St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[sculleywr]

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.

Further, I can use Sola Scriptura methods to teach Arianism, Pneomatomachianism, Monophysitism, and monophylitism, to name only a few of the ancient heresies that attempted and failed to take the Church down. In the Council of Nicaea, they attempted first to resolve the disagreement with only Scriptural methods. It finally came to a head and the Council introduced the phrase "Of one essence" into the Creed to stand against the Arian heresy. Sure, Scripture was a factor. But it was not the supreme authority in this. Rather, it was the Tradition of the Church, defined in the new phrase, which acted in authority over the Scripture as the interpretation of the 318 bishops present at the Council.

Orthodox and Catholics are at least honest enough to admit that our Tradition stands as the authority in the Church. Protestants stand in complete denial of this basic fact.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

The Apostles like the prophets before them were the embodiment of SS.

Bipedal SS to be precise.

 

[sculleywr]

The Apostles like the prophets before them were the embodiment of SS.

Bipedal SS to be precise.

Nope. The Apostles were not walking books. Their teachings were oral, they were spread by way of oral methods to the 97% of Jews that couldn't read and the 90% of Greeks who couldn't read. And yes, those numbers are accurate. The Apostles did not write the Scriptures and then preach the gospel. They preached the gospels and wrote letters that they show evidence of not being sure if they are Scripture in the very writing of them. The fact that it was spread by oral methods is key. Oral Tradition is the only practice of people who cannot read. And when that makes up more than 90% of your people, then you're going to have a hard time trying to spread the doctrine of SS.

The fact is that we know for historical fact that the early Church was based on Oral Tradition, because for 18 years, the gospel was not written down by the Apostles. And don't give me that "it was given to Abraham" stuff. The gospel given to Abraham could mean anything. It certainly did not mean that it was given in full to him. Only what was necessary for him was given. Specifically, all that we know he knew is that he would bring forth a great nation, and through that nation the world would be blessed. Anything beyond that is speculation.

The gospel of Christ was passed along by word of mouth from person to person. Illiteracy did not prevent a person from spreading the gospel. He was still able to spread it without being able to read. Therefore, it had to be compatible with Oral methods.

This is why Paul very specifically refers to two paths of Tradition in II Thessalonians 2:15, the written epistles (some of the epistles had been written at this time), and the Oral teaching of the Apostles.

 

[redleghunter]

Further, I can use Sola Scriptura methods to teach Arianism, Pneomatomachianism, Monophysitism, and monophylitism, to name only a few of the ancient heresies that attempted and failed to take the Church down. In the Council of Nicaea, they attempted first to resolve the disagreement with only Scriptural methods. It finally came to a head and the Council introduced the phrase "Of one essence" into the Creed to stand against the Arian heresy. Sure, Scripture was a factor. But it was not the supreme authority in this. Rather, it was the Tradition of the Church, defined in the new phrase, which acted in authority over the Scripture as the interpretation of the 318 bishops present at the Council.

Orthodox and Catholics are at least honest enough to admit that our Tradition stands as the authority in the Church. Protestants stand in complete denial of this basic fact.

"the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth" (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3)

"Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety andperverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things." (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch 1, 4)

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly,cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ, announced in divine Scripture" (Athanasius, de Synodis, Part 1, 6)


"Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ, to your zeal for learning, in turn. (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56)

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God,handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1)

"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch 2, 1-2).

 

[redleghunter]

Nope. The Apostles were not walking books. Their teachings were oral, they were spread by way of oral methods to the 97% of Jews that couldn't read and the 90% of Greeks who couldn't read. And yes, those numbers are accurate. The Apostles did not write the Scriptures and then preach the gospel. They preached the gospels and wrote letters that they show evidence of not being sure if they are Scripture in the very writing of them. The fact that it was spread by oral methods is key. Oral Tradition is the only practice of people who cannot read. And when that makes up more than 90% of your people, then you're going to have a hard time trying to spread the doctrine of SS.

The fact is that we know for historical fact that the early Church was based on Oral Tradition, because for 18 years, the gospel was not written down by the Apostles. And don't give me that "it was given to Abraham" stuff. The gospel given to Abraham could mean anything. It certainly did not mean that it was given in full to him. Only what was necessary for him was given. Specifically, all that we know he knew is that he would bring forth a great nation, and through that nation the world would be blessed. Anything beyond that is speculation.

The gospel of Christ was passed along by word of mouth from person to person. Illiteracy did not prevent a person from spreading the gospel. He was still able to spread it without being able to read. Therefore, it had to be compatible with Oral methods.

This is why Paul very specifically refers to two paths of Tradition in II Thessalonians 2:15, the written epistles (some of the epistles had been written at this time), and the Oral teaching of the Apostles.

You missed my point. What the apostles did and said became inspired scriptures.

 

[sculleywr]

You missed my point. What the apostles did and said became inspired scriptures.

Not all of it did. There are two letters of Paul missing. We don't have everything they wrote, and Paul said their writings were on the same level as their spoken words.

