doctrine of sola scriptura from a Biblical perspective? There are plenty of other scholars that disagree with the conclusions of the researchers you posted.

Excellent response.
As for your question whether I as a Lutheran believe in infant baptism, yes I do. Nevertheless the honor of God and good (not necessarily Universalistic, either) theology requires acknowledging also that in context to Nicodemus that he as a Jew needed two births, the first from physical (water) birth and the second from his psyche accepting the spiritual leadership from his pneuma (conscience).

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, how do you know that Erose hasn't studied the doctrine of sola scriptura from a Biblical perspective? There are plenty of other scholars that disagree with the conclusions of the researchers you posted.

It sounds like you assume people have not studied the Bible in regards to the validity of Sola Scriptura, if they do not agree with Sola Scriptura. I assure you that there are many who are well versed in all of scripture, and have studied it in all areas from various perspectives, who still do not agree with Sola Scriptura. In fact, there are some who started off believing in Sola Scriptura and ended up not believing in it after further study.

I was addressing one statement made by Erose, 'Sola Scriptura is impossible to prove explicitly from Scripture'. If one is so adamant as to say that sola scriptura cannot be proven explicitly from Scripture, such a statement assumes that Erose has studied it.

I know there are many who do not believe in sola scriptura. I've been studying the Scriptures for around 50 years. I didn't come down in the last theological shower.

However when someone is so adamant as to say it 'is impossible' to prove sola scriptura from Scripture, I thought it was the right thing to provide evidence. That's what I did in providing the link to Geisler & MacKenzie's article. They provided evidence from Scripture in support of sola scriptura.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Had there been anything outside of the Scriptures which might be considered authoritative, Christ would have certainly indicated that. Furthermore He deliberately and carefully excluded the Apocrypha, while referring to the 24 books of the Hebrew Tanakh.
The Law of Moses = Torah = 5 books
The Prophets = Neviim = 8 books
The Psalms = Ketuvim = 11 books

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. (Matthew 4:4).

And he said unto them,These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures (Luke 24:44,45).

Job8

From where did Paul obtain the information in this verse? 'But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"' (Jude 1:9 NIV)?

Oz

 

[Job8]

Job8

From where did Paul obtain the information in this verse? 'But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"' (Jude 1:9 NIV)?

Oz

That would be Jude receiving direct Divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit. Only God would have known about this dispute.

 

[Job8]

Your position would be more possible if the Jews had a universally accepted canon, which they didn't.

Conservative Palestinian Jews did have a universally accepted Hebrew canon, and that is precisely what Christ referred to -- the Torah, the Neviim (Nebiim), and the Ketuvim (Kethubim). This corresponds exactly to the Old Testament used by Protestants and non-Catholics (with many of the books divided or treated individually). Paul called them "the holy Scriptures" and Peter simply called them "the Scriptures".

 

[prodromos]

Paul called them "the holy Scriptures" and Peter simply called them "the Scriptures".

Paul was referring to the Scripture which Timothy, a Greek, had know from childhood. That would be the Septuagint, not the Hebrew canon.

 

[Erose]

I was addressing one statement made by Erose, 'Sola Scriptura is impossible to prove explicitly from Scripture'. If one is so adamant as to say that sola scriptura cannot be proven explicitly from Scripture, such a statement assumes that Erose has studied it.

I know there are many who do not believe in sola scriptura. I've been studying the Scriptures for around 50 years. I didn't come down in the last theological shower.

However when someone is so adamant as to say it 'is impossible' to prove sola scriptura from Scripture, I thought it was the right thing to provide evidence. That's what I did in providing the link to Geisler & MacKenzie's article. They provided evidence from Scripture in support of sola scriptura.

Oz

I read the article and it may not have been so bad if it didn't start off with the false premise that the argument is Tradition vs Scripture. That isn't the argument between Apostolic Christians and non-Apostolic ones. Never has been. SS Christians want to make it that, but to do so is a completely false narrative. The Catholic Church as well as all Apostolic Christians have always taught that Scripture has authority and should be treated as such. It is that Scripture isn't the only authority, and has never been considered as such, until relatively recent.

 

[Erose]

Conservative Palestinian Jews did have a universally accepted Hebrew canon, and that is precisely what Christ referred to -- the Torah, the Neviim (Nebiim), and the Ketuvim (Kethubim). This corresponds exactly to the Old Testament used by Protestants and non-Catholics (with many of the books divided or treated individually). Paul called them "the holy Scriptures" and Peter simply called them "the Scriptures".

This is a historically false statement. There is zero evidence of this, and even now many Protestant scholars (who I will admit have done more work than Catholics on the history of the Canon and its development) reject this idea. Even among the Pharisees, whose Bible canon was very close to what the Jews use now, were not settled upon which books constitute the Prophets and the Writings. Only the Torah was fixed and accepted by all Jews.

It should be noted that there isn't one single early list of the OT canon that matches perfectly what the Jews settled on somewhere between the 2nd and 6th centuries AD.

 

[Erose]

That would be Jude receiving direct Divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit. Only God would have known about this dispute.

It comes from an extant writing called the "Assumption of Moses".

 

[BABerean2]

Sola Scriptura is impossible to prove explicitly from Scripture.

Sola Scriptura is not impossible.
For example, multiple verses prove that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, who rose from the dead.

There is a process which proves which interpretation is correct, if there is more than one interpretation.
It is conflict resolution.
Any interpretation which produces a conflict with another passage cannot be correct and therefore can be eliminated.

