St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[BobRyan]

Another good reason not to use it is that, by it, you've all been proving that SS isn't a usable doctrine.

Not true - because you have created the straw man idea that whatever does not solve all disputes cross-denominationally should be rejected. That never worked for the start of the Christian Church from Judaism. That never worked for Catholics vs Protestants - and it did not even work in the context of Catholics-vs-Catholics if you look at the Catholic reformation movement.

Everyone claims Scripture as their norm, can't agree on who should interpret it

Also not true. All the SS proponents argue that the scriptures enlightened by the Holy Spirit convey truth to the reader - even in cross-denominational contexts like Acts 17:11. Where we see it working well. But at the same time - each person has free will and a certain amount of bias, and may choose to reject the evidence of both the scriptures (details in the text glossed over or ignored entirely) and the prompting of the Holy Spirit. And yet later as we see in Acts 2 those same people then relent and accept the Bible teaching on doctrine that was previously rejected.

I'd call it off-topic too if I held to SS even though it gets to the heart of the matter of the OP. What was the quote from the commentary, BTW, since I don't think the Sabbath question is the best argument anyway?

Today at 11:35 AM #829

to see the proof of the claim made at that point - read the last few pages where this fact is demonstrated in post after post. You have scripture "as it reads" being contrasted to 'yes but what did the majority do later' as the two opposing sides of the issue.

That sort of discussion is "much to be expected" in a tradition and practive - vs - scripture debate - but consider that for most of that discussion it is all happening within the SS group itself.

 

[BobRyan]

If the Bible is so clear in its meaning, then how is it that it's impossible to prove the plain meaning of Scripture well enough to prevent the thousands of doctrinal divisions?

One could say the same of Catholic Tradition followed by the split of Orthodox vs RCC and a divided view on whether the Pope in Rome is truly "infallible" when he speaks "ex cathedra".

Followed by another catholic-vs-catholic split in the case of the Catholic church vs its own protesting Catholic scholars, priests, theologians in the form of Protesting Catholics.

 

[Albion]

Another good reason not to use it is that, by it, you've all been proving that SS isn't a usable doctrine. Everyone claims Scripture as their norm, can't agree on who should interpret it, rejects tradition for the most part, and proceeds to disagree on what is claimed to be so plain in meaning all the while agreeing on the doctrine.

Could we please stick to the correct definition or meaning of Sola Scriptura? Is that asking too much?

If we start attacking the people and churches that subscribe to it instead of addressing Sola Scriptura itself, that's naturally going to roil the waters, but to no one's benefit.

 

[BobRyan]

Yeah I sorta get what you are doing, its tough because on some things I might agree with you and on others (obviously) I dont because I am not an SDA, but if we both have an issue on their end of things you might tackle that through how your side of things would come at it (and where you might find their argument the weakest) where I wouldnt be familar with that (and others might regard it off topic) but in way not so, so it can be a rather sticky thing trying to keep in mind where others are coming from (and that we are obviously all not coming from the same places always).

If it is all determined by "where you are coming from" and not "sola scriptura" and not "tradition" then both single source SS and single Tradition would lose.

 

[Albion]

One could say the same of Catholic Tradition followed by the split of Orthodox vs RCC and a divided view on whether the Pope in Rome is truly "infallible" when he speaks "ex cathedra".

Of course we could.

You'll never get a direct response to the mention of that truth, however.

 

[sculleywr]

One could say the same of Catholic Tradition followed by the split of Orthodox vs RCC and a divided view on whether the Pope in Rome is truly "infallible" when he speaks "ex cathedra"

Not really, because they are two separate traditions. Orthodox follow an unchanging Apostolic Tradition, whereas Roman Catholics hold to the doctrine of Dogmatic development, which teaches that dogma can develop over time. We are not referring to the same source, because we are referring to different traditions. This is why Orthodox call Tradition Apostolic, while Roman Catholics call it Sacred Tradition. They are, essentially, two different sources.

Sola Scriptura churches are supposedly referring to the same source and getting different results.