The fact is that it is wishful thinking that everything they taught became Scripture. That is obviously not the way God preserved their teachings, because otherwise we would have all of their writings. We do not have all their writings. Therefore it is not the way He preserved the truth. However, the point I've been making all along is that they didn't teach SS because their followers couldn't truly apply SS, being either illiterate or not able to access the whole of Scripture.

And no, the Apostles being there does not justify their lack of SS practice, because there were 12 Apostles and hundreds of different gatherings.

 

[sculleywr]

"the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth" (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3)

"Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety andperverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things." (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch 1, 4)

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly,cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ, announced in divine Scripture" (Athanasius, de Synodis, Part 1, 6)


"Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ, to your zeal for learning, in turn. (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56)

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God,handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1)

"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch 2, 1-2).

You should have more context for that:

From Athanasius:

Having therefore no reason on their side, but being in difficulty whichever way they turn, in spite of their pretences, they [the Arian heretics] have nothing left but to say; 'Forasmuch as we contradict our predecessors, and transgress the traditions of the Fathers, therefore we have thought good that a Council should meet; but again, whereas we fear lest, should it meet at one place, our pains will be thrown away, therefore we have thought good that it be divided into two; that so when we put forth our documents to these separate portions, we may overreach with more effect, with the threat of Constantius the patron of this irreligion, and may supersede the acts of Nicaea, under pretence of the simplicity of our own documents.' If they have not put this into words, yet this is the meaning of their deeds and their disturbances. Certainly, many and frequent as have been their speeches and writings in various Councils, never yet have they made mention of the Arian heresy as objectionable; but, if any present happened to accuse the heresies, they always took up the defence of the Arian, which the Nicene Council had anathematized; nay, rather, they cordially welcomed the professors of Arianism. This then is in itself a strong argument, that the aim of the present Councils was not truth, but the annulling of the acts of Nicaea; but the proceedings of them and their friends in the Councils themselves, make it equally clear that this was the case:-For now we must relate everything as it occurred. (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 7)
​

And Irenaeus's conclusion shortly after your part, which establishes that there is both Scripture and Tradition:

4.2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
​

Your prooftext shouldn't be pretext for context. Taking only a person's words about Scripture and ignoring their words on Tradition is a bad idea. For example, your own text from Irenaeus confirms that Tradition was given by the Apostles and preserved by the Succession of the Presbyters in the Church. That is word for word the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

 

[redleghunter]

You should have more context for that:

From Athanasius:

Having therefore no reason on their side, but being in difficulty whichever way they turn, in spite of their pretences, they [the Arian heretics] have nothing left but to say; 'Forasmuch as we contradict our predecessors, and transgress the traditions of the Fathers, therefore we have thought good that a Council should meet; but again, whereas we fear lest, should it meet at one place, our pains will be thrown away, therefore we have thought good that it be divided into two; that so when we put forth our documents to these separate portions, we may overreach with more effect, with the threat of Constantius the patron of this irreligion, and may supersede the acts of Nicaea, under pretence of the simplicity of our own documents.' If they have not put this into words, yet this is the meaning of their deeds and their disturbances. Certainly, many and frequent as have been their speeches and writings in various Councils, never yet have they made mention of the Arian heresy as objectionable; but, if any present happened to accuse the heresies, they always took up the defence of the Arian, which the Nicene Council had anathematized; nay, rather, they cordially welcomed the professors of Arianism. This then is in itself a strong argument, that the aim of the present Councils was not truth, but the annulling of the acts of Nicaea; but the proceedings of them and their friends in the Councils themselves, make it equally clear that this was the case:-For now we must relate everything as it occurred. (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 7)
​

And Irenaeus's conclusion shortly after your part, which establishes that there is both Scripture and Tradition:

4.2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
​

Your prooftext shouldn't be pretext for context. Taking only a person's words about Scripture and ignoring their words on Tradition is a bad idea. For example, your own text from Irenaeus confirms that Tradition was given by the Apostles and preserved by the Succession of the Presbyters in the Church. That is word for word the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

Yes and fathers affirmed their positions on tradition with Sacred Scriptures. That was the point in posting it. Such is consistent with SS.

Then again who says the church fathers were consistent with one another on all matters. They were not. On the central matters of doctrine Yes!

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice fromany other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." (Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9)

Can you point out to me the Apostolic traditions the church fathers discuss that are not recorded in the Scriptures?

Do we not get an understanding of Apostolic tradition by the very Canon the early fathers proclaimed?

They chucked out the works they were not reflections of apostolic tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

indeed -- TWO cycles in Is 66:23 for worship in the New Earth (for eternity after the cross) -- not one , not "from Tuesday to tuesday because by that I mean daily" -- in fact those two cycles never mean "daily" in all of scripture.

It's continuous, not an each 7th day or each 29-30 day. Keep in mind the concept of 8th day.

Mal. 1:1 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

Heb 4
Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
For if Jesus [Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Rev. 15:4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

That sounded very reasonable and persuasive, but when I hold it up to scripture, it fails.

