St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[fhansen]

Nice!

Christ hammers the traditions and doctrines of the one true nation church of his day - the one started by God Himself on Sinai - "sola scriptura".

And who will deem themselves the authentic interpreter of Scripture, since the doctrine of SS is obviously useless without such an authority seeing as it's adherents, such as yourselves and others, can't agree on many other doctrines which are said to stem from Scripture?

 

[BobRyan]

And who will deem themselves the authentic interpreter of Scripture, since the doctrine of SS is obviously useless without such an authority seeing as it's adherents, such as yourselves and others, can't agree on many other doctrines which are said to stem from Scripture?

on the contrary - we agree that the RCC doctrinal errors that contradict scripture include these errors:

1. prayers to the dead
2. Purgatory
3. The system of Indulgences
4. The "Doctrine of Discovery"
5. The infallabiliy of Papal and RCC church council statements on doctrine, and law governing Christians.
6. Claims to "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ"
7. Rejection of Sola Scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine
8. "powers" of the priests
9. Adding in apocryphal books as if they are scripture

...

And we agree that no Bible doctrine supports burning Protestants (or Catholics) alive at the stake.

We agree that there is no Bible support for Papal armies going to war against each other.

No Bible support for Christians to torture themselves.

No Bible support for the assumption of Mary, Mary being sinless, Mary being called "Mother of God" by even one Apostle or by all NT Christian before she died.

We agree that salvation is "by grace through faith" and even the RCC seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.

 

[thecolorsblend]

on the contrary - we agree that the RCC doctrinal errors that contradict scripture include these errors:

prayers to the dead

Based on what Scripture?

Purgatory

Based on what Scripture?

The system of Indulgences

Based on what Scripture?

The "Doctrine of Discovery"

Based on what Scripture?

The infallabiliy of Papal and RCC church council statements on doctrine, and law governing Christians.

Based on what Scripture?

Claims to "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ"

Based on what Scripture?

"powers" of the priests

Based on what Scripture?

Adding in apocryphal books as if they are scripture

How do you know those books aren't legitimate Sacred Scripture?

We agree that salvation is "by grace through faith" and even the RCC seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.

Um, back in 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation issued the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification where both sides agreed that justification is by grace through faith in Our Lord. If you read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, you'll notice the tell-tale absence of "faith alone" anywhere in there.

The Church has never wavered on the proposition that justification is by grace through faith and even the Lutheran World Federation seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.

 

[ivebeenshown]

In Is 8:20 "to the Law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word - there is no light in them" -- sola scriptura testing used even then.

In Luke 24 - -sola scriptura.

In Mark 7:6-13 sola scriptura testing

Sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition is NOT the claim that "no tradition exists". IT is also NOT the claim that "all tradition fails the sola scriptura test".

Your argument is of the form "if church leaders did anything outside of the Bible it is proof that sola scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine has failed". --

That is a straw man.

On the contrary, you have made a strawman of my argument. My argument is not of that form. It is of the form that Scripture cannot be known except by Tradition, therefore Scripture is not the only or 'most supreme' source of authoritative doctrine.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The failure of that argument can be seen in the NT text where Peter admits that Paul's letters are being accepted as inspired scripture - right there on the spot. No need to wait a few more centuries for the RCC to evolve into being and then to pass some sort of decree.

But why should we accept these letters which are supposed to have been authored by Peter as authentic almost two millennia later?

Even Jerome rejects the Catholic mandate for the Apocrypha - many centuries later than Peter is writing.

If Jerome is not in the Scriptures then why, supposing one embraced Sola Scriptura, would his opinion matter to that person?

 

[MoreCoffee]

It is true that the Catholic "tradition" of including the apocrypha as if it were OT scripture is rejected by both Jews and Christians who are not Catholic -

Yes, Muslims reject holy scripture too so when you tell me that Jews do I am not surprised but when you say that Christians do it is shocking. Imagine, following Judaism after 1,500 years of following Christ, what a shame.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Yes, Muslims reject holy scripture too so when you tell me that Jews do I am not surprised but when you say that Christians do it is shocking. Imagine, following Judaism after 1,500 years of following Christ, what a shame.

Of course, one very pertinent aspect of our friend's post there is that the inclusion of those writings in the canon of Scripture recognized by Catholics is part of Catholic tradition. Likewise, the refusal of those writings by Judaism and Protestantism is part of their tradition.

So then, why the appeal to tradition rather than Scripture?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, Muslims reject holy scripture too

And like the RCC neither the muslims nor the RCC were around before Christ to write the Hebrew scriptures.

Which is why it is more significant that the Jews and Christians as we see in the case of Protestants have the same Hebrew OT.

 

[BobRyan]

But why should we accept these letters which are supposed to have been authored by Peter as authentic almost two millennia later?

