St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

So basically God doesn't care if you get the right interpretation of the Scripture, so long as you have the Scripture.

Good luck with that. That literally makes YOU the Pope. If you can't find a church that teaches as you understand the scripture, make one. The church you go to is no longer the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. You are that Pillar and Ground.

I guess that would depend if one is following Christ or something else. Christ's words don't leave a lot of room for interpretation imo

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I have my bible to read what more do I need except perhaps a concordence to easily follow a word study to easily see the progression of the meaning God has revealed.

I think you are missing the point of the already exposed and refuted strawman argument still being used, which argues that SS means nothing can be sanctioned which is not explicitly in Scripture, thus no computers (at least not Windows), regardless of such helps being sanctioned in principle.

And that since Scripture does not supply a table of contents then you have no Scripture in the first place, as you need an infallible church, as the historical magisterium, to tell what Scripture (as well as Divine revelation outside of Scripture) consists of and means, regardless of the fact that the church itself began because souls discerned both men and writings of God as being so, even though they were in dissent from the historical magisterium.

Thus Scripture, even writings which the NT church abundantly invoked for support, materially provide for a canon, and also attest to Scripture being the supreme substantive transcendent standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, while formally providing basic truths, and materially providing for reason, the guidance of the Spirit, the church, etc.

Note however that SS does not and cannot claim that it was always operative for the people of God, nor can the church claim it was, though the limited revelation God gives has always been sufficient for God's plan.

But as God gives more grace and also meets needs,once and as written, Divine writings because the supreme standard and established as a body (the Law). And to which more were added as conflative and complimentary, being established as being of God, as men of God also were, due to their unique supernatural character and attestation. Though as with men of God, this was more manifest with some more than others.

The powers that be are to affirm what became established as being of God, thus those who sat in the seat of Moses should have affirmed John the baptizer, whom the people held to be a prophet indeed, and the Christ who invoked the authority of his baptism when His own authority as an itinerant preacher was challenged by said powers. (Mk. 11:27-33)

That which is of God is so regardless of the assent of the powers that be, nor is their formal sanction the essential cause of the establishment of that which is God, and which they are to be subject to, the veracity of their own binding judicial powers being dependent upon the warrant of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus mere profession and or formal historical descent, as the the kingdom of God is of such. (1Co. 4:20)

As the church of the living God manifested that He was alive, so it must today, beginning with the profound transformative effects in heart and life that manifest true regeneration.

And which i need to cooperate more with, and that rather than created things, Christ may always be my highest object of spiritual affection, object of allegiance, and source of security, and so be a better agent of grace to make positive differences in the lives of others for time and for eternity, rather than the contrary of these things as so often the case.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I love your posts PeaceByJesus thanks

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I think you are missing the point of the already exposed and refuted strawman argument still being used, which argues that SS means nothing can be sanctioned which is not explicitly in Scripture, thus no computers (at least not Windows), regardless of such helps being sanctioned in principle.

Excuse me if it seemed I attempted to sanction the use of a concordence to find everywhere a word is used in the bible. It wasn't my intention to sanctify anything but to point out that the progressive word of God is there for all to see, if they take the time to look , on any topic that is covered in the bible. That which is not covered in the bible from OT _ NT doesn't seem to be relevant to salvation.

Take the subject of what Peter refers to as living stones. From Genesis (where every precious stone is in the Garden) to Revelations where our Mother, the New Jerusalem, is arrayed in every precious stone brings the topic to a conclusion with Peter filling in the mid sections

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I guess that would depend if one is following Christ or something else. Christ's words don't leave a lot of room for interpretation imo

Notice the argument of the sola ecclesia polemicist (who after being refuted said he blocked me from replying to him so he would not have to read such anymore): He does not want to "replace the Head of the Church with His Bible," which he says "makes YOU the Pope,' as instead he interprets Scripture (1Tim. 3:15) as meaning that the church being the "pillar and ground the truth" means only his church has right interpretation of the Scripture.

Which he defends as imagining that infallibility is essential for it to be what he interprets being the "pillar and ground the truth"requires.

Yet as pointed out many times, the Lord provided and preserved His word and faith without such an infallible corporate entity, and the NT church began with souls doing just what he condemns, discerning itinerant preachers as being of God, implicitly based upon their Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

This does not negate the magisterial office, as instead Scripture actually affirms it as authoritative, as it does civil authority, but not as possessing ensured (if conditional) infallibility.

And holding to SS certainly does not make on a pope, as if the veracity of our arguments rested upon the premise of a ensured infallibility of office, as instead it rests upon the degree of warrant based upon Scriptural substantiation.

But let me say here something that may seem surprising but it is Scriptural, which is that the ideal is to have a central magisterium to deal with ongoing matters unresolved on local levels, as in Dt. 17:8-13 and Acts 15, which pertains to judicial binding and loosing (but which in the supernatural realm is provided to all believers if Elijah-type holy fervent faith - which i do not claim). Yet not as possessing any ensured infallibility of office, but as in Acts 15, rendering Scripturally

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Excuse me if it seemed I attempted to sanction the use of a concordence to find everywhere a word is used in the bible.

