Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[YahuahSaves]

Ideally - everyone "Should" be saying "the denomination I belong to has the most correct doctrine of all denominations"

That's the problem though, the traditions of men took over. The "church" (the body of Christ) are the born-again believers, worshipping God in Spirit and Truth, not any particular denomination. It's something God builds, not man, for His plan and purpose.

 

[JAL]

Acts 17:11 shows how some NT saints were using sola-scriptura to avoid false doctrine. "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF" those things spoken to them by the apostle Paul "were SO"

Sheer assertion. Jesus The Prophet had to face the doctrinal errors of three Sola Scriptura parties: the Pharisees, Sadducees, and teachers of the law. Paul was a Pharisee who was converted by a (subjective) vision/revelation on the Road to Damascus from Sola Scriptura to the primacy of Direct Revelation (prophecy). He never looked back. He quickly became a prophet who never again regressed back to the dark ages of Sola Scriptura. After all that, you seriously think he counseled his Berean converts to walk in Sola Scriptura? Really? Assuming the Bereans were wise, they did their best to study the Scriptures under the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation). Obviously the Bereans did not yet have as much Light as the prophet Paul, but surely they availed of what Light they had.

Mark 7:6-13 -- Christ demonstrates how the sola scriptura method is used to expose and refute the false doctrines that crept in via various tradition in His day.

Sheer assertion. Jesus understood the Scriptures better than His contemporaries in virtue of prophethood. Furthermore, His use of Scripture in a debate is not proof of a Sola-Scriptura mentality. Take me for example. I always use Scripture in debates but am certainly no advocate of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Darren Court]

We have a basic problem when it comes to doctrine....

On the one hand the bible makes it clear that we should all seek the truth, that early believers checked what they believe, that people who checked the veracity of messages were commended (Berean's), etc. In other words, correct doctrine should be the desire of every Christian and is really important to God and is, therefore, really important to us.

On the other, millions of people all of the world and throughout history, have seemingly searched for the truth on particularly doctrines, only to come to vastly different interpretations, understandings and conclusions.

That's a problem for all Christians that in the minds of many is solved with the "Well, that's because we're right and their wrong" argument. Unfortunately, this position is untenable else really dangerous because it precludes those making the claim from any doctrine errors. The argument that "We got more right" is really hard to justify if you believe God is on your side.... Why didn't you get it all right? Why did any of the others get any right?

I think the biggest problem is that followers have organised themselves into groups we called denominations based on the doctrine we agree with most, and I'm not sure that's what God ever wanted. Bear with me.

Things we know.....
1) If God wanted to He could ensure all believers believed the same thing... but He gave us freewill.
2) We find truth ONLY by being led... "He (the Holy Spirit) will guide you into all truth" and "no-one can call Him Lord except through the Holy Spirit"
3) God calls us to seek His will not our desire "...yet not my will but yours"
4) The truth is absolute, not changeable, not conflicting, etc.

These truths mean...
1) We can believe what we desire
2) We think we can find truth by our own cleverness
3) We're not interested if God wants us to know a particular truth, we just think we should have it.
4) We want to be right in our eyes but our views keep changing.

There's a fundamental question here that I think sums up the problem....
"Can I find the truth in a particular doctrine if God wants me to be doing something else?"

"In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2Co 2:4

Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Jo 9:39

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

"For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ". 2 Corinthians 4:6

I think these and many other bible verses point the answer to the fundamental question ....
"We will never find truth unless God wants us to find it, and definitely not if He wants us to focus something else!"

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for better bible understanding, I love it. What I'm saying is that I need to recognise that my actions in so doing maybe personal not at God's direction, and if so, I'm likely to end up thinking I'm right when I could be very wrong. How can I know this?

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight"
I think this verse is pretty self explanatory especially if you read slowly each phrase!
The one here that strikes to the heart of the matter though is "in all your ways submit to Him." In other words, if you're studying bible doctrine, submit to him and if He's telling you to move on, focus on something else, you're better of doing.

...because if EVERYONE was submitting to Him, and the Holy Spirit was guiding then there would be no differences in doctrine!

The irony is that this view, even though it's based on scripture, will be rejected by some because they want to assert that their church, their forebears, their process is infallible and, therefore, this notion that we cannot know truth lest it's revealed is nonsense. I believe it is something God revealed to me, in order to demonstrate everything I believe did not come from Him and much came from my own consideration and thought, and if that's true, it's truth I speak. Each person who reads this has to determine if it's fully true, partially true or not true at all for themselves.... and how they do that will come down to their relationship with God.

