St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

@ PeaceByJesus
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this point of what you consider principle is an attempt to create precepts. Not having addressed the scripture I have given in various posts convinces me. You have not followed a from then until now system that includes spiritual position of the priesthood and have given only the letter of the spirit. And in doing so have turned that principle into a precept. I have found common ground in various places of scripture to support my statements as also you have. However I will remain with the principle and not attempt to turn it into a precept to be followed by all.

...

~Cassia~ said:

Seems to me that a bigoted interpretation is the problem

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Interpretation exists for every Scripture in the world. You have no way of proving yours to be right.

So if God has not provided the proper interpretation to mankind along with the scripture, then the Scripture is not preserved. That is the role of Tradition. The Apostolic Tradition is the ultimate exegesis of Scripture.

LittleLambofJesus said:

Does the EOC have an interpretation of the book of Revelation? How much of the NT book do they view as fulfilled? Just curious. Thks.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/allusions-in-revelation-from-old-testament.7588850/



http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/tablecontents.htm

The mark of the beast. Armageddon. The Four Horsemen. The false prophet. Babylon the great. Falling stars, stinging locusts, and giant hailstones. The seven last plagues. The bottomless pit. The lake of fire. These images of terror and catastrophe from the book of Revelation have greatly influenced the thinking of millions of Christians through the ages. Even the secular press uses images such as "Armageddon" and "four horsemen of the Apocalypse" to describe calamities in our world. Despite 1900 years of fascination with the book of Revelation, John’s letter to the seven Churches of Asia continues to be misunderstood. And badly misinterpreted!

One misconception shared by some is that the Revelation has nothing of importance to say to us. It’s considered to be merely a bizarre piece of first-century writing with no relevance for today. Another wrong idea is that the Revelation is a code book describing a specific outline of history written in advance. Countless interpreters have tried to "decode" the book from a historical perspective to find all the major world events of the past 1900 years. Others interpret it more literally as a handbook for predicting the cataclysmic events that will bring the final wrath of God and the end of the world. The claims of Christian groups from the early church to the present — that the Revelation pinpoints the events, personalities, and time periods of "the end" — have all failed. This should be a caution to believers for using the book of Revelation as a predictive handbook. Other people’s interpretation of the book of Revelation is based on the "Pan Theory" — it’s all going to pan out in the end! Beloved brethren, the fact is, it’s not panning out the way the end-time prognosticators are projecting!.......................







.

Click to expand...

The Orthodox Church has many theories regarding Eschatology, but they are not officially supported aside from a few statements:

1. The Kingdom of God will have no end. There is no thousand year reign, because that is a violation of the prophecy of Daniel. This is formally declared in the Nicene Creed where it says "Whose Kingdom will have no end".
2. There will be one bodily resurrection of all men, and one judgment of all men.

It is believed that our theories about eschatology are as accurate as the theories people had about the Messiah before Christ came.

BobRyan said:

By contrast - if anyone wants to know what the Word of God teaches - and how that affirms SS -- read the texts that speak to the point -- Wednesday at 10:45 PM #1033

Click to expand...

It doesn't affirm SS. I've read Scripture many times. It has never affirmed SS in a specific way. It is your personal interpretation, and nothing more. It is not an understanding any of the disciples of the Apostles understood. The Apostles were dismal failures if you are right.

BobRyan said:

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!

Click to expand...

To which more can be added. Even beginning with just the first two chapters of the NT.

Matthew 1:1-17: The Holy Spirit invokes Scriptural genealogy in substantiating the lineage of the Messiah.

Matthew 1:18,19 alludes to OT moral law.

Matthew 1:20 refers to the Scriptural angel of the Lord, and a Scriptural means of communication.

Matthew 1:21-23 refers to and quotes OT prophecy. (Is. 7:14)

Matthew 2:5,6 refers to and quotes OT prophecy. (Mic. 5:2)

Matthew 2:2,11 speaks of Scriptural worship.

Matthew 2:12 refers to a Scriptural means of communication.

Matthew 2:13 refers to the Scriptural angel of the Lord.

Matthew 2:15 refers to and quotes OT prophecy. (Hos. 1:11)

Matthew 2:17,18 refers to and quotes OT prophecy. (Hos. 1:11)
Matthew 2:23 is said by many to to quote an unknown prophecy, "He shall be called a Nazarene" by a unknown prophet(s), thus some desperate Caths invoke this as support for their tradition. .

However in Jud 13:5 an angel instructed, "the child shall be a Nazarite," and which phrase Matthew invokes out of a statement as being prophetic. Thus the only issue is that this is said to be "spoken by the prophet," though the word is the same for prophet singular, and since Jews considers Judges to be the second book of the Prophets ('the Former Prophets), thus Matthew's reference to prophet.

Yet even if this was a case of the oral transmission of Truth (even though this one does not say "spoken of by God" as with some prophetic references) that would be no more a support for Catholic tradition than Paul quoting pagans or Jude quoting a bit of Enoch. For it is the inclusion in Scripture that affirms it is Truth, while writings of Holy Writ themselves were established as such due to their unique Divine qualities and attestation, which was happening even before there was a church, and which depended upon these writings. Yet Catholicism presumes superiority over them, and able to sanctify traditions of men and fables to the status of the word of God.

sculleywr said:

You don't think it was broken? So apparently the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, leading people equally into Calvinism and Arminianism and Pelagianism.

