St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[Montalban]

Yes, I realize the OT's prophesied of the Messiah.

My point is this:

1) Sola scriptura relies on the assertion that Scripture is sufficient for all things necessary for salvation.
2) People are claiming the Bereans are an example of sola-scriptura
3) The only Scriptures the Bereans had was the OT
4) If 1, 2, and 3 are correct -- that means that the OT scriptures in themselves are sufficient for all things necessary for salvation, and the testimony of Paul as to the person of Jesus Christ having fulfilled those is not essential or necessary for the Bereans.

Either
1) The OT Scriptures are sufficient for salvation rendering the NT unnecessary

OR

2) The Bereans also required information outside of Scripture -- the oral information Paul provides about the person of Jesus Christ and how this person fulfilled the Scriptures (later recorded in the NT). By accepting the oral testimony of Paul (information not found in Scripture), they can't be seen as an example of sola-scriptura at all.

Absoultely.

The scripture alone wasn't enough to make them see the truth, but Paul teaching them a way of looking at things.

And Paul's new way of teaching them to look at things was itself not based on scripture, but his experience of Jesus

 

[3rdHeaven]

In order for what you say to be true (that “searched the scriptures daily” means the same thing as Sola Scriptura), you need to provide evidence that the texts Sola Scriptura refers to are the same texts that were being “searched” in Acts 17:11.

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?

They would be the scriptures found in a Jewish Synagogue. The Torah which was in the form of scrolls.

 

[Montalban]

What it means is that scripture itself doesn't point to one conclusion.

The Bereans had scripture before Paul, and they were Jews. They read the same scripture then in light of Paul's oral teachings and found that scripture was also able to be interpreted in a totally different way - and they converted to Christianity.

Christianity and Judaism - two different religions can find truth in the same scripture and come to two totally different conclusions.

Saying one should rely only on scripture is therefore pointless. It was Paul's understanding (tradition) that tipped scripture for the Bereans.

This is why the same scripture didn't convnice some Thessalonians.

Scripture can be read by 100,000 different Protestants and they can come to 100,000 different interpretations!

 

[Montalban]

They would be the scriptures found in a Jewish Synagogue. The Torah which was in the form of scrolls.

And yet in Acts 15 the council decided that circumcision was no longer valid - a conclusion not based on scripture!

 

[3rdHeaven]

What it means is that scripture itself doesn't point to one conclusion.

The Bereans had scripture before Paul, and they were Jews. They read the same scripture then in light of Paul's oral teachings and found that scripture was also able to be interpreted in a totally different way - and they converted to Christianity.

Christianity and Judaism - two different religions can find truth in the same scripture and come to two totally different conclusions.

Saying one should rely only on scripture is therefore pointless. It was Paul's understanding (tradition) that tipped scripture for the Bereans.

This is why the same scripture didn't convnice some Thessalonians.

Scripture can be read by 100,000 different Protestants and they can come to 100,000 different interpretations!

You fail. Pauls understanding was not based on Tradition, if it was he would not be teaching Jesus. His understanding was based on the Holy Spirit and Jesus (The Word). Since it went against tradition, he instructed them to search the scriptures!

Also your math is not so good either. 100,000 readers would not equal 100,000 interpretations. The Bible would need to be really vague in order for that to happen.

This experiment has been conducted by universities and colleges a number of times but not with numbers that high. Typically they would use like 100 people who never read the bible and asked them to read a specific chapter or passage and explain what they think they just read. Surprisingly the numbers indicated there was some common paths shared by splits in religion.

The 10,000+ denomination argument also fails because it is not all based on scripture reading. Many split for other reasons too.

In short, I think using your favorite words, this applies to straw man argument lol.

 

[3rdHeaven]

And yet in Acts 15 the council decided that circumcision was no longer valid - a conclusion not based on scripture!

Based on Pauls testimony and regarding his dream, yes.

Again they went against tradition in favor of direct revelation from a true apostle.

If they went with tradition, they would have been snipped.

I'm glad your starting to see traditions weakness, there is hope for you?

 

[Montalban]

You fail. Pauls understanding was not based on Tradition, if it was he would not be teaching Jesus. His understanding was based on the Holy Spirit and Jesus (The Word).

That's what tradition is!

Since it went against tradition, he instructed them to search the scriptures!

No. He had the basis of a new understanding - the start of our tradition, else he'd still be a Jew.

Also your math is not so good either. 100,000 readers would not equal 100,000 interpretations. The Bible would need to be really vague in order for that to happen.

That's what does happen!

