St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[redleghunter]

The fact remains that it was not a Sola Scriptura council. Regardless of the visions of the Apostles, it wasn't the visions that convinced anyone aside from the Apostles, and that only the ones who saw the visions. For the rest of the leaders present at the Council, had they relied on Sola Scriptura, the visions would have been irrelevant. It was the authority of the Apostles, and not the Scriptures, which was found to be the deciding factor. And this authority was given to people the Apostles deemed worthy of the leadership of the Church, as wise men depositing money into a bank.

The authority of Christ was given to the Apostles. Christ had the authority to give His authority to them. And they therefore would have the authority to pass the authority on.

Perhaps you may want to explore just what Sola Scriptura truly means. Here's a good summary I'm sure @Albion may expand on the Anglican articles:


Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).


Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.


http://apprising.org/2011/01/15/john-macarthur-on-sola-scriptura/

 

[sculleywr]

Perhaps you may want to explore just what Sola Scriptura truly means. Here's a good summary I'm sure @Albion may expand on the Anglican articles:


Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).


Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.


http://apprising.org/2011/01/15/john-macarthur-on-sola-scriptura/

The problem is that is no longer how a large majority of people apply Sola Scriptura. You can see it with Iconography or vestments or super-congregational Church government. And since Sola Scriptura assumes that anything outside Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, it is clear again that the Council of Jerusalem, which declared the existing Scriptural commands as no longer being binding to the faithful, was not following the process of Sola Scriptura.

 

[fhansen]

No. I argued that if the Church had used the Sola Scriptura method in the Council of Jerusalem, the Church would have determined in favor of the Judaizers, because the Scripture that was extant at their time commanded the following of those laws, as well as circumcision. However, the Council found in the opposite of the Sola Scriptura determination of the time.

Yes, and going by Scripture alone the SDAs have it right regarding the Sabbath. Who wouldn't, picking up the bible in some later century without the benefit of tradition, observe Sabbath on the 7th day? But the church that Christ established rested, worshiped, and shared the body and blood on the Lord's Day from the beginning-without historical objection. It's just the way they did it.

 

[redleghunter]

And since Sola Scriptura assumes that anything outside Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, it is clear again that the Council of Jerusalem, which declared the existing Scriptural commands as no longer being binding to the faithful, was not following the process of Sola Scriptura.

I understand your point.

Is it your position that bishops and patriarchs after the Apostles are infallible in their determinations of truth claims on par with the Apostles? That they receive direct revelations from Christ as Peter, John and Paul received?

That we should consider the church fathers and patriarchs writings as equal to the NT scriptures?

 

[sculleywr]

Yes, and going by Scripture alone the SDAs have it right regarding the Sabbath. Who wouldn't, picking up the bible in some later century without the benefit of tradition, observe Sabbath on the 7th day? But the church that Christ established rested, worshiped, and shared the body and blood on the Lord's Day from the beginning-without historical objection. It's just the way they did it.

Actually, they did both. They celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday and the Lord's day on Sunday, as is done in most Orthodox Churches today

 

[sculleywr]

I understand your point.

Is it your position that bishops and patriarchs after the Apostles are infallible in their determinations of truth claims on par with the Apostles? That they receive direct revelations from Christ as Peter, John and Paul received?

That we should consider the church fathers and patriarchs writings as equal to the NT scriptures?

Individually, no bishop is perfect. It is the Church as a whole which is perfect, since Christ is the head of the Church and the source of its perfection. The Head is what determines the direction and action of the Body. The Councils are on par with the Scriptures, such as the creeds

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, and going by Scripture alone the SDAs have it right regarding the Sabbath. Who wouldn't, picking up the bible in some later century without the benefit of tradition, observe Sabbath on the 7th day? But the church that Christ established rested, worshiped, and shared the body and blood on the Lord's Day from the beginning-without historical objection. It's just the way they did it.

Excellent point. However the first day of the week was established by the Apostles as we see in Acts 20:7

Yet where did Christ allow the church to change a commandment?

Can they change the others?

Don't misunderstand me, it is established in Acts the first day of the week is when Christians met to fellowship and commune in the Lord's Supper.

How that translates to the old covenant use of Sabbath is a stretch. God established that day in the Law. One of the big 10. It was the last day of the week.

Plus I don't think the NT church called the days in question Saturday or Sunday.

 

[redleghunter]

Individually, no bishop is perfect. It is the Church as a whole which is perfect, since Christ is the head of the Church and the source of its perfection. The Head is what determines the direction and action of the Body. The Councils are on par with the Scriptures, such as the creeds

Well yes. The veracity of the creeds and early councils pointed to Sacred Scriptures as the authority.

However, since the schism, in your opinion how has the Church been able to speak with one voice?

Unless your church recognizes the Lateran councils and Trent?

 

[Albion]

Yes, and going by Scripture alone the SDAs have it right regarding the Sabbath.

"Nice try" as they say, but of course that's untrue. The reason that the change to the Lord's Day as the Christians' primary day of worship owes to several passages in the NEW TESTAMENT that are believed to sanction it--Paul's statement about disciples not being judged in the manner of days and the verse that tells of the early Christians coming together on the first day for worship. Last I looked, the New Testament was considered to be part of Scripture according to your denomination also.

 

[fhansen]

Actually, they did both. They celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday and the Lord's day on Sunday, as is done in most Orthodox Churches today

Most? While others in any case were willing to forego Saturday altogether.

 

[fhansen]

"Nice try" as they say, but of course that's untrue. The reason that the change to the Lord's Day as the Christians' primary day of worship owes to several passages in the NEW TESTAMENT that are believed to sanction it--Paul's statement about disciples not being judged in the manner of days and the verse that tells of the early Christians coming together on the first day for worship. Last I looked, the New Testament was considered to be part of Scripture according to your denomination also.

