St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[redleghunter]

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?

Perhaps revisit my post where SS is defined. It's back before the Sabbath sidebar.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

The scriptures they had did not require that gentiles be circumcised - that idea was simply "made up" by some New Testament Christian Jews. Not even the non-Christian Jews of Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18 were requiring that gentiles be circumcised to worship in the Synagogues.

Acts 15 is another great example of Christians upholding the sola scriptura test over man-made-traditions that were creeping in.

As for "food laws" in Acts 15 they appeal to the Lev 17 law against eating meat that has been strangled - with blood in it.

 

[BobRyan]

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?

How is it tradition is not able to "prevent" the protesting Catholics from leaving the RCC, the Eastern Church from splitting from the west, the differences over the idea that the Pope is infallible when speaking "ex cathedra" - and so on?

 

[fhansen]

What exactly is your understanding of SS?

Just that Scripture is the sole authority in matters of faith-the place where the buck stops.

 

[fhansen]

How is it tradition is not able to "prevent" the protesting Catholics from leaving the RCC, the Eastern Church from splitting from the west, the differences over the idea that the Pope is infallible when speaking "ex cathedra" - and so on?

Nothing can prevent schism, so long as humans are involved.

 

[BobRyan]

Nothing can prevent schism, so long as humans are involved.

Schism = "differing opinions about tradition and doctrine" -- and you admit that tradition even within a SINGLE denomination cannot stop it much less BETWEEN denominations.

YET - in Acts 17:11 we see unity arising ACROSS denominations - based on sola scriptura testing of doctrine.

 

[fhansen]

You seem to have lost your train of thought.

No, you just seemed not to have liked my train of thought-sufficiently to beg the questions raised.

Today at 11:35 AM

#829

to see the proof of the claim made at that point - read the last few pages where this fact is demonstrated in post after post. You have scripture "as it reads" being contrasted to 'yes but what did the majority do later' as the two opposing sides of the issue.

That sort of discussion is "much to be expected" in a tradition and practive - vs - scripture debate - but consider that for most of that discussion it is all happening within the SS group itself.



Is it your claim that you ever saw my position in that discussion -- and then saw opposition to it that was "based on scripture"??

Yes, your position was clearly stated-and the earlier post #802 stated opposing verses, at least as far as the poster was concerned.

 

[fhansen]

Schism = "differing opinions about tradition and doctrine" -- and you admit that tradition even within a SINGLE denomination cannot stop it much less BETWEEN denominations.

Of course not-even if it should be able to. People believe as they will, some abiding in the faith while others sort of make up their own, both within denominations and without.

YET - in Acts 17:11 we see unity arising ACROSS denominations - based on sola scriptura testing of doctrine.

We sure don't see it on these forums. And as far as the RCC is concerned, the only relevant difference in doctrine between EO and RC is the question of authority. This is why the RCC still recognizes full apostolicity in the EO.

 

[fhansen]

According to the pro-sunday sources in my signature line - there is a great majority of pro-sunday scholarship claiming that the Sabbath commandment continues to be binding on all mankind - though "Changed" via "tradition" to point to week-day-1 at some time after the cross.

I didn't deny that. I only said that it hasn't been observed as commanded through Moses=7th day.

 

[sculleywr]

Not true.

Sola Scriptura is easily tested via Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:6-13 where it is "done for all to see".
Sola Fide can be tested in Romans 3 and Eph 2 "saved by grace through faith" -- and can be limited by James 2, Rom 2
Sola Gratia can be tested by Eph 2:8 and qualified by Eph 2:10
Solus Christus can be tested by 1Cor 2, and 1 Cor 3:11

1 Cors 3: 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ

1 Cor 2: 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
Soli Deo gloria can be tested by Romans 7 : 18
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.



I am certain this is not a true statement about sola scriptura testing - as I have shown it is in the Bible even for the 5 solas - at least if you both define and limit those solas by the text of scripture.

If in practice this or that SS promoter decides to back away from the details of scripture that they find less-than-welcome it does not mean that all those who hold to SS would do the same.

You know, wishful thinking doesn't make those two passages which do not show the exclusive authority of the Scriptures magically show them. No matter how many times you try to ret-con your doctrine into them, you have to twist the Scriptures to pull SS out of the Scripture. When the Scripture is read straight without adding any assumptions, those two passages do not show SS in any way. They show that Scriptures were used, not that they were used either exclusively or as the highest authority. And that's the problem.

 

[sculleywr]

No, I believe you were trying to talk about different interpretations of Scripture.

You said: "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...."

Albion, 100% of Sola Scriptura believers use their personal interpretation of Scripture, or else the personal interpretations of their denomination/church/pastor. Not a single one uses Scripture without interpretation. So whether you like it or not, he is using an applicable and relevant definition of Sola Scriptura. Just because you're in denial of the fact that personal interpretation stands above Scripture in Protestant churches doesn't mean it doesn't. The reason we know this is because Sola Scriptura apologists make the ridiculous claim that Paul decided to use two terms to refer to the same thing in the same sentence in a way that appears to be talking about two different things.

 

[redleghunter]

Just that Scripture is the sole authority in matters of faith-the place where the buck stops.

Here's a summary:

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).

 

[sculleywr]

I already pointed out in Acts 15 how before the decision James did quote the appropriate Tanakh passages reference the Gentiles.