So I guess my simplistic answer in how to deal with false doctrine is....

Ask God if you should first of all, and if you should how you should.

 

[JAL]

It's a bit of a catch-22. We need the Light of the Holy Spirit to fix our doctrine, but He is unlikely to provide His presence because most leaders are broadcasting the lie that they already know for sure what the Scriptures teach. One cannot optimistically expect a mighty outpouring of the Spirit upon an intellectually dishonest church. And so in darkness we will remain until Jesus comes back.

 

[Darren Court]

It's a bit of a catch-22. We need the Light of the Holy Spirit to fix our doctrine, but He is unlikely to provide His presence because most leaders are broadcasting the lie that they already know for sure what the Scriptures teach. One cannot optimistically expect a mighty outpouring of the Spirit upon an intellectually dishonest church. And so in darkness we will remain until Jesus comes back.

Whilst I won't disagree with principle here, I will say this is not a simplistic or universal reality not least because to do so would mean I would be judging from my own intellect rather than the Spirit's guidance.

We are only responsible for the person we see in the mirror.

 

[Darren Court]

Sheer assertion. Jesus The Prophet had to face the doctrinal errors of three Sola Scriptura parties: the Pharisees, Sadducees, and teachers of the law. Paul was a Pharisee who was converted by a (subjective) vision/revelation on the Road to Damascus from Sola Scriptura to the primacy of Direct Revelation (prophecy). He never looked back. He quickly became a prophet who never again regressed back to the dark ages of Sola Scriptura. After all that, you seriously think he counseled his Berean converts to walk in Sola Scriptura? Really? Assuming the Bereans were wise, they did their best to study the Scriptures under the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation). Obviously the Bereans did not yet have as much Light as the prophet Paul, but surely they availed of what Light they had.

Interesting if seriously flawed contention that Paul operated from "sola scriptura" to "direct revelation"

Paul certainly operated from "sola scriptura" but he did so from misinterpretation as he missed the scriptures that pointed to Christ. His error wasn't that he operated from SS but rather that he operated from his own intellectual application of SS rather than be guided by the Holy Spirit. We can see this fact from not only the MANY times Paul directly quoted from the OT but also his firm conviction that we only need scripture to do all the works God has for us!

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2Ti 3:16-17.

So that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

If we are called to do the work God calls us to and scripture thoroughly equips us to do so, what more do we need to do God's work?

Bereans??? Luke commended the Bereans for testing Paul's words, the very words that would be written in God's "living and active" word. Why would that principle be endorsed by the Apostle Luke, if it's not something we all ought to do?

 

[YahuahSaves]

If we are called to do the work God calls us to and scripture thoroughly equips us to do so, what more do we need to do God's work?

The Holy Spirit's guidance .. just like the fruits of the Spirit is God's work in us, so it is also his work through  us.

Ephesians 2:10

10 For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.

 

[Darren Court]

The Holy Spirit's guidance .. just like the fruits of the Spirit is God's work in us, so it is also his work through  us.

Ephesians 2:10

10 For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.

Of course... we cannot find truth unless the Holy Spirit leads us to it... even in scripture!

 

[JAL]

Interesting if seriously flawed contention that Paul operated from "sola scriptura" to "direct revelation"
His error wasn't that he operated from SS but rather that he operated from his own intellectual application of SS rather than be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Um...That's exactly what I said. Guidance by the Holy Spirit is Direct Revelation. Prior to conversion Paul was all about Sola Scriptura resulting, of course, in doctrinal errors.

We can see this fact from not only the MANY times Paul directly quoted from the OT but also his firm conviction that we only need scripture to do all the works God has for us!

Again, citing Scripture in a treatise or debate is not proof of Sola Scriptura. I myself cite Scripture in all my debates.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the [man] of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2Ti 3:16-17.

If we are called to do the work God calls us to and scripture thoroughly equips us to do so, what more do we need to do God's work?

What we need is prophecy. Read that verse again. The expression "man of God" is an OT expression for a prophet. What Paul is saying is that, in the hands of a prophet, Scripture is a useful and productive pedagogical instrument. In the hands of a fallible Bible scholar (a Sola-Scriptura scholar), Scriptura is potentially a recipe for disaster.

