St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[BobRyan]

The "Sola Scriptura way" is to base one's decision upon the Bible. 95% of all Christians have done that and worship on the Lord's Day. You and a few other Christians have done that and decided everyone else is wrong. But it has nothing to do with being either for or against Sola Scriptura.

Your response appeals to what others have done in practice - not to an actual Bible text. An appeal to what the majority is doing as being the standard for righ/wrong would have been fatal to the fledgling NT Christian church at the start.

I agree with you that we can find a great many Bible topics where the majority take one path and various minorities take another. I think that is also the Catholic argument on some of those same topics.

I also maintain that a "sola scriptura" solution cross-denominations is the one we see in Acts 17:11 and that no other solution works. Catholic and Orthodox response to that is often that the Acts 17:11 solution is not effective enough to get 100% agreement in cross-denomination differences - while they themselves have no solution for that same situation.

Except that it's not Tradition that drives the Sunday position. Tens of thousands of Protestant denominations--almost all Protestant denominations--follow Sola Scriptura and have decided for Sunday precisely because the guidance is to be found in Scripture.

If you look in my signature line you will find a lot of non-Catholic groups arguing for the continuation of the Sabbath Commandment "bent" or "Changed" to point to week-day-1 after the cross. And when you look at what their proof is - (Such as with R. C. Sproul) the proof is the practice and tradition of the church not a bible text.

This is why Catholic apologists have been bringing it up for many decades.
48 minutes ago #829

 

[Albion]

Your response appeals to what others have done in practice - not to an actual Bible text. An appeal to what the majority is doing as being the standard for righ/wrong would have been fatal to the fledgling NT Christian church at the start.

It may make you feel better to say that, but it's still nonsense. My position has always been based upon the word of God. That a huge majority of Christians has used it to determine that Sunday worship is appropriate may suggest that your own reading of Scripture is defective, but I'm certainly not basing my conclusion on counting noses.

I consider this accusation of yours to be something of a last gasp of a losing argument, if you want to know the whole truth about it.

 

[Fireinfolding]

They judged Jesus as not keeping the Sabbath didn't they?

Seems kind of funny Jesus answered them in these words (John 5:17) considering the whole work thing on that day though

 

[redleghunter]

How did this become a Sabbath thread?

 

[BobRyan]

How did this become a Sabbath thread?

I think it started this way --

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.

That point he makes that the "Bible alone" shows no change of the Sabbath to week-day-1 -- however -- is irrefutable.

 

[Albion]

How did this become a Sabbath thread?

It does look, upon closer examination, that Bob's correct about the fhansen post. But we can stop it here.

 

[BobRyan]

They judged Jesus as not keeping the Sabbath didn't they?

Seems kind of funny Jesus answered them in these words (John 5:17) considering the whole work thing on that day though

They did - because their model was "tradition AND the Bible" as we see in Mark 7:6-13. And as Christ points out there - some of their traditions were in so much error that they contradicted the Bible and condemned Christ falsely.

 

[redleghunter]

Good question. Some people make Saturday worship the test of whether Christians follow the Bible or not, so they can't resist the opportunity.

That's three pages of a derailed thread.

 

[Fireinfolding]

They did - because their model was "tradition AND the Bible" as we see in Mark 7:6-13. And as Christ points out there - some of their traditions were in so much error that they contradicted the Bible and condemned Christ falsely.

What I mean was the reference to work on the sabbath and Jesus words I and my father work (even on it). The wording of the Sabbath and Jesus speaking that very purposefully right then and there.

 

[BobRyan]

The "Sola Scriptura way" is to base one's decision upon the Bible. 95% of all Christians have done that and worship on the Lord's Day. You and a few other Christians have done that and decided everyone else is wrong. But it has nothing to do with being either for or against Sola Scriptura.

Your response appeals to what others have done in practice - not to an actual Bible text. An appeal to what the majority is doing as being the standard for righ/wrong would have been fatal to the fledgling NT Christian church at the start.

I agree with you that we can find a great many Bible topics where the majority take one path and various minorities take another. I think that is also the Catholic argument on some of those same topics.