Click to expand...

Which judgment is based on the fallacy that the one true church is one particular church, for which you are in competition with Rome for, as well as cults which basically operate according to the same model for assurance of Truth, that the church must be infallible.

And yet even under that model there can be unsettled debates. Consider the fervent debate related to the issue at hand, that of the help (auxilia) afforded by grace with human freedom, which saw fervent debate btwn the Dominicans and the Jesuits around the time of the Reformation. "Finally, after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes," though "both orders, consequently, could maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis

They are still waiting for the Holy Spirit to lead them into all Truth on this.

Orthodoxy tends to be less technical in doctrine than in Roman Catholicism, yet dispute substantial concord they also disagree on many things, even on no less an issue than the papacy, while (by looking to Scripture as supreme) they are unified in multiple errors, thereby taking the problem of erroneous personal interpretation to a corporate level.

Of course, the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate is one that is not unique to Reformers, as it essentially preceded them in Catholicism, but men as Spurgeon and John Wesley, while both contending with each other on this issue, yet held each other in great esteem, even preaching in each others pulpit sometimes.

Moreover, SS does not claim or require that all who profess it must comes to the same conclusion on all things, anymore than the Catholic alternative claims that all who operate according to its means of determination of doctrine, looking to Tradition, Scripture and History, will also comes to the same conclusion on all things.

But holding Scripture as supreme and accurate is shown to be able to produce more actual unity than the fruit of Catholicism, despite its paper or otherwise mere professed unity. While it is cults who have the most unity under the same basic model. But which is not how the church began.

sculleywr said:

Well, if your posts didn't leave so much room for interpretation, you wouldn't have this problem. Problem is that not accepting my answer is believing that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church.

Click to expand...

Actually various variant interpretations can abound in your church as well, since it has not definitively defined the meaning every verse, while comprehensive doctrinal unity has ever been a goal not realized, unless you think every theological issue was invisibly settled under the apostles.

Yet at least in the prima NT church they could be of one heart and one mind in seeking the Lord, His kingdom and righteousness, and that was under supremely manifest men of as the apostles. What leaders do we see today who have their credentials? (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12,15)

But whosoever much is given, or him shall much be expected, and we do not see many souls being supernaturally executed for lying to the Lord and church. (cf. Acts 5:1-10)

Yet as one who was raised devout Catholic, and remain a faithful weekly mass going member for 6 years after true tearful repentance and regeneration by God,s grace, i can testify to the profound difference btwn that and institutionalized religion that was around me. And that it is true born again believers who can at the least realize the essential unity of the Spirit, Christ in them and they in Christ, (cf. Jn. 17:21-23) as a result of a shared regeneration with its transformative effects and relationship with the risen Lord Jesus, thanks be to God.

Which is better than the error in unity based upon identification with a particular church with its multiple manifest false teachings.

sculleywr said:

The Faith was delivered once for all the Saints. It was not missing. It did not disappear. And it did not get hidden away.

Click to expand...

Indeed it did not disappear, thus the body of Christ has prevailed against the gates of Hell, despite Catholicism largely and sadly becomes as the gates of Hell! But souls must be tested as to what they really want.

For the faith spoken of in Jude 1:3 could not refer to comprehensive theology, a field with such a scope and depth that yet see debates in Catholicism itself, but in context it refers to " building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. (Jude 20-23)

In contrast to this basic faith, "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:4)

Thus this is not high theology, but one both a Spurgeon and Wesley preached, and even a Catholic might, though there is no mention of Mary, which they would add.

However, NT faith is manifest in the other letters to Christians and churches, and which are interpretive of the gospels, and while there is certain fodder for limited debate about such things as precisely how to define the atonement, and about predestination and more, what we do not see are the very things that basically divide "Bible Protestants" from Catholics.

1. The papacy as defined by Rome? Nowhere is the church shown looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads over all the churches, versus a street-level leader among brethren.

2. The Lord's supper as the center of the life of the church and that of the Christan.
Nowhere is this the case, as it is only manifestly described (besides being a "feat of charity") in one epistle, in which the body not being recognized is that of the corporate body of Christ, as some are independently of others for whom Christ died, whose death they sppsd to be "show/declare" and thus did "shame them that have not." (1Co. 11:17-32)

3. NT pastors distinctively titled "priests" with a primary ordained duty being that of changing bread and wine into the "Real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin and to be consumed to obtain spiritual life. See here by the grace of God to save time.

4. Praying to created beings in Heaven. Utterly unseen in Scripture, despite approx. 200 prayers by the Holy Spirit, and it being a basic practice, and with instruction on who to address in prayer always being to the Lord.

5. Clerical celibacy being required as the norm. Instead all but two apostles were married and which pastors were expected to be.

More (some exclusive to Rome).