The council had everything to do with the matter of saved by Grace and indwelling of the Holy Spirit with regard to Gentiles.

The council also confirms the New Covenant.

The quote from the Tanakh does not mean they won't have to follow Jewish law. Since the Council of Jerusalem precedes literally all of the NEw Testament books, they weren't referring to those. The extant Scriptures held that proselytes (that is, Gentiles who wished to be Jews) would have to keep the Jewish Mosaic Law. That was completely changed in the Council. Since the passage which was quoted was nowhere near clearly supporting the Council, this new interpretation of the passage, never seen before the Council, would have appeared highly suspect.

 

[redleghunter]

Albion, 100% of Sola Scriptura believers use their personal interpretation of Scripture, or else the personal interpretations of their denomination/church/pastor. Not a single one uses Scripture without interpretation. So whether you like it or not, he is using an applicable and relevant definition of Sola Scriptura. Just because you're in denial of the fact that personal interpretation stands above Scripture in Protestant churches doesn't mean it doesn't. The reason we know this is because Sola Scriptura apologists make the ridiculous claim that Paul decided to use two terms to refer to the same thing in the same sentence in a way that appears to be talking about two different things.

You mean hermeneutics? By extension exegesis?

 

[sculleywr]

Schism = "differing opinions about tradition and doctrine" -- and you admit that tradition even within a SINGLE denomination cannot stop it much less BETWEEN denominations.

YET - in Acts 17:11 we see unity arising ACROSS denominations - based on sola scriptura testing of doctrine.

Those weren't denominations. Denominations are defined by doctrinal differences. The churches in Acts that are being praised shared a common dogma and were in true unity. They were as close to each other doctrinally as the Russian diocese of the Orthodox Church is to the Greek and the Antiochian. They weren't teaching different gospels as Protestants are. They preached the same Gospel, with no dogmatic difference. Those that wanted to teach a different gospel were excommunicated and held no authority in the Church

 

[sculleywr]

You mean hermeneutics? By extension exegesis?

Exegesis is king of Scripture. It is not the Scripture itself which is being followed, it is the exegetical traditions of the various denominations which is being followed. Protestants didn't get rid of traditions in the Church, they just replaced an old tradition with new traditions.

 

[redleghunter]

The quote from the Tanakh does not mean they won't have to follow Jewish law. Since the Council of Jerusalem precedes literally all of the NEw Testament books, they weren't referring to those. The extant Scriptures held that proselytes (that is, Gentiles who wished to be Jews) would have to keep the Jewish Mosaic Law. That was completely changed in the Council. Since the passage which was quoted was nowhere near clearly supporting the Council, this new interpretation of the passage, never seen before the Council, would have appeared highly suspect.

The argument came from Peter's experience with Cornelius. Which he expounds on in Acts 11.

Gentle converts to Judaism has nothing to do with what Paul and Peter experienced with the Gentiles.

 

[sculleywr]

How is it tradition is not able to "prevent" the protesting Catholics from leaving the RCC, the Eastern Church from splitting from the west, the differences over the idea that the Pope is infallible when speaking "ex cathedra" - and so on?

It isn't preventing them from leaving. It's preventing them from claiming to be Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church is not considered just as much the Church by the Orthodox, as Protestants consider other denominations to be part of the Church. Orthodox see one Church. Just because a cancer is cut off from the Body doesn't mean the Body is not the Body.

These splits are not destruction of the Body of Christ. Removal of heretical cells from the Body is akin to the removal of a cancerous tumor. The tumor is something other than the body (genetically speaking, this is accurate). It is removed from the body. Christ even refers to this in the parable of the vineyard and the parable of the landowner. The branches which bear no fruit or bad fruit are removed from the vine, but the Vine continues to be the Vine.

 

[sculleywr]

The argument came from Peter's experience with Cornelius. Which he expounds on in Acts 11.

Gentle converts to Judaism has nothing to do with what Paul and Peter experienced with the Gentiles.

No it doesn't. However, these are personal experiences and oral traditions which were not written down or considered Scripture at the time. I agree as to where the argument came from. However, it would be foolishness to assume that they were going Sola Scriptura in the Council, as the extant Scripture commanded the opposite of what the Oral Traditions of the Apostles were teaching.

Orthodox hold that those Oral Traditions hold just as much authority as the Scriptures, otherwise they would not have had authority to nullify the Mosaic commandments. Remember, it wasn't going to be for another generation that Christians stopped celebrating sabbath in the Temple and synagogues. They considered themselves the completion of the Jewish Faith. They did not consider themselves something other than Jews.

 

[fhansen]

Here's a summary:

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).

Fine. And those align more or less with my understanding, as I stated it in an earlier post. The problem, as sculleywr just explained, is that, while the doctrine of SS affirms the authority of Scripture-that it contains the truth in matters of faith [necessary for salvation], the implication is that those things can be easily enough ascertained/interpreted correctly by the reader-almost as a catechism is designed to do. It would be absurd for SS to be taken seriously by anyone without that implication being presumed. But, when disagreements arise, whose interpretation should be held to be the right one? Should it be arrived at by majority vote? Or by electing our best exegetes; may the most credentialed man or woman win? Which methodology is best? Until those questions are answered SS stands as a very weak and untenable doctrine at best.