That verse is from a letter written to the prophet Timothy - it wasn't written to the whole church. Joshua became a prophet under Moses' tutelage. Similarly, Timothy presumably became a prophet under Paul's tutelage.

Here's what Paul commanded the whole church - it certainly wasn't Sola Scriptura:

"Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1 Corinthians 14:1).

If we are called to do the work God calls us to and scripture thoroughly equips us to do so, what more [than Scripture] do we need to do God's work?

Oh I see. Paul had it wrong at 1 Cor 14:1. And 2000 years of endless doctrinal division have proven that Sola Scriptura succeeds brilliantly, correct?

Bereans??? Luke commended the Bereans for testing Paul's words, the very words that would be written in God's "living and active" word. Why would that principle be endorsed by the Apostle Luke, if it's not something we all ought to do?

(Sigh). Again. Sheer assertion. You have no proof that the Bereans sought to study the Scripture via scholarly exegesis alone and thus without the Light of the Holy Spirit (aka Direct Revelation).

 

[BobRyan]

Sheer assertion. Jesus The Prophet had to face the doctrinal errors of three Sola Scriptura parties: the Pharisees, Sadducees, and teachers of the law.

Jesus points out in Matt 22 and in Mark 7:6-13 that they were "sola tradition" parties when scripture refuted their preferences and "commandments of men" as Jesus called it. I don't see a good way to conflate that with the Act 17:11 statement for sola scriptura testing of Paul's teaching being affirmed by Luke.

Paul was a Pharisee who was converted by a (subjective) vision/revelation on the Road to Damascus from Sola Scriptura to the primacy of Direct Revelation (prophecy). He never looked back. He quickly became a prophet who never again regressed back to the dark ages of Sola Scriptura.

Paul was singularly "sola scriptura" as we see in Heb 3 as he quotes the OT saying "The Holy Spirit says" to make his case and in Eph 6:1-2 he quotes from the OT --- THE TEN COMM to make his point rather than just 'Hey I have an idea -- I say this".

After all that, you seriously think he counseled his Berean converts to walk in Sola Scriptura?

They were affirmed and approved "these were more NOBLE minded than those in Thessalonica because they STUDIED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul WERE SO" when the OTHER option was "listen to your religious leaders who already condemned Paul".

Again - I don't see how this is confusing in the least.

Sheer assertion. Jesus understood the Scriptures better than His contemporaries in virtue of prophethood.

None of Jesus' enemies took the position "you are a true prophet from God so all your views are correct". It is nonsensical to suggest that this is how their discussions went. Jesus uses irrefutable sola scriptura arguments in both Matt 22 and in Mark 7 to slam hammer the traditions of the leadership of the One True Nation-Church started by God at Sinai - and does it "sola scriptura" which is how we are to do it.

Furthermore, His use of Scripture in a debate is not proof of a Sola-Scriptura

IT is the demonstration of "how it is done" and shows its effectiveness when debating a hostile audience. Allowing more neutral unbiased observers to "get the point" easily. Pretty much how the Protesting Catholics also did it in the Protestant Reformation.

Take me for example. I always use Scripture in debates but am certainly no advocate of Sola Scriptura.

You seem to suggest that "Sola Scriptura" means "Ignore the author of scripture- the Holy Spirit - try not to have any application of scripture inspired/guided by the Holy Spirit" which is a false dichotomy in my POV. It is not found anywhere in scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Ideally - everyone "Should" be saying "the denomination I belong to has the most correct doctrine of all denominations"

That's the problem though, the traditions of men took over.

True. And we see how that is "Fixed" -- in Mark 7:6-13 and Matt 22 - where Christ shows that man-made traditions and ignorance about Bible teaching among church leaders is addressed "sola scriptura". Notice that in His case it results in many converted to Christianity but also results in the Jews excommunicating the Christians.

The "church" (the body if Christ) are the born-again believers, worshipping God in Spirit and Truth

True - but their guide is scripture - the Word of God. And as you noted - all groups will have Christians claiming that same lead-by-God experience even though they hold to views strongly opposed by those in other groups.

At most ONE group is 100% doctrinally correct. At worst --- none are.