No, I was not really criticizing you, but was responding to the argument made to you.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I love your posts PeaceByJesus thanks

Glory be to God for what is good.

 

[Job8]

So by all means show us what scriptures those were that they were searching through in Acts 17:11. Did those scriptures include Baruch? 1 Enoch? The Community Rule? Herodotus? Plato? Esther? Were their scriptures Hebrew? Aramaic? Greek? Latin? A combination? If a combination, which ones were which?

When we read of "the Scriptures" in the NT, it is a reference to the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), which had only 24 books (which correspond to our 39 books of the OT in the non-Catholic Bibles). How do we know that the contents excluded the Apocrypha or any other non-canonical books? Because Jesus Himself defined the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-47):

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in (1) the law of Moses [5 books], and (2) in the prophets [8 books], and (3) in the psalms [11 books], concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Our Old Testament is a re-arrangement of the books of the Tanakh, with several books split into two. But when the Bereans "searched the Scriptures" then that is what they were searching. [Why did Christ call the Writings (Kethubim or Ketuvim) "Psalms"? Because that is the first of this group of books.]

 

[BobRyan]

Already told you that this is a false dichotomy and it is a lie. Shall you be dropped into the bucket of lies alongside your friend above?

The question has been asked and answered.

Show me the Canon by method of Scripture alone.

If you can't do that, which I asked you to do long ago, because it is a misconception about SS, then I don't have to answer your false question because it is a misconception about Tradition.

You don't know ANYTHING about the Gospel without Oral Tradition, because you can't identify Scripture without Oral Tradition.

Show me ANY reference to ANYONE in the NT text saying "we can't read that letter from Paul yet - we need to wait a few centuries for our unborn children to tell us what to think of it -- whether it is scripture or not"

Show me the first letter Paul sent to the Corinthians. Oh wait, you can't.

That would be a "red herring" - since SS is not the statement that "no other text exists".

Granted, I'm wondering where the use of a piano comes from the Scripture, or a computer. You claim to be Sola Scriptura, but you act solo scriptura.

Another red herring. Why not address the point in the post instead of these little diversions and rabbit trails??

 

[Standing Up]

But let me say here something that may seem surprising but it is Scriptural, which is that the ideal is to have a central magisterium to deal with ongoing matters unresolved on local levels, as in Dt. 17:8-13 and Acts 15, which pertains to judicial binding and loosing (but which in the supernatural realm is provided to all believers if Elijah-type holy fervent faith - which i do not claim). Yet not as possessing any ensured infallibility of office, but as in Acts 15, rendering Scripturally

Couple of thoughts. The council idea was present and attempted from Acts 15 (and prior as you mention with the meetings at the gates). Believe EO still subject themselves to councils. RC eventually went the path to its internal Magisterium that answers to no one. P generally agrees with the first 7 councils. At least with a council, one might get some correction.

There's then a huge time jump from c65ad (Acts 15) to Nicea 325, though there was a "council" regarding the easter issue c195. The problem, unlike Acts 15 with apostolic authority ruling that was subject to scripture, the problem became one of enforcement. In 195, there was no enforcer. In 325 Constantine became the guarantee for the wrong (and some right) rulings. It was a bad combination of enforceable slippage.

 

[Thursday]

Couple of thoughts. The council idea was present and attempted from Acts 15 (and prior as you mention with the meetings at the gates). Believe EO still subject themselves to councils. RC eventually went the path to its internal Magisterium that answers to no one. P generally agrees with the first 7 councils. At least with a council, one might get some correction.

There's then a huge time jump from c65ad (Acts 15) to Nicea 325, though there was a "council" regarding the easter issue c195. The problem, unlike Acts 15 with apostolic authority ruling that was subject to scripture, the problem became one of enforcement. In 195, there was no enforcer. In 325 Constantine became the guarantee for the wrong (and some right) rulings. It was a bad combination of enforceable slippage.

Nothing personal, but this is a bunch of gibberish with no factual basis.

Constantine had no authority in the Church, although he did ask for a council, he didn't have any say in what was decided by the pope or other bishops.

Here's an example of Pope Clement exercising his authority in 90 AD. He was the fourth pope and this is a letter he wrote to the Corinthians telling them to cut it out:


The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church ofGod sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ:Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitousevents which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to theelect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.....

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Couple of thoughts. The council idea was present and attempted from Acts 15 (and prior as you mention with the meetings at the gates). Believe EO still subject themselves to councils. RC eventually went the path to its internal Magisterium that answers to no one. P generally agrees with the first 7 councils. At least with a council, one might get some correction.