If Jerome is not in the Scriptures then why, supposing one embraced Sola Scriptura, would his opinion matter to that person?

Since the Catholic "Vulgate" was written by Jerome - and he himself says the Catholics are wrong to insist on apocryphal inserts into the Hebrew OT canon - his view is that of a scholar going against the bias and schemes of his day - rather than simply drifting along with the crowd.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Of course, one very pertinent aspect of our friend's post there is that the inclusion of those writings in the canon of Scripture recognized by Catholics is part of Catholic tradition. Likewise, the refusal of those writings by Judaism and Protestantism is part of their tradition.

So then, why the appeal to tradition rather than Scripture?

There's also the acceptance of 27 books that Judaism rejects. The New testament is a Catholic tradition not a Jewish one. It would be difficult to be a Christian without the new testament.

 

[BobRyan]

ivebeenshown said: ↑
I am asking how one should know what constitutes Scripture in order to use it as any sort of rule or measure.

In Is 8:20 "to the Law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word - there is no light in them" -- sola scriptura testing used even then.

In Luke 24 - -sola scriptura.
In Mark 7:6-13 sola scriptura testing

Sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition is NOT the claim that "no tradition exists". IT is also NOT the claim that "all tradition fails the sola scriptura test".

Your argument is of the form "if church leaders did anything outside of the Bible it is proof that sola scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine has failed". --

That is a straw man.

Notice the point -

"Your argument is of the form 'if church leaders did anything outside of the Bible it is proof that sola scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine has failed'. -- That is a straw man."

On the contrary, you have made a strawman of my argument. My argument is not of that form. It is of the form that Scripture cannot be known except by Tradition, therefore Scripture is not the only or 'most supreme' source of authoritative doctrine.

An argument that fell flat in the first century as Peter himself admits that the church was already accepting the writing of Paul as scripture - and not waiting for 3 or 4 centuries - until some other group made a decision about it.

 

[BobRyan]

MoreCoffee said: ↑
Yes, Muslims reject holy scripture too

And like the RCC neither the muslims nor the RCC were around before Christ to write the Hebrew scriptures.

Which is why it is more significant that the Jews and Christians as we see in the case of Protestants have the same Hebrew OT.

There's also the acceptance of 27 books that Judaism rejects. The New testament is a Catholic tradition not a Jewish one. It would be difficult to be a Christian without the new testament.

Sadly the equivocation above does not work - the Jews were tasked with compiling the Hebrew OT text not the NT text. Our discussion is not about differences in the NT canon - but rather what the Jews did - the Hebrew OT canon.

The Catholics and Muslims were not in charge of the OT text -- they did not even exist at that time.

obviously.

And as Peter points out in the NT - the NT letters were already being accepted as scripture centuries before any Catholic organization arose to "recognize them"

 

[BobRyan]

fhansen said: ↑
And who will deem themselves the authentic interpreter of Scripture, since the doctrine of SS is obviously useless without such an authority seeing as it's adherents, such as yourselves and others, can't agree on many other doctrines which are said to stem from Scripture?

on the contrary - we agree that the RCC doctrinal errors that contradict scripture include these errors:

1. prayers to the dead
2. Purgatory
3. The system of Indulgences
4. The "Doctrine of Discovery"
5. The infallabiliy of Papal and RCC church council statements on doctrine, and law governing Christians.
6. Claims to "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ"
7. Rejection of Sola Scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine
8. "powers" of the priests
9. Adding in apocryphal books as if they are scripture

...

And we agree that no Bible doctrine supports burning Protestants (or Catholics) alive at the stake.

We agree that there is no Bible support for Papal armies going to war against each other.

No Bible support for Christians to torture themselves.

No Bible support for the assumption of Mary, Mary being sinless, Mary being called "Mother of God" by even one Apostle or by all NT Christian before she died.

We agree that salvation is "by grace through faith" and even the RCC seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.

Based on what Scripture?

Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
How do you know those books aren't legitimate Sacred Scripture?

Um, back in 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation issued the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification where both sides agreed that justification is by grace through faith in Our Lord. If you read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, you'll notice the tell-tale absence of "faith alone" anywhere in there.

The Church has never wavered on the proposition that justification is by grace through faith and even the Lutheran World Federation seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.

The initial question above was about the issue of non-Catholic churches following the Bible yet having no agreement. I simply show that they do have a great deal of agreement. And of course all of them based on the "sola scriptura" test. As for which scriptures show a given error to be -- error... well that would take up a lot of this thread. But we could take them one-by-one on their own dedicate thread if you like.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Um, back in 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation issued the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification where both sides agreed that justification is by grace through faith in Our Lord. If you read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, you'll notice the tell-tale absence of "faith alone" anywhere in there.

The Church has never wavered on the proposition that justification is by grace through faith and even the Lutheran World Federation seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.