 

[YahuahSaves]

True - but their guide is scripture - the Word of God. And as you noted - all groups will have Christians claiming that same lead-by-God experience even though they hold to views strongly opposed by those in other groups.

I have found many people can't (or won't) take the entire bible as God's Word... often cherry-picking to suit their own preconceived notions about God's love or God's judgement, particularly surrounding obedience and salvation. Sometimes the bible can seem contradictory in parts, but in context, taken all-together, it's really not as complicated as we humans make it...

Why would God make something so complicated if his intention was to save us? He made the foolish things wise, and we are to come to him "as little children". Do you think many people do? Or do we tend to lean on our own understanding?

 

[Darren Court]

Again, citing Scripture in a treatise or debate is not proof of Sola Scriptura. I myself cite Scripture in all my debates.

I wasn't quoting Paul's use of scripture in support of SS rather demonstrating that Paul Himself quoted scripture with no reference to "direct revelation" to set Paul's use of scripture in context.

What we need is prophecy. Read that verse again. The expression "man of God" is an OT expression for a prophet. What Paul is saying is that, in the hands of a prophet, Scripture is a useful and productive pedagogical instrument. In the hands of a fallible Bible scholar (a Sola-Scriptura scholar), Scriptura is potentially a recipe for disaster.

That verse is from a letter written to the prophet Timothy - it wasn't written to the whole church. Joshua became a prophet under Moses' tutelage. Similarly, Timothy presumably became a prophet under Paul's tutelage.

Here's what Paul commanded the whole church - it certainly wasn't Sola Scriptura:

"Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1 Corinthians 14:1).

Firstly, the NT term "man of God" is not found anywhere in the OT.... nowhere! The NT says here "theos anthrōpos" and the conjecture that this is the same as the OT term "ish Elohim" is just that, conjecture. In fact, the term "man of God" is only found in Timothy in the NT

Secondly, there is nothing scripture that even hints that Timothy was a prophet and if he wasn't a prophet then this negates your inferred constriction that the instruction regarding scripture here is confined to prophets. The problem in this regard doesn't stop here. If indeed 1Ti was written just for prophets, then for 1,000+years the historical record of this being understood and applied as such is woefully absent. It seems nobody actually believed that then.

Thirdly, the definition and reality of prophecy in the OT and NT is vastly different. In the OT, a prophet was chosen and directed by the Lord, whilst in the NT we are urged to seek the gift of prophesy!

Fourthly, to argue this letter was written simply to Timothy and, therefore, only applies to prophets is clearly contrary to much of the instruction and teaching of most of the letters to Timothy. In the absence of clear indication within the text itself, either all Timothy applies to all of us, or none of use save prophets. You might like to try to argue the term "man of God" is the designation here that limits the instruction but then you'd have to argue that the whole of 1Ti 6 only applies to prophets, because prior to v11 the implication is instruction to the "man of God" and post v11 is definitely for the "man of God". To ensure we didn't make that mistake, Paul shows he does not intend this to be just for prophets and that many others will read it, as he ends with "Grace be with you ALL"
.
Fifthly, read the whole verse! "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." I can no reference or historical precedence for prophecy being called "good work". There is prophecy and work but they are not the same and they are interchangeable. Thus scripture equips the "man or servant of God" for good work not prophecy... and this verse is weird if it's written to an trainee prophet. Moreover, where is there any example of how scripture was used to train prophets in teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness? None of the OT prophets were directed in this way nor did they teach it.

Thus trying to constrain this verse just to Timothy and prophets not only doesn't fit the context of the whole letter but has no scriptural support that should be evident if it was only for prophets!

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.Oh I see. Paul had it wrong at 1 Cor 14:1. And 2000 years of endless doctrinal division have proven that Sola Scriptura succeeds brilliantly, correct?

It's sad when someone tries to resort to the "we're better than you argument" as some kind of evidence of being better. I could resort that 2,000 years of "sola ecclessia" hasn't exactly fared well because it hasn't even produced unity amongst those who believe in it, but then it's likely you'd try to jump to the defense and it would get silly.

Look, the bible is perfect. It is God's "living and active" word but that doesn't mean that men who read it aren't without fault... so how does men with sin reading the bible and squabbling means SS can't be true?

Here's what Paul commanded the whole church - it certainly wasn't Sola Scriptura:

"Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1 Corinthians 14:1).

If that's the scripture you use to contend that Paul didn't teach SS then you've connected two dots that aren't connected.