In John chapter 3, is the emphasis placed on the water or on the Spirit?

Then look at the other passages in the New Testament which refer to baptism.
Is the emphasis on the water or on the Spirit?
Look at the words of the Apostle Paul.


1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.


We find John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul and the other New Testament writers placing the focus on baptism of the Holy Spirit, instead of baptism in water.
After the day of Pentecost, water was only used after a person came to faith.


Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Find the verses in the New Testament that refer to infant baptism.
Compare the number of verses related to baptism of the Holy Spirit of believers to the number of verses showing infant baptism.

.

 

[OzSpen]

I read the article and it may not have been so bad if it didn't start off with the false premise that the argument is Tradition vs Scripture. That isn't the argument between Apostolic Christians and non-Apostolic ones. Never has been. SS Christians want to make it that, but to do so is a completely false narrative. The Catholic Church as well as all Apostolic Christians have always taught that Scripture has authority and should be treated as such. It is that Scripture isn't the only authority, and has never been considered as such, until relatively recent.

Your last sentence is false that 'It is that Scripture isn't the only authority, and has never been considered as such, until relatively recent'.

I have investigated this and provided the evidence in my article: Is there no ‘Scripture alone’ in early church fathers?

What is your description of 'SS Christians'?

Oz

 

[Salem]

Mark,

That's the kind of argumentation I've heard from others so I did my searching of the church fathers.

Scripture alone, Sola Scriptura, goes back long before the time of the Reformation. I've documented some of the strong statements in support of the authority of Scripture in the church fathers. See my article, Is there no ‘Scripture alone’ in early church fathers?

Sincerely,
Oz

Without the written word of God, where would we be? Scripture itself prophecies apostasy, false prophets. Men and devils are going to try and corrupt truth, add to it, or take away from it. Having a fixed standard of truth, laid down in scripture, is a very great blessing by which we are able to measure truth. This is only common sense, the reason the Lord gives us scripture. How could God even hold anybody accountable for truth, if there was nowhere to find reliable truth? The Bible is man's richest treasure chest.

 

[OzSpen]

Without the written word of God, where would we be? Scripture itself prophecies apostasy, false prophets. Men and devils are going to try and corrupt truth, add to it, or take away from it. Having a fixed standard of truth, laid down in scripture, is a very great blessing by which we are able to measure truth. This is only common sense, the reason the Lord gives us scripture. How could God even hold anybody accountable for truth, if there was nowhere to find reliable truth? The Bible is man's richest treasure chest.

I agree, but we have to defend that today in a treasure trove of religious ideas where various denominational traditions have secondary or subordinate authority. Try talking to the Anglicans without dealing with the Thirty-Nine Articles. Try a discussion with Reformed or Presbyterians without the Westminster Confession of Faith. What about a discussion of theology with Eastern-Orthodox without the Nicene Creed. All of these denominational groups have subordinate standards that at times seem to approach authoritative status.

Oz

 

[Albion]

I agree, but we have to defend that today in a treasure trove of religious ideas where various denominational traditions have secondary or subordinate authority. Try talking to the Anglicans without dealing with the Thirty-Nine Articles.

Doing THAT is as easy as pie!

It's a shame you didn't choose a different example to start your point off with.

 

[All4Christ]

Your last sentence is false that 'It is that Scripture isn't the only authority, and has never been considered as such, until relatively recent'.

I have investigated this and provided the evidence in my article: Is there no ‘Scripture alone’ in early church fathers?

What is your description of 'SS Christians'?

Oz

Oz - as we discussed earlier, your link does not address other writings from those same authors that clarify the meaning of the passages quotes in the article. I know from earlier discussions that you are very aware of the need to not pick and choose from scripture. However, based on my studies and the studies of many others who are much more experienced than me (there is no possible way for me to study 50 years at my current age) - it is easily apparent that those same writers have other passages which show that they do not consider scripture to be the ONLY authoritative source (though one could argue that scripture is the highest level of authority). If you would like to examine this passage by passage, we could do so in another thread.

Also, the belief structure the article opposes is not the same across all who disagree with Sola Scriptura. To have a comprehensive defense of Sola Scriptura - it is important to examine the alternative views of Scripture. Furthermore - the article seems to assume that those who do not believe in Sola Scriptura do not hold Scripture to be of the highest authority. Whether you agree or not, we thoroughly believe that the beliefs accepted by the church (not the beliefs of individuals) do not - cannot - contradict Scripture.

Many of the items the article disputes are not believed by my Tradition. I cannot speak for other Traditions though.

 

[Salem]

I agree, but we have to defend that today in a treasure trove of religious ideas where various denominational traditions have secondary or subordinate authority. Try talking to the Anglicans without dealing with the Thirty-Nine Articles. Try a discussion with Reformed or Presbyterians without the Westminster Confession of Faith. What about a discussion of theology with Eastern-Orthodox without the Nicene Creed. All of these denominational groups have subordinate standards that at times seem to approach authoritative status.

Oz

This has also been much my thinking of denominationalism, these verse coming to mind, 1 Corinthians 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Looking at what appears to be the bulk of what's posted in forums, you're seeing man's doctrines, not scripture, people divided by what amounts to people, with private interpretations, that have been elevated to a cult following. Many actually reject some of what's in scripture and don't even realize this, often not even knowing the man who created the doctrines they believe in. Many Protestants have no idea they're signed up to Augustine, for instance.