I also maintain that a "sola scriptura" solution cross-denominations is the one we see in Acts 17:11 and that no other solution works. Catholic and Orthodox response to that is often that the Acts 17:11 solution is not effective enough to get 100% agreement in cross-denomination differences - while they themselves have no solution for that same situation.

It may make you feel better to say that, but it's still nonsense. My position has always been based upon the word of God.

Though my sola scriptura response may "seam like nonsense" - I would argue that the contrast is "instructive" because I am using the texts as they read - while others are simply "appealing to the majority" with the argument that the majority surely must have been Bible based not tradition oriented on this subject -- so surely a Bible position exists somewhere for it.

And that is why this is such a good time to show sola scriptura - "from the Word of God" how your POV is upheld in response to FH's post.

That a huge majority of Christians has used it to determine that Sunday worship is appropriate may suggest that your own reading of Scripture is defective

only "reading the text" would show the correctness or lack thereof in a "Sola scriptura" centric discussion.

 

[Albion]

Actually, it's a good time to get back on-topic here.

 

[Fireinfolding]

How did this become a Sabbath thread?

I helped out there in the end

Sometimes a thing or two becomes more interesting in the moment before it swings back to where it should be lol

 

[Albion]

I know it does. However, redleghunter's point is correct. We've been off-topic (and IMHO the off-topic subject has been used up anyway).

By the way, I kinda think I preferred "Fireinfolding" as a handle. Catchy.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I know it does. However, redleghunter's point is correct. We've been off-topic (and IMHO the off-topic subject has been used up anyway).

By the way, I kinda think I preferred "Fireinfolding" as a handle. Catchy.

Me too now that I switched but I dont think they would let me switch back, I feel like I am not myself

I thought I needed a change but I detest signing in under this name (takes too long) was going to ask to switch back but I doubt they would let me

 

[BobRyan]

I helped out there in the end

Sometimes a thing or two becomes more interesting in the moment before it swings back to where it should be lol

As the quote from the commentary on the Catholic Catechism shows -- this is one of their best arguments for tradition and against sola scriptura.

The idea that it is off-topic for them to use their best argument - is a handy one if you get sell it.

I don't bring this subject up at all on SS threads for that very reason.

 

[sculleywr]

How did this become a Sabbath thread?

Three pages ago, starting last night. Good grief, how busy we've been overnight.

 

[sculleywr]

As the quote from the commentary on the Catholic Catechism shows -- this is one of their best arguments for tradition and against sola scriptura.

The idea that it is off-topic for them to use their best argument - is a handy one if you get sell it.

I don't bring this subject up at all on SS threads for that very reason.

No. The Council of Jerusalem is the best argument against Sola Scriptura. Had they used Sola Scriptura, the Judaizers would have been the ones who were found to be right because the Scriptures they had at the time commanded circumcision and the food laws. Instead, it was the word of the human leaders that won out in the end.

Well, that and the fact that Jude referred to Tradition in his epistle when telling about the body of Moses.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Yeah I sorta get what you are doing, its tough because on some things I might agree with you and on others (obviously) I dont because I am not an SDA, but if we both have an issue on their end of things you might tackle that through how your side of things would come at it (and where you might find their argument the weakest) where I wouldnt be familar with that (and others might regard it off topic) but in way not so, so it can be a rather sticky thing trying to keep in mind where others are coming from (and that we are obviously all not coming from the same places always).

 

[fhansen]

As the quote from the commentary on the Catholic Catechism shows -- this is one of their best arguments for tradition and against sola scriptura.

The idea that it is off-topic for them to use their best argument - is a handy one if you get sell it.

I don't bring this subject up at all on SS threads for that very reason.

Another good reason not to use it is that, by it, you've all been proving that SS isn't a usable doctrine. Everyone claims Scripture as their norm, can't agree on who should interpret it, rejects tradition for the most part, and proceeds to disagree on what is claimed to be so plain in meaning all the while agreeing on the doctrine. I'd call it off-topic too if I held to SS even though it gets to the heart of the matter of the OP. What was the quote from the commentary, BTW, since I don't think the Sabbath question is the best argument anyway?

 

[sculleywr]

If the Bible is so clear in its meaning, then how is it that it's impossible to prove the plain meaning of Scripture well enough to prevent the thousands of doctrinal divisions?