How does Paul convey the idea that scripture is not our ultimate authority by talking about gifts and direct instruction to act in love? It's like saying "Rubber tyres are good for the road and therefore Paul wasn't endorsing petrol engines"!!

 

[JAL]

Jesus points out in Matt 22 and in Mark 7:6-13 that they were "sola tradition" parties when scripture refuted their preferences and "commandments of men" as Jesus called it. I don't see a good way to conflate that with the Act 17:11 statement for sola scriptura testing of Paul's teaching being affirmed by Luke.

These traditions were doctrinal errors evolved from scholarly analysis of the Scriptures (Sola Scritpura). Same problem exists in the chuch today.

Take a look at any modern church government. Is it even found in Scripture? No. It's sheer tradition. The only type of church government clearly identified in Scripture is headed by apostles and prophets.

Paul was singularly "sola scriptura" as we see in Heb 3 as he quotes the OT saying "The Holy Spirit says" to make his case and in Eph 6:1-2 he quotes from the OT --- THE TEN COMM to make his point rather than just 'Hey I have an idea -- I say this".

Again, the citation of a verse isn't proof of Sola Scriptura.

They were affirmed and approved "these were more NOBLE minded than those in Thessalonica because they STUDIED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul WERE SO" when the OTHER option was "listen to your religious leaders who already condemned Paul".

Again - I don't see how this is confusing in the least.

Again, the citation of a verse isn't proof of Sola Scriptura.

None of Jesus' enemies took the position "you are a true prophet from God so all your views are correct". It is nonsensical to suggest that this is how their discussions went.

Strawman. Earlier I warned that you should be asking the question, When can I trust a prophet or prophecy? Instead of asking that question, it's much easier to fixate on strawmen, isn't it?

Jesus uses irrefutable sola scriptura arguments in both Matt 22 and in Mark 7 to slam hammer the traditions of the leadership of the One True Nation-Church started by God at Sinai - and does it "sola scriptura" which is how we are to do it.

Again, the citation of a verse isn't proof of Sola Scriptura.

You seem to suggest that "Sola Scriptura" means "Ignore the author of scripture- the Holy Spirit - try not to have any application of scripture inspired/guided by the Holy Spirit" which is a false dichotomy in my POV. It is not found anywhere in scripture.

I haven't made a false dichotomy. You're just not grasping my dichotomy as yet. Let me clarify.

Sola Scriptura is the claim:
....that a voice, vision, or spirit is never authoritative/self-authenticating in itself (contrary to Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus).
....and therefore must be corroborated by a scholarly analysis of Scripture, one must demonstratively prove that it concurs with Scripture.

This attitude diminishes the church's zeal for pursuing the Voice (Direct Revelation). Why waste time seeking voices that I can't even trust? Why not just proceed directly to the (inevitable) scholarly analysis?

Over time, Sola Scriptura steadily increases the number of divisions in the church, because scholars daily produce and consider fresh interpretations of Scripture.

Did Jesus intend to build His church on scholarly analysis? Was He a seminary graduate? Did he command His disciples to attend seminary?

You seem to suggest that "Sola Scriptura" means "Ignore the author of scripture- the Holy Spirit - try not to have any application of scripture inspired/guided by the Holy Spirit" which is a false dichotomy in my POV. It is not found anywhere in scripture.

All Sola Scriptura proponents pay lip service to the need for the Holy Spirit. In practice this actually amounts to nothing, because they have no real drive to zealously and wholeheartedly seek Direct Revelation - many of them don't even believe in it. They consider it satisfactory, nay, even obligatory to base their doctrines on exegesis. "I've studied my Bible, so don't try to tell me that my doctrines might be mistaken."

 

[Darren Court]

Sheer assertion. Jesus The Prophet had to face the doctrinal errors of three Sola Scriptura parties: the Pharisees, Sadducees, and teachers of the law.

The problem here is that you have little understanding of who Jesus was... and seemingly because you read the scriptures from a modern Greco-Roman understanding rather than from a Jewish lens. Jesus was Jewish! He was born a Jew, learnt as a Jew, lived as a Jew, spoke mainly to Jewish people in their Jewish culture and died as a Jew. If you don't understand the Jewish lens, you don't understand the real Jesus.

