St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[narnia59]

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.

Where is it stated that the apostles wrote down everything necessary for salvation?

I'm just making the case that the Bereans can't be used as a poster child for sola-scriptura. They accepted Paul's oral testimony to the person of Jesus Christ outside of the bounds of their Scripture.

That's all.

 

[narnia59]

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.

A memo James, even though an apostle, evidently did not get.

You're welcome.

 

[narnia59]

You got 1 right

Scriptural evidence that the Bereans came to their own conclusion that circumcision was not necessary?

 

[Standing Up]

Scriptural evidence that the Bereans came to their own conclusion that circumcision was not necessary?

In Acts 15, it was a sect of Pharisees who believed from Jerusalem, not Berea, who thought circumcision was necessary. Paul, Peter, Barnabas, the elders, apostles all gathered. James pulled out the OT and said it is written, agreeing.

It's interesting that the Pharisees didn't actually present any tradition for their view. IOW, no gentile was ever required to be circumcised. They (some of them because Paul, Peter, etc knew it) just had to understand it wasn't necessary for salvation for them either.

 

[Standing Up]

Where is it stated that the apostles wrote down everything necessary for salvation?

John-these things were written that you might believe, and hence have life.

Jude-contend for the faith.

Paul-teach the same.

There's others.

I'm just making the case that the Bereans can't be used as a poster child for sola-scriptura. They accepted Paul's oral testimony to the person of Jesus Christ outside of the bounds of their Scripture.

That's all.

We all agree the apostles spoke and then wrote it down.

Apostles spoke. The Bereans checked scripture to see if it is true.

A bishop speaks. We check the scripture to see if it is true.

 

[Montalban]

How come the others didn't understand scripture as the Bereans (speculation) did?

 

[Montalban]

There's a falsehood here 'if a bishop speaks we check scripture'

Firslty however it's illogical because the church existed between the Apostles deaths and the formation of the bible - knowing what is scripture is relevant.

Secondly, the falsehood is demonstrated by people arguing against Mary being Ever-Virgin -which is not 'untrue' by scripture.

 

[Montalban]

It's perhaps a misdirection to use the term Pharisees here. They were Christian who may have come from that background.

Peter himself, even having agreed to the decision in Acts 15 later backslided and was rebuked by Paul.

 

[Publius]

There's a falsehood here 'if a bishop speaks we check scripture'

Firslty however it's illogical because the church existed between the Apostles deaths and the formation of the bible

Not when you stop to consider that the OT scriptures and many of the NT epistiles were already in circulation long before the Bible was compiled.

 

[Montalban]

Not when you stop to consider that the OT scriptures and many of the NT epistiles were already in circulation long before the Bible was compiled.

That is missing the point.

Go back to being a Christian in the year 200. The Aposles are dead.

There is no bible

Someone gives you an Epistle to read.

How do you know it's genuine?

 

[razeontherock]

From what I can tell (you can correct me if I'm wrong), you are asserting that the OT Scriptures that the Bereans had were sufficient to find salvation in Jesus Christ independent of the testimony of Paul to the person of Jesus. True or not?

No, that doesn't even make sense. Somehow they had to hear news of the Nazarene. From there, yes OT carries the day. What made the Bereans more noble was that they searched the Scriptures, to see whether the claims being made were relevant.

They found that they were.

This is what California Josiah went to great lengths to spell out as norma normans, or some such. (As long as it wasn't Cliff Clayburn)

 

[razeontherock]

Sola-scriptura professes that the Scriptures are sufficient -- contain all that is necessary to know of salvation. Nothing additional is needed.

Nope. Not at all. I might as well go back to thinking Catholics pray to Mary ...

 

[razeontherock]

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.

Nope. It moves them squarely into the realm of believers.

There is no reason to conflate the simplicity of the Gospel, with all that the city-state of Rome asserts.

 

[Montalban]

No, that doesn't even make sense. Somehow they had to hear news of the Nazarene. From there, yes OT carries the day. What made the Bereans more noble was that they searched the Scriptures, to see whether the claims being made were relevant.

No.

Only because Paul didn't teach AGAINST scripture. However scripture itself wasn't enough to convince the Bereans, but Paul's message with scripture together (tradition and bible) worked.

This is what California Josiah went to great lengths to spell out as norma normans, or some such. (As long as it wasn't Cliff Clayburn)

That's already been undermined by people arguing against traditions that aren't against scripture!

 

[Montalban]

Nope. Not at all.

Check out the Protestants arguing against Mary being Ever-Virgin.

 

[razeontherock]

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.

Was this before or after Peter yielded to the strength of Paul's position?

 

[razeontherock]

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

If I might refine SUP's answer a tad, I would say that what's recorded in Scripture shows that it's most likely that some people got this point while others didn't.

 

[razeontherock]

Not when you stop to consider that the OT scriptures and many of the NT epistiles were already in circulation long before the Bible was compiled.

ALL the books of the Bible were in use before the Bible was ever compiled! Not sure why this significant point gets glossed over

 

[razeontherock]

Check out the Protestants arguing against Mary being Ever-Virgin.

In order for this to make sense in context, you'd having to be saying that ever-virgin is Salvific. Is it?

 

[Montalban]

If I might refine SUP's answer a tad, I would say that what's recorded in Scripture shows that it's most likely that some people got this point while others didn't.

If you could refine it so as to look at the question one might know that in Acts 15 some of the believers thought that despite the OT saying one must circumcise that we were no longer bound by that.

There's not OT text that they are shown to consult that say that circumcision is to end - only that it's valid to get gentile converts.

Without referring to scripture they then came to a decision, gave that decision as was good to them and published it (without reference to OT scripture).