The LWF claims this doctrinal statement.

DOCTRINAL BASIS

The Lutheran World Federation confesses the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the only source and norm of its doctrine, life and service. It sees in the three Ecumenical Creeds and in the Confessions of the Lutheran Church, especially in the unaltered Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism of Martin Luther, a pure exposition of the Word of God.

========================

Agreement


From: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html


JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church

3. The Common Understanding of Justification

14.The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church have together listened to the good news proclaimed in Holy Scripture. This common listening, together with the theological conversations of recent years, has led to a shared understanding of justification. This encompasses a consensus in the basic truths; the differing explications in particular statements are compatible with it.

15.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.[11]

...

-"The strict emphasis on the passivity of human beings concerning their justification never meant, on the Lutheran side, to contest the full personal participation in believing; rather it meant to exclude any cooperation in the event of justification itself. Justification is the work of Christ alone, the work of grace alone" (VELKD 84,3-8)

 

[fhansen]

The LWF claims this doctrinal statement.

DOCTRINAL BASIS

The Lutheran World Federation confesses the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the only source and norm of its doctrine, life and service. It sees in the three Ecumenical Creeds and in the Confessions of the Lutheran Church, especially in the unaltered Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism of Martin Luther, a pure exposition of the Word of God.

========================

Agreement


From: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html


JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church

3. The Common Understanding of Justification

14.The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church have together listened to the good news proclaimed in Holy Scripture. This common listening, together with the theological conversations of recent years, has led to a shared understanding of justification. This encompasses a consensus in the basic truths; the differing explications in particular statements are compatible with it.

15.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.[11]

...

-"The strict emphasis on the passivity of human beings concerning their justification never meant, on the Lutheran side, to contest the full personal participation in believing; rather it meant to exclude any cooperation in the event of justification itself. Justification is the work of Christ alone, the work of grace alone" (VELKD 84,3-8)

Catholicism has always taught that man is saved by grace alone, not faith alone-unless one wishes to qualify or redefine "faith".

 

[ivebeenshown]

An argument that fell flat in the first century as Peter himself admits that the church was already accepting the writing of Paul as scripture - and not waiting for 3 or 4 centuries - until some other group made a decision about it.

I have not said that the decree needed to be made 3 or 4 centuries after the writing were completed. I view those 'decrees' as a sort of formal confirmation of what the Church already knew. The problem with the argument you make here is that, to a non-Christian in the process of converting to Christianity, and who did not know Peter and did not know the deliverer of the letter, the new convert would have to trust the tradition maintained by those already converted Christians, that the letter or letters were indeed authored by Peter and that they were indeed to be considered inspired Scripture.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Since the Catholic "Vulgate" was written by Jerome - and he himself says the Catholics are wrong to insist on apocryphal inserts into the Hebrew OT canon - his view is that of a scholar going against the bias and schemes of his day - rather than simply drifting along with the crowd.

But why should I accept his opinion, if his opinion is not recorded in Scripture? Where is the Scriptural 'measure' against which I can measure those writings for myself?

 

[BobRyan]

I have not said that the decree needed to be made 3 or 4 centuries after the writing were completed. I view those 'decrees' as a sort of formal confirmation of what the Church already knew. The problem with the argument you make here is that, to a non-Christian in the process of converting to Christianity, and who did not know Peter and did not know the deliverer of the letter, the new convert would have to trust the tradition maintained by those already converted Christians, that the letter or letters were indeed authored by Peter and that they were indeed to be considered inspired Scripture.

I have no problem with that.

the Bible teaching on "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition as we see it in Isaiah 8:19, Mark 7:6-13, Acts 17:11 does not say "and there is no such thing as doctrine and tradition" nor does it say "scripture shows all doctrine and tradition to be in error".

I think both sides can see that point.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Since the Catholic "Vulgate" was written by Jerome - and he himself says the Catholics are wrong to insist on apocryphal inserts into the Hebrew OT canon - his view is that of a scholar going against the bias and schemes of his day - rather than simply drifting along with the crowd.

But why should I accept his opinion, if his opinion is not recorded in Scripture? Where is the Scriptural 'measure' against which I can measure those writings for myself?

In the details you are skimming over - the text says that in the NT times - even before the first gospel letter was written - they had the well accepted concept "in all of scripture" and "the scriptures"

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

And we know that they had a canon of scripture at that time that was static/canonized for 400 years thus the term "in all the scriptures" had -- "meaning".

The RCC comes along centuries later trying to add apocryphal books to the OT and is too late to make the change.

 

[Rick Otto]

It is true that the Catholic "tradition" of including the apocrypha as if it were OT scripture is rejected by both Jews and Christians who are not Catholic -

They claim to be catholic and they aren't. They claim to have a corner on the Canon, and they don't. At some point a person is forced to decide how much of the duplicity is conscionable.