St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

BobRyan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Alright, well I would agree that Tradition must not contradict Scripture, but I would not agree that all tradition must be present in Scripture, and I would assert that when there is a dispute about the interpretation of Scripture, Tradition should settle that dispute just as Tradition declares the canon of Scripture in the first place.

later- the edit function isn't working right

BobRyan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Except the Septuagint included those writings, which is especially pertinent when Paul was preaching to the Gentiles of that area. So where in the Scriptures does it say that "the Scriptures" does not include those writings?

BobRyan said:

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.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

-"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)

Click to expand...

So in other words you agree with me, the joint statement does not say "by faith alone". Good to know.

thecolorsblend said:

So in other words you agree with me, the joint statement does not say "by faith alone". Good to know.

Click to expand...

We are children of the promise represented by Isaac in Galatians 4:24-28 There we see Sarah as Grace and Hagar as law. Christians are from both Sarah and Abraham. Not from Hagar and Abraham. Abraham represents faith. Hebrews 11:8-10. So those other children of Abraham are children of faith but not of grace. Those of both Abraham and Sarah ( Christians) are children of the Promise which is from both faith and grace,.

ivebeenshown said:

Except the Septuagint included those writings, which is especially pertinent when Paul was preaching to the Gentiles of that area. So where in the Scriptures does it say that "the Scriptures" does not include those writings?

Click to expand...

Why does scripture need to tell us of every historic fact in all of history??

Why is that a criteria for "Sola scriptura"??

ivebeenshown said: ↑
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.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

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.

Click to expand...

ivebeenshown said:

Alright, well I would agree that Tradition must not contradict Scripture, but I would not agree that all tradition must be present in Scripture, and I would assert that when there is a dispute about the interpretation of Scripture, Tradition should settle that dispute just as Tradition declares the canon of Scripture in the first place.

Click to expand...

Mark 7:6-13 is a great example of how the testing of all tradition and doctrine works. Christ does not say "you are in error because your tradition is not also found in scripture" he says they are in error because their tradition contradicts scripture AND because they commandments of men - as doctrine.



Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

I never saw the big deal concerning the washing of pots and cups to be honest, not that I have that sort of tradition its just that I would have considered that a very small thing (to be overlooked) or something that doesnt necessarily violate anything.

What am I missing on that point?

The problem that Christ presented them with - was one where they were infringing ever so slightly on one of the Ten Commandments with the "CORBAN" rule - but later in Mark 7 he points out that "pot washing problem".

Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2 Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”...

14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”

17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

The subject was "sin" -- "Evil" - the washing was ceremonial - "baptismo" - they were dipping in water to remove sin that may have been encountered in the market place. Same with the pots.

Of course we know that poison, bacteria etc can get on your hands or on the pots and kill you or bring sickness ... but that was not the issue. Christ was addressing the man-made tradition/fiction that "sin" was a substance you could get from the market place (for example) coming in contact with gentiles - and so you needed to baptize the utensils, your fingers - cleanse them from sin or else sin would get in you - from what you ate ... and you would be guilty of the sins Jesus lists. He says that is all mere "fluff" -- mere man made commands being taught 'as doctrine'.

I just wasn't getting the big deal with the pots, and I thought, if I would raise such a small thing (even as I might regard it) I would be considered petty. Besides I didnt see anything against any commandment doing so but then again there were diverse carnal ordinances and divers of washings which applied, and just on that point it would irk me because I couldn't say I was sure.

You have given me something to consider thank you

The Pharisees scrupulously obeyed every single part of the Mosaic Law. Then they invented new rules to prevent themselves from even breaking the God-ordained rules. Then they insisted that everybody had to obey their rules. Through every step of the process, they were not allowing their hearts to be transformed. They were simply creating rules which everybody had to follow to the letter but they never allowed themselves to see the intent behind the Mosaic Law.

These were not doctrines that they were teaching. They were more similar to liturgical practices and/or devotional exercises. They were not even remotely close to Sacred Tradition.