This is important because the people recognized and referred to Jesus as a Pharisee and Jesus accepted this. He even sided with the Pharisees in their conflicts with Sadducee's, Essene's and Temple leaders in their interpretation of scripture. "So you must be careful to do everything they tell you."

Not once did Jesus criticise the Pharisees for their teaching... but often criticised their failure to apply and live out their own teaching!

Sheer assertion. Jesus understood the Scriptures better than His contemporaries in virtue of prophethood. Furthermore, His use of Scripture in a debate is not proof of a Sola-Scriptura mentality. Take me for example. I always use Scripture in debates but am certainly no advocate of Sola Scriptura.

Interesting point but somewhat flawed.

If all you ever did in scripture discussions is call upon the authority of scripture then you would be an advocate of SS even if you didn't think you were. In Jesus case didn't He always appeal to scripture even if it was only to clarify the Jewish misunderstanding?

 

[BobRyan]

Again, the citation of a verse isn't proof of Sola Scriptura.

Again, the citation of a verse isn't proof of Sola Scriptura.

Again, the citation of a verse isn't proof of Sola Scriptura.

If each time a verse that refutes your suggestion is quoted - you dismiss it (instead of addressing it) - then you could always end up with "so then no verse refutes my POV". I don't see how that is a compelling solution.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
You seem to suggest that "Sola Scriptura" means "Ignore the author of scripture- the Holy Spirit - try not to have any application of scripture inspired/guided by the Holy Spirit" which is a false dichotomy in my POV. It is not found anywhere in scripture.

I haven't made a false dichotomy. You're just not grasping my dichotomy as yet. Let me clarify.

Sola Scriptura is the claim:
....that a voice, vision, or spirit is never authoritative/self-authenticating in itself (contrary to Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus).
....and therefore must be corroborated by a scholarly analysis of Scripture,

On the contrary -

In the sola scriptura examples given
Acts 17:11
Matt 22
Mark 7:6-13

There is NO appeal to some outside third party scholar -- rather the sola scriptura solution is made point blank right to the teachers of false doctrine to the point that in Matt 22 even the life long opponents of the Sadducees see that the Sadducees were "put to silence" having no answer to the point.

 

[rockytopva]

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

Applied to our Christian life...

Natural E/c2 - A healthy body
Mental E/c2 - A sound mind
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

There are many whose religion is in the mind only. They have no proper motivation, warmth, love, faith, hope, charity, or joy. And to make matters worse there are many who have the...

Ego of Man - Spiritually a cold and hateful spirit

confused with the...

Unction of the Holy Spirit - Which is accompanied with a warmth and a love.

Which is why I am not an Adventist.

 

[Darren Court]

Sola Scriptura is the claim:
....that a voice, vision, or spirit is never authoritative/self-authenticating in itself (contrary to Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus).
....and therefore must be corroborated by a scholarly analysis of Scripture, one must demonstratively prove that it concurs with Scripture.

No that's your misunderstanding of SS. SS claim is that scripture is our ultimate authority. In other words, nothing can contradict scripture and scripture is our ultimate reference.

The problem here is that high church people like to dismiss "Sola Scriptura" in favour of "Sola Ecclessia" but then reject "Sole Ecclessia" too. This is because they want to claim three co-equal authorities of church, tradition and scripture when the reality is that their ultimate authority is the church!

Who decides which traditions are Godly and which aren't? THE CHURCH - The Church is over tradition
Who decide what scripture means and doesn't mean? THE CHURCH. - The church is over scripture

In other words, to high church people, the church is the ultimate authority which is what "Sola Ecclessia" means.
In like manner, those who subscribe to "Sola Scriptura" do believe in understanding church tradition and in following church authority, provided that it does not conflict with understanding of scripture. Scripture is the ultimate authority.

The irony is that in the end both systems end up agreeing - yes agreeing!

You see, when you ask a high church person how the church can be infallible in interpreting scripture and applying church tradition, they have to accept that it's through the direction of the Holy Spirit. The problem being that the church has got things wrong over years and had to change/adapt teaching and understanding as a result... which at the very least means the church isn't always listening to the Holy Spirit.

Conversely, if you ask "Sola Scriptura" person how they can be sure of the interpretation of scripture, they have to concede it is through the Holy Spirit... with the problem being that so many get different interpretations, they can't all be the Holy Spirit. In other words many aren't listening to the Holy Spirit.