 

[BobRyan]

Not really, because they are two separate traditions.

By that standard - all denominations are separate traditions and you are back to 'no solution' for cross-denominational issues seen in Acts 17:11, the Christian Church starting from the Jewish Church, etc.

Tradition based groups all supposedly appeal to the same NT set of tradition-setting church leaders - and are getting different results.

 

[sculleywr]

Could we please stick to the correct definition or meaning of Sola Scriptura? Is that asking too much?

If we start attacking the people and churches that subscribe to it instead of addressing Sola Scriptura itself, that's naturally going to roil the waters, but to no one's benefit.

There is no one correct definition of Sola Scriptura. There are many. Your definition is not the only one. There is an entire spectrum of definitions all the way from the Prima Scriptura style down to the Solo Scriptura style.

So stop acting like you have a corner on the Sola Scriptura market

 

[Albion]

Tradition based groups all supposedly appeal to the same NT set of tradition-setting church leaders - and are getting different results.

Bingo!

 

[BobRyan]

There is no one correct definition of Sola Scriptura. There are many. Your definition is not the only one. There is an entire spectrum of definitions all the way from the Prima Scriptura style down to the Solo Scriptura style.

That is irrelevant. What they all have in common in testing all doctrine and tradition and practice by the Bible.

 

[sculleywr]

By that standard - all denominations are separate traditions and you are back to 'no solution' for cross-denominational issues seen in Acts 17:11, the Christian Church starting from the Jewish Church, etc.

Tradition based groups all supposedly appeal to the same NT set of tradition-setting church leaders - and are getting different results.

Again, no they aren't. For one, Roman Catholics depend on several innovations they have only recently started trying to ret-con into the early Fathers.

However, your first paragraph is extremely true. There is no Sola Scriptura solution to the divisions in Protestantism. Sola Scriptura was the cause of the divisions in the first place. Sola Scriptura is a foundation of sand, and we remember what happened to the house built on sand.

 

[sculleywr]

That is irrelevant. What they all have in common in testing all doctrine and tradition and practice by the Bible.

No it isn't irrelevant, because they don't have that in common. None of them test the traditions of the five solas by Scripture. They come to Scripture assuming those five solas to be true BEFORE consulting Scripture, which is why verses that directly contradict one of the five solas are either glossed over or rationalized away instead of being faced head-on or used to build doctrine. If all Scripture is profitable, why is it that not all Scripture is used for building doctrine when it directly addresses core doctrine? Because if we use it the way it was written, we have to throw out one of the solas. So in reality, the Five solas are traditions used to filter the Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

No it isn't irrelevant, because they don't have that in common. None of them test the traditions of the five solas by Scripture.

Not true.

Sola Scriptura is easily tested via Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:6-13 where it is "done for all to see".
Sola Fide can be tested in Romans 3 and Eph 2 "saved by grace through faith" -- and can be limited by James 2, Rom 2
Sola Gratia can be tested by Eph 2:8 and qualified by Eph 2:10
Solus Christus can be tested by 1Cor 2, and 1 Cor 3:11

1 Cors 3: 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ

1 Cor 2: 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
Soli Deo gloria can be tested by Romans 7 : 18
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

They come to Scripture assuming those five solas to be true BEFORE consulting Scripture, which is why verses that directly contradict one of the five solas are either glossed over or rationalized away instead of being faced head-on or used to build doctrine. If all Scripture is profitable, why is it that not all Scripture is used for building doctrine when it directly addresses core doctrine?

I am certain this is not a true statement about sola scriptura testing - as I have shown it is in the Bible even for the 5 solas - at least if you both define and limit those solas by the text of scripture.

If in practice this or that SS promoter decides to back away from the details of scripture that they find less-than-welcome it does not mean that all those who hold to SS would do the same.

 

[fhansen]

Not true - because you have created the straw man idea that whatever does not solve all disputes cross-denominationally should be rejected. That never worked for the start of the Christian Church from Judaism. That never worked for Catholics vs Protestants - and it did not even work in the context of Catholics-vs-Catholics if you look at the Catholic reformation movement.