In order for the practices and teachings of the Catholic Church to be even partly similar to what the Pharisees did, the Church would have to oblige all her members to do something extreme such such as praying for five hours every day, for example. There's nothing wrong with praying for five hours every day. But as believers we don't have the right to impose our definition of piety onto other Christians.

I haven't read a single post in this thread from non-traditional Christians in this thread to give me the idea they even understand what Sacred Tradition even is. Because if they did, the last thing they'd want to do is compare it to Pharisaical tradition because they truly are apples and oranges. You guys are seizing upon the word "tradition" in Sacred Scripture and then begin assuming things about Sacred Tradition which simply are not true.

Pharisaical tradition deals with liturgical practices and religious observances. Sacred Tradition is, among other things, a body of knowledge. The two have absolutely positively nothing to do with each other and are in no way comparable to one another.

Looks like they violated what was written, what they say and what Moses says differs



Paul was a former Pharisee, more exceeding zealous for the traditions of his fathers and quotes the same verse to honor ones parents but to the contrary of those above Paul makes more room through what has been handed down to us for doing ought for our own parents



I keep adding to this one.

Okay, I will restate my view.

It is always discouraging to encounter a post that is thick with blue, red, bold, and underlined text attached to more than 50% of the words in the post because such typographical decorations make reading the post very difficult. What adds to the difficulty is that each verse is treated as if it were a separate paragraph and a quote that need take no more than a few lines when displayed without the decorations and paragraphing become two or three screens worth of sparse text through which one is forced to scroll in order to read the post. Please stop to consider your readers when writing posts. Here is the passage unadorned.
One could add a comment and a little underlining to make one's point easier to locate in the passage.

BobRyan said:

Why does scripture need to tell us of every historic fact in all of history??

Why is that a criteria for "Sola scriptura"??

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was, but whether or not a certain writing is in fact Scripture or not, as with the writings I was discussing in the post you quoted, is something that Scripture alone cannot determine, and it is not something that can be tested against Scripture itself.

MoreCoffee said:

Oh dear, another multi coloured bold texted misuse of holy scripture in some kind of effort to prove everybody who doesn't agree with the poster's opinion is an idolatrous pagan!

Such fun

Click to expand...

I am neither proud of nor impressed by your use of sarcasm, and I doubt others here are, either. Only the Holy Spirit can help to establish truth.

ivebeenshown said:

I didn't say it was, but whether or not a certain writing is in fact Scripture or not, as with the writings I was discussing in the post you quoted, is something that Scripture alone cannot determine, and it is not something that can be tested against Scripture itself.

Click to expand...

One could claim to have the book of Jasher in one's possession - claiming that an angel from heaven wrote it for you on your computer so that you could spread it to an unbelieving world - and that your mission is to tell the whole world about it starting with the internet. Then one would quote from it. Like this:
Of course, I do not say it but one could say it.

MoreCoffee said:

One could claim to have the book of Jasher in one's possession - claiming that an angel from heaven wrote it for you on your computer so that you could spread it to an unbelieving world - and that your mission is to tell the whole world about it starting with the internet. Then one would quote from it. Like this:

And it came to pass that as the Prophet spoke behold a voice from the heavens was heard like as of mighty thunders and it said "To the law and to the prophets a man is to turn in order to find the right way. And when the time comes that no more prophets are in the land then a man is to search the law and the writings of the prophets with the help of the priests and the traditions of the elders and thus he will find the way to walk. Let him walk in it and his path will be secure for the Lord himself will make it secure and will protect him from harm and will put to shame his enemies".​

Of course, I do not say it but one could say it.

Click to expand...

This is true and demonstrative of the folly of Sola Scriptura, whether that means 'Scripture alone', or 'Scripture as the ultimate measure of doctrine', or 'Scripture for testing all doctrine', or wherever the goalposts have moved to by tomorrow.

Of course, what matters in the end is faith working by grace in the Holy Spirit, because nobody is really 100% non-heretical, in the sense of perfect technical understanding.

ivebeenshown said:

I am neither proud of nor impressed by your use of sarcasm, and I doubt others here are, either. Only the Holy Spirit can help to establish truth.