In other words, both sides of this argument rely upon the same thing, the Holy Spirit to claim they're right... and that's ironic.

 

[JAL]

I wasn't quoting Paul's use of scripture in support of SS rather demonstrating that Paul Himself quoted scripture with no reference to "direct revelation" to set Paul's use of scripture in context.

Again. Citing Scripture isn't proof of a Sola Scriptura mentality.

Firstly, the NT term "man of God" is not found anywhere in the OT.... nowhere!

Wikipedia, at least, would beg to differ:

Man of God - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Your scholarly analysis seems to be in error. Gee what a surprise! Do you think maybe - just maybe - God was smart enough to prefer His own infallible Voice (Direct Revelation) over fallible scholarship?

The NT says here "theos anthrōpos" and the conjecture that this is the same as the OT term "ish Elohim" is just that, conjecture. In fact, the term "man of God" is only found in Timothy in the NT

See above.

Secondly, there is nothing scripture that even hints that Timothy was a prophet and if he wasn't a prophet then this negates your inferred constriction that the instruction regarding scripture here is confined to prophets.

Nothing negated. Fact: the epistle was written to Timothy, not to the whole church.

Fact: the verse doesn't teach Sola Scriptura, not even to Timothy. All it says is that Scripture is profitable. It doesn't say sufficient.

The problem in this regard doesn't stop here. If indeed 1Ti was written just for prophets, then for 1,000+years the historical record of this being understood and applied as such is woefully absent. It seems nobody actually believed that then.

I'm not following your logic here. You're saying that I need historical evidence that the church read that verse my way? Yet it's precisely my claim that the church has misread a number of verses.

Actually I first heard the "man of God" argument from a Roman Catholic who was challenging Sola Scriptura. The Geneva Bible comments that "man of God" means:

, "The Prophets and expounders of God's will are properly and distinctly called, men of God.

Thirdly, the definition and reality of prophecy in the OT and NT is vastly different. In the OT, a prophet was chosen and directed by the Lord, whilst in the NT we are urged to seek the gift of prophesy!

An assertion that seems to fly in the face of the available data. The Hebrew word for prophet translates directly to the Greek term. That's continuity, not discontinuity.

You seem to be making errors in your scholarly analysis. That's to be expected, right?

Fourthly, to argue this letter was written simply to Timothy and, therefore, only applies to prophets is clearly contrary to much of the instruction and teaching of most of the letters to Timothy. In the absence of clear indication within the text itself, either all Timothy applies to all of us, or none of us save prophets.

False dichotomy. Anyway I'm simply pointing out that 2 Tim 3:16-17 provides no solid ground for Sola Scriptura because it can easily be understood as an application to prophets.

You might like to try to argue the term "man of God" is the designation here that limits the instruction but then you'd have to argue that the whole of 1Ti 6 only applies to prophets, because prior to v11 the implication is instruction to the "man of God" and post v11 is definitely for the "man of God".

False dichotomy/dilemma. I don't have to prove that all of Timothy is only for prophets. I merely need to show that, for purposes of this debate, that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not solid ground for SS.

To ensure we didn't make that mistake, Paul shows he does not intend this to be just for prophets and that many others will read it, as he ends with "Grace be with you ALL"

You're referring to the closing salutations to multiple people? Obviously that's not enough to go on.

It's sad when someone tries to resort to the "we're better than you argument" as some kind of evidence of being better. I could resort that 2,000 years of "sola ecclessia" hasn't exactly fared well because it hasn't even produced unity amongst those who believe in it, but then it's likely you'd try to jump to the defense and it would get silly.

I have no idea what you just said.

Look, the bible is perfect. It is God's "living and active" word but that doesn't mean that men who read it aren't without fault... so how does men with sin reading the bible and squabbling means SS can't be true?

SS can't be true because it is inherently a logical contradiction. I'm debating whether I care to spend the time to demonstrate it here.

If [1 Cor 14:1] is the scripture you use to contend that Paul didn't teach SS then you've connected two dots that aren't connected.

Dots not connected? Prophecy is an authority of itself. If that weren't true, Moses couldn't have written any Scriptures. He would have had to say, "I can't write down what these prophetic voices/visions are telling me because I first need to do a scholarly analysis of Scripture to corroborate them." Oh wait. Since there was no scripture at that time, prophecy must be authoritative/self-authenticating. I almost forgot.