OK. So now disagreement is good and healthy. Let's look for more. Besides, the SDA church considers Sunday worship to be the mark of the beast. That's pretty far from 'Can't we all just get along?'

Also not true. All the SS proponents argue that the scriptures enlightened by the Holy Spirit convey truth to the reader - even in cross-denominational contexts like Acts 17:11. Where we see it working well. But at the same time - each person has free will and a certain amount of bias, and may choose to reject the evidence of both the scriptures (details in the text glossed over or ignored entirely) and the prompting of the Holy Spirit. And yet later as we see in Acts 2 those same people then relent and accept the Bible teaching on doctrine that was previously rejected.

So you can just hold on to a pipe dream-that everyone will eventually agree with you and your Church?

Today at 11:35 AM

#829

to see the proof of the claim made at that point - read the last few pages where this fact is demonstrated in post after post. You have scripture "as it reads" being contrasted to 'yes but what did the majority do later' as the two opposing sides of the issue.

Scripture "as it reads" according to you-but not as it reads according to others here since most of your opposition was actually based on Scripture, proving SS to be unusable once again.

 

[fhansen]

Could we please stick to the correct definition or meaning of Sola Scriptura? Is that asking too much?

If we start attacking the people and churches that subscribe to it instead of addressing Sola Scriptura itself, that's naturally going to roil the waters, but to no one's benefit.

I was using it correctly in that post.

 

[Albion]

I was using it correctly in that post.

No, I believe you were trying to talk about different interpretations of Scripture.

You said: "Another good reason not to use it is that, by it, you've all been proving that SS isn't a usable doctrine. Everyone claims Scripture as their norm, can't agree on who should interpret it...."

 

[redleghunter]

Three pages ago, starting last night. Good grief, how busy we've been overnight.

 

[BobRyan]

OK. So now disagreement is good and healthy. Let's look for more. Besides, the SDA church considers Sunday worship to be the mark of the beast. That's pretty far from 'Can't we all just get along?'

So you can just hold on to a pipe dream-that everyone will eventually agree with you and your Church?

You seem to have lost your train of thought.


Today at 11:35 AM #829

to see the proof of the claim made at that point - read the last few pages where this fact is demonstrated in post after post. You have scripture "as it reads" being contrasted to 'yes but what did the majority do later' as the two opposing sides of the issue.

That sort of discussion is "much to be expected" in a tradition and practive - vs - scripture debate - but consider that for most of that discussion it is all happening within the SS group itself.

Scripture "as it reads" according to you-but not as it reads according to others here since most of your opposition was actually based on Scripture, proving SS to be unusable once again.

Is it your claim that you ever saw my position in that discussion -- and then saw opposition to it that was "based on scripture"??

If so you can help me by pointing to that scripture opposition.

 

[redleghunter]

No. The Council of Jerusalem is the best argument against Sola Scriptura. Had they used Sola Scriptura, the Judaizers would have been the ones who were found to be right because the Scriptures they had at the time commanded circumcision and the food laws. Instead, it was the word of the human leaders that won out in the end.

Well, that and the fact that Jude referred to Tradition in his epistle when telling about the body of Moses.

I already pointed out in Acts 15 how before the decision James did quote the appropriate Tanakh passages reference the Gentiles.

The council had everything to do with the matter of saved by Grace and indwelling of the Holy Spirit with regard to Gentiles.

The council also confirms the New Covenant.

 

[redleghunter]

Another good reason not to use it is that, by it, you've all been proving that SS isn't a usable doctrine. Everyone claims Scripture as their norm, can't agree on who should interpret it, rejects tradition for the most part, and proceeds to disagree on what is claimed to be so plain in meaning all the while agreeing on the doctrine. I'd call it off-topic too if I held to SS even though it gets to the heart of the matter of the OP. What was the quote from the commentary, BTW, since I don't think the Sabbath question is the best argument anyway?

What exactly is your understanding of SS?