Click to expand...

Point taken. I have modified my post.

BobRyan said:

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

1) prayers to the dead

Click to expand...

yes, we believe in the living communion of saints, any of whom, physically dead or alive, can be asked to intercede for us.

BobRyan said:

2) Purgatory

Click to expand...

some Protestant groups, not many, believe in purgatory or an afterlife state of purification.

BobRyan said:

3) The system of Indulgences

Click to expand...

true

BobRyan said:

4) The "Doctrine of Discovery"

Click to expand...

later

BobRyan said:

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

Click to expand...

yes, however Protestants divide on the relevance of the early councils, some believing they’re valid while others could care less. Either way they divide with the church, both east and west, on many points, the church that actually called and held these councils.

BobRyan said:

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

Click to expand...

Protestants are divided on the Real Presence and how it occurs. The church, east and west, has always held to it

BobRyan said:

7) Rejection of Sola Scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine

Click to expand...

yes- tradition has always been held by the church to be a source of revelation alongside scripture

BobRyan said:

8) powers" of the priests

Click to expand...

the priesthood also has mixed support/doctrine among Protestants

BobRyan said:

9) Adding in apocryphal books as if they are scripture

Click to expand...

Reformers changed the canon, not the church

BobRyan said:

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.

Click to expand...

the church very early on held these to be true in one form of teaching or another.

BobRyan said:

...


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.

Click to expand...

I thought I’d address #4, doctrine of discovery, and the other issues above together, as none of these involve articles of faith; they do not constitute Catholic teachings on the faith, IOW. So, since they have nothing to do with beliefs that one needs to hold in order to be Catholic, you’ll never find them in a creed or catechism, old or new. However, in the past popes have certainly saw fit to make official directives regarding their permissibility, although I’m not sure about the extremism of self-flagellation, etc even as that’s been practiced by various individuals and groups within the church.

In any case I’ll agree that those directives were not made in the light of the gospel, but rather, for the most part, were influenced or motivated by human weakness and nationalistic desire for gain. Rather than loving one’s neighbor, let alone their enemy, these various pronouncements supported the opposite. While the integrity and continued existence of the Christian faith itself were feared to be in jeopardy due to heresy at that time, by both sides, Protestant and Catholic, who both supported or committed atrocities along the same lines as you probably know, none of it can be condoned. I wouldn’t be too quick to judge which side any one of us would’ve come down on during those periods of history, though. We always prefer to see ourselves as innocent shining stars but human falleness, by whatever name, guarantees lack of innocence and resulting bad behavior- and IMO it's mainly the light of the gospel that has in more recent centuries challenged and drawn humankind into a place where at least some parts of the world would no longer even countenance committing such evils. We’ve learned and continue to learn of the truth, beauty, righteousness, and critical importance of the gospel the hard way-while I’m concerned with whether or not the non-Christian world will have the reason and advantage of being so blest and guided and hopefully restrained ultimately, once the going gets tougher in this world, which it will.

BobRyan said:

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

Click to expand...

Now SS adherents disagree on many things that the older church- east and west- agree on. Even justification is not so pristine or unified a doctrine as some think once we begin to look closer at Protestant variants. Some believe we must be baptized in order to be saved while other believe this position directly opposes justification by faith alone. A few teach a virtual antinomianism while others acknowledge that true faith alone is never alone; works and obedience will always accompany it. Some teach that man’s will can resist the grace of justification while others reject this belief. Some teach that man must be regenerated and justified before any faith in God is possible while others believe God first draws us by grace, and, by an act of faith, we’re then made just and regenerated by Him. Most evangelicals and some others believe in OSAS while most, including SDA, reject this teaching.

To name only a few other doctrines, some of which have just been touched upon, Protestants divide from one another over the Real Presence, baptismal regeneration (whether or not one needs to be baptized in order to be saved), adult/believers baptism vs infant baptism, and Sabbath worship, with the SDA church holding Sunday worship to be “the mark of the beast” from my understanding. Some, going by SS, even deny the deity of Jesus.