I don't think even you really believe that-that such a profound change-to total 1st day observance-would be would be made by an objective student of scripture without benefit of prevailing practice and authority. The SDA church is quite honest and consistent here in my opinion.

 

[sculleywr]

Well yes. The veracity of the creeds and early councils pointed to Sacred Scriptures as the authority.

However, since the schism, in your opinion how has the Church been able to speak with one voice?

Unless your church recognizes the Lateran councils and Trent?

Because the schism wasn't a separation of the Church. It was the removal of a cancerous organ. The Church remained One. In the eyes of God, there is and always has been only one Church on Earth that speaks the full truth. That didn't change because one group wished to seek innovation. The original Church remained unchanged.

We do not recognize the Lateran Councils or Trent. We recognize only the authority of those who hold to Apostolic Tradition as the authority, and not some doctrine of Dogmatic Development, as held by Rome to justify its innovation.

 

[sculleywr]

Most? While others in any case were willing to forego Saturday altogether.

Some are simply unable to get anyone to come because they have too small of a number. The clergy cannot celebrate a service on their own without the people, and so the service does not happen when nobody will attend.

 

[Albion]

The problem is that is no longer how a large majority of people apply Sola Scriptura. .

How "people" apply Sola Scriptura or whether they do at all does not make Sola Scriptura either right or wrong.

In the Catholic churches, yours included, they prefer Tradition, yet no two of the Catholic churches that follow Tradition instead of Sola Scriptura apply or interpret Tradition the same way! By your reasoning, then, it should go straight into the ash can of church history.

 

[redleghunter]

"Nice try" as they say, but of course that's untrue. The reason that the change to the Lord's Day as the Christians' primary day of worship owes to several passages in the NEW TESTAMENT that are believed to sanction it--Paul's statement about disciples not being judged in the manner of days and the verse that tells of the early Christians coming together on the first day for worship. Last I looked, the New Testament was considered to be part of Scripture according to your denomination also.

Indeed Acts 20:7 is clear.

Yet we will now be told the Catholic church gave us the Scriptures. Even the TaNaKh!

 

[sculleywr]

How "people" apply Sola Scriptura or whether they do at all does not make Sola Scriptura either right or wrong.

In the Catholic churches, yours included, they prefer Tradition, yet no two of the Catholic churches that follow Tradition instead of Sola Scriptura apply or interpret Tradition the same way! By your reasoning, then, it should go straight into the ash can of church history.

And no two churches, shoot, most of the time, no two GATHERINGS apply or interpret Sola Scriptura the same way. The fact is that while Sola Scriptura is evidently endlessly malleable, Tradition is all or none. You either have the Apostolic Tradition or you don't. You don't see Orthodox going around saying that the Catholic denomination is truly Christian. Sure, there may be Christians among the other denominations, because God saves whom He wills, but they are not truly Christian. They are fundamentally not the Church as Christ established it. And officially speaking, Roman Catholics hold to this as well, at least as far as their Catechism is considered.

Tradition doesn't accept the Relativism of the idea that other denominations have an equal claim to the Truth. There is one Truth, only one Truth, and if it isn't available in one Body, then there is NO body which has it. In other words, either one denomination has the whole Truth, or Christianity is false completely, because a caring God that wants us to have eternal life, which is the knowledge of Him and His Son, would not make the knowledge of Him and His Son ambiguous in any way.

God, according to the Protestant Relativism, plays hard to get. You can never be quite sure that you really know God as He revealed Himself because you can't have certainty that the interpretation of Scripture you have is the correct interpretation.

 

[redleghunter]

Because the schism wasn't a separation of the Church. It was the removal of a cancerous organ. The Church remained One. In the eyes of God, there is and always has been only one Church on Earth that speaks the full truth. That didn't change because one group wished to seek innovation. The original Church remained unchanged.

We do not recognize the Lateran Councils or Trent. We recognize only the authority of those who hold to Apostolic Tradition as the authority, and not some doctrine of Dogmatic Development, as held by Rome to justify its innovation.

Thank you for the clarification.

Also your comments about the Orthodox recognizing both the Sabbath day and first day of the week is consistent with the NT.

I worked for a devout Greek Orthodox gentleman when a teen and never knew they honored the Sabbath on the last day of the week.

 

[Albion]

Indeed Acts 20:7 is clear.

Yet we will now be told the Catholic church gave us the Scriptures. Even the TaNaKh!

LOL You and I have seen that one before haven't we?--"Sola Scriptura is all wrong, and we know this because of our reading of Scripture and, oh yes, we are the ones who wrote it! But it's still wrong to trust it."

 

[sculleywr]

Thank you for the clarification.

Also your comments about the Orthodox recognizing both the Sabbath day and first day of the week is consistent with the NT.

I worked for a devout Greek Orthodox gentleman when a teen and never knew they honored the Sabbath on the last day of the week.

It would be consistent with the New Testament. The larger parishes and virtually all monasteries actually worship with the same frequency as the Church as described in Acts, when they literally gathered together daily. St. Ignatius Orthodox Church in Franklin, TN has a daily prayer service in the mornings, for example. Monasteries offer daily Divine Liturgy and also each of the services of hourly prayers (first, third, sixth, ninth, Vespers and Compline along with the midnight office. Monks get a lot of prayer time). It's definitely a beautiful thing to witness in my opinion.

 

[fhansen]

Indeed Acts 20:7 is clear.

Yet we will now be told the Catholic church gave us the Scriptures. Even the TaNaKh!

"Nice try" as Albion says. The only thing crystal clear about Acts 20:7 is that they broke bread on the 1st day, not that they would actually alter one of the ten commandments. Without much fanfare, debate, or explanation as far as we know.