Show me otherwise

 

[Montalban]

Based on Pauls testimony and regarding his dream, yes.

Again they went against tradition in favor of direct revelation from a true apostle.

If they went with tradition, they would have been snipped.

No. At best they went against a tradition of reading scripture! You may also need to tone down your posts to ones being less personally hostile!

 

[whitetiger1]

Could it be the Bereans checked the basics than and they were not using Scripture alone because Paul had to tell them more than the basics but now with the canon finished as it were could be considered sufficient?

 

[3rdHeaven]

That's what tradition is!

No. He had the basis of a new understanding - the start of our tradition, else he'd still be a Jew.

That's what does happen!

Show me otherwise

Your kidding right?

Where to begin.

So new tradition that goes against tradition is still tradition according to you?

As soon as you show me the proof of your ridiculous statement that 100,000 people = 100,000 denominations lol I will show you actual university studies.

I like you avatar, it fits you

 

[narnia59]

Based on Pauls testimony and regarding his dream, yes.

Again they went against tradition in favor of direct revelation from a true apostle.

If they went with tradition, they would have been snipped.

I'm glad your starting to see traditions weakness, there is hope for you?

Actually it's Peter who has the direct revelation from God regarding in the form of a vision regarding the Gentiles. It is his testimony that sways James from his insistence of requiring circumcision in Acts 15 -- Paul doesn't get anywhere with him.

And circumcision is far from a mere tradition -- we see God give it to Abraham in Genesis 17 with the command that all his descendants are to be circumcised -- an everlasting covenant. This is a command of God -- how can you equate it with tradition?

 

[Montalban]

Could it be the Bereans checked the basics than and they were not using Scripture alone because Paul had to tell them more than the basics but now with the canon finished as it were could be considered sufficient?

Indeed. Oddly enough them checking scriptures is argued here by another as a 'tradition'!

 

[narnia59]

Could it be the Bereans checked the basics than and they were not using Scripture alone because Paul had to tell them more than the basics but now with the canon finished as it were could be considered sufficient?

One could argue that point, but one still can't conclude the Bereans were using sola-scriptura. If so, they'd still be Jews.

 

[Standing Up]

Did the Bereans understand from OT scripture that circumcision was no longer valid?

Most likely, yes.

 

[3rdHeaven]

Actually it's Peter who has the direct revelation from God regarding in the form of a vision regarding the Gentiles. It is his testimony that sways James from his insistence of requiring circumcision in Acts 15 -- Paul doesn't get anywhere with him.

And circumcision is far from a mere tradition -- we see God give it to Abraham in Genesis 17 with the command that all his descendants are to be circumcised -- an everlasting covenant. This is a command of God -- how can you equate it with tradition?

I stand corrected, thank you.

Nevertheless, Paul had testimony that they all received the Holy Spirit, what need is there to add further burden on them.

 

[Montalban]

Your kidding right?

Appeal to incredulity.

Where to begin.

So new tradition that goes against tradition is still tradition according to you?

I have no problem with Christians following a different tradition than the Jews. We do so all the time, such as with eating pork, Sunday worship, etc.

You're the one suggesting that the Bereans, reading scripture was tradition!

As soon as you show me the proof of your ridiculous statement that 100,000 people = 100,000 denominations lol I will show you actual university studies.

It's evidenced in the number of Protestant groups (including all those claiming not to be part of any church)

I like you avatar, it fits you

Ad hom

 

[Montalban]

If the Bereans understood that circumcision was no longer necessary, I take it they were different to that group of new Christians who made it an issue in Acts 15

 

[Standing Up]

Or another way to view this....

How did the Bereans know the person Jesus Christ was born of a virgin?

How did the Bereans know the person Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem?

How did the Bereans know the person Jesus Christ did not see decay?

Etc.

The OT merely point to a person who would come.

They do not identify Jesus of Nazareth as that person. The Bereans accept from oral tradition (Paul) that Jesus of Nazareth was

1)born of a virgin
2) born in Bethlehem
3) did not see decay.

Which promptly removes them fromt he world of sola-scriptura and squarely into the world of scripture AND tradition.

I started by saying we all agree the apostles spoke and then wrote it down.

Paul spoke to them. They checked the OT.

Since then, people speak. We check the OT and NT.

You'll have to make the case that the apostles didn't write everything down as necessary for salvation, even though it is written that they did.

 

[Montalban]

We are now assuming that everything Paul taught verbally he then wrote down!

 

[Standing Up]

If the Bereans understood that circumcision was no longer necessary, I take it they were different to that group of new Christians who made it an issue in Acts 15

You got 1 right