I forgot to add that when a church starts affirming as apostolic doctrine utterly things absent from Scripture, even if it is a most common practice for as prayer to created beings in Heaven (and all of which only God is shown able to hear and respond to), and exalt a created being as a goddess, engaging in such adulation only given to God (if that!) and never to morals or angels, and ascribing virtues and attributes far about what is written of any created being, then we have crossed the line from NT church to cultism.

It is no wonder they must resort to the superficial strawman of SS behind the refuted polemical challenge "show me the Canon by method of Scripture alone."

 

[BobRyan]

When we read of "the Scriptures" in the NT, it is a reference to the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), which had only 24 books (which correspond to our 39 books of the OT in the non-Catholic Bibles). How do we know that the contents excluded the Apocrypha or any other non-canonical books? Because Jesus Himself defined the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-47):

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in (1) the law of Moses [5 books], and (2) in the prophets [8 books], and (3) in the psalms [11 books], concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Our Old Testament is a re-arrangement of the books of the Tanakh, with several books split into two. But when the Bereans "searched the Scriptures" then that is what they were searching. [Why did Christ call the Writings (Kethubim or Ketuvim) "Psalms"? Because that is the first of this group of books.]

This is a good point. And also Josephus states that the Hebrew Bible was canonized 400 years before Christ and had not been added to one iota since then. Kept in the Temple as the same as we have today in our 39 books.

Hence the Bible support for Sola Scriptura cannot be dismissed by "The RCC gave us the OT, or canonized the OT, or ...".


Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see IF these things were so.


Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and 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.

In Isaiah 8:19 we find this "to the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word there is no light in them".

There again we have sola scriptura - being taught.


And Paul insists that he and everyone else be tested that same way -

Gal 1:6-9
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

 

[Thursday]

I forgot to add that when a church starts affirming as apostolic doctrine utterly things absent from Scripture, even if it is a most common practice for as prayer to created beings in Heaven (and all of which only God is shown able to hear and respond to), and exalt a created being as a goddess, engaging in such adulation only given to God (if that!) and never to morals or angels, and ascribing virtues and attributes far about what is written of any created being, then we have crossed the line from NT church to cultism.

It is no wonder they must resort to the superficial strawman of SS behind the refuted polemical challenge "show me the Canon by method of Scripture alone."

You are bearing false witness.

 

[Standing Up]

Nothing personal, but this is a bunch of gibberish with no factual basis.

Constantine had no authority in the Church, although he did ask for a council, he didn't have any say in what was decided by the pope or other bishops.

Never said Constantine decided a doctrine. Yes, some of the bishops got together and decided a doctrine/tradition. But here:

it has appeared good to all; and I [Constantine] have been guarantee for your [the other Christians] consent, that you would accept it with joy,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.x.html?

The point is Acts 15 shows apostolic authority in action per their authority, scripture. Nicea OTOH simply shows some bishops getting together with Constantine as their authority.

 

[Standing Up]

I forgot to add that when a church starts affirming as apostolic doctrine utterly things absent from Scripture, even if it is a most common practice for as prayer to created beings in Heaven (and all of which only God is shown able to hear and respond to), and exalt a created being as a goddess, engaging in such adulation only given to God (if that!) and never to morals or angels, and ascribing virtues and attributes far about what is written of any created being, then we have crossed the line from NT church to cultism.

It is no wonder they must resort to the superficial strawman of SS behind the refuted polemical challenge "show me the Canon by method of Scripture alone."

I've even tried to agree with them that we'll use their scripture and their interpretation. Now can they use SS? Of course not. It has nothing to do with their straw men, tin men, and cowardly lions.

 

[Thursday]

Never said Constantine decided a doctrine. Yes, some of the bishops got together and decided a doctrine/tradition. But here:

it has appeared good to all; and I [Constantine] have been guarantee for your [the other Christians] consent, that you would accept it with joy,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.x.html?

The point is Acts 15 shows apostolic authority in action per their authority, scripture. Nicea OTOH simply shows some bishops getting together with Constantine as their authority.

So you don't think the apostles appointed successors? You know that they did, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Here's Pope Clement writing in about 80 AD about this process:

Pope Clement I



"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

 

[Standing Up]

So you don't think the apostles appointed successors? You know that they did, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Here's Pope Clement writing in about 80 AD about this process:

Pope Clement I



"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

There's examples in scripture of Timothy, Jude, etc. But what's Paul say? "teach the same". A council that doesn't teach the same needs an enforcer to make it come about in that group.

 

[Thursday]

There's examples in scripture of Timothy, Jude, etc. But what's Paul say? "teach the same". A council that doesn't teach the same needs an enforcer to make it come about in that group.

That's the purpose of the Church. Jesus promised that the Church would be led by the Holy Spirit into all Truth.

When was this promise broken, assuming you think it was.

 

[Standing Up]

That's the purpose of the Church. Jesus promised that the Church would be led by the Holy Spirit into all Truth.

When was this promise broken, assuming you think it was.

Since I'm a member of the Body of Christ, I don't think it was.