A catechism is designed to be understood without the personal witness of the Holy Spirit.
When disagreements arise, we have a conscience to help us decide for ourselves which interpretation is right.
We have the liberty to allow others to be different.

So "who wins" may have some ecclesiastical consequences, but it doesn't eliminate personal accountability for truth.
SS stands even tho men don't always agree what it means.
Truth do need man's agreement to be true.
At the end of the day, everyone decides for themselves whom to believe.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

How did this become a Sabbath thread?

Maybe because it needed a rest?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Nope. The Apostles were not walking books. Their teachings were oral, they were spread by way of oral methods to the 97% of Jews that couldn't read and the 90% of Greeks who couldn't read. And yes, those numbers are accurate.

Meaning they are a estimation based on scarce data and restricted locations and how one defines literacy and who it includes (in the Hellenistic period (323-21 B.C.) literacy among freeborn urban men reached perhaps 40 percent), but which is hardly relevant, as the argument assumes that SS requires literacy among all, which is does not. SS preachers can and do preach Scripturally substantiated Truths to illiterate people, and (contrary to the intent of the Puritan's Old Deluder Act) in largely Protestant America illiteracy has been the norm for the majority for much of its history.

In 1870 (during the Third Great Awakening), 80 percent of the black population was illiterate. By 1960, 42 percent of males, 25 years old and over, still had completed no more than the eighth grade, https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

And even today most of what church goers are taught is largely oral. Some more than others. Listen to Charles Stanley preach day and day out and he will hardly read any Scriptures (which he should do).

But that is not contrary to Scripture alone being the only infallible standard for faith and morals, and sufficient in its formal and material aspects combined, and under the latter the teaching office is affirmed. Souls may be deprived of all the grace God would have them have, as in the lack of Scripture, yet they can hear Scriptural preaching, and will be judged according to the grace given.

All may lack a complete and accurate printer manual, but it is still the standard for the teacher of it, which he is subject to examination by, once people are given more grace.

And as Scripture became the standard for faith and obedience, therefore all preaching is subject to examination by it, as was that of the apostles, (Acts 17:11) and which the Lord and the NT so heavily invoked, as the very "gospel of God" was what was "promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,' Romans 1:1-2) as was the inclusion of the Gentiles, and which is where the NT offices and powers flow from etc.

Nor does SS mean that this was always operative, as at one time oral teaching was indeed the supreme basis for faith and obedience, as God revealed Himself in a very limited manner to a very limited amount of people, whose status God supernaturally attested to. Yet this limited manner was sufficient for the time, and as now, men are always judged according to the light and grace given, even though God can give more.

But when God chose to reveal Himself to and thru an entire nation, and as their rebellious nature required it, then the Lord revealed Himself and will in a much more comprehensive and preserved express manner, that of writing, thru a most manifest man of God as one whose authority He clearly supernaturally attested to.

And as is abundantly evidenced, the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured Word of God.

And which formally provides what is necessary for one to be saved, so that one can read a text such as Acts 10:43-47 and be born again just as the hearers there were, and grow in grace.

However, God gives more grace, from convicting oral preaching of the gospel to the guidance of the Spirit (for one, most SS preacher hopes God will "speak" to souls during the offering) to the magisterial office, etc. which Scripture records, commands, sanctions and otherwise materially provides for.

Moreover, Scripture also reveals that souls correctly discerned men and writings of God as being so, without an infallible magisterium (contrary to the claims of Catholicism), and even contrary to the judgment of the historical magisterium of the instruments and stewards of Scripture, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4,5) to which general obedience was bound, (Mt, 23:2) as men whose office could bind and loose (Dt. 17:8-13) with dissent being a capital crime.

But which the NT church itself began in dissent from, following a (God)Man and men who had no official sanction but were itinerant preachers in the eyes of the magisterium, but who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

And as Scripture provides for souls correctly discerning men and writings of God as being so, thus in principal it provides for a canon, and the doctrine of SS.

Nor are your arguments against SS that Scripture does not record all that can be known (which is not necessary, nor can Catholicism claim to provide this: 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) , and that Scripture is not clear enough to prevent disagreements any more valid than arguing that the magisterial office of the church is not the supreme judge since it also fails to address all issues and can be and is variously interpreted in what is does teach.

Therefore SS as described here is clearly Scriptural and arguments refuted, with the NT church establishing its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and additional conflative and complementary writings becoming established as being of God, essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation, like as men of God are established by.

While the powers that be are to affirm such, they do not always do so, (as was the case with John the baptizer and the Christ: Mk. 11:27-33) however valid their office, but that which is from God is still from Hi regardless.

Meanwhile, what is not Scriptural is the Cath. alternative to SS, that of sola ecclesia, in which the church is effectively the supreme standard as assuredly infallibly declaring what Scripture and the word of God consist of and means (not simply making binding, if fallible, judicial judgments, which it is the supreme governmental office for), and which thus cannot be wrong in any conflict. This is more pronounced in Rome, with the basis for veracity being the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

The Apostles did not write the Scriptures and then preach the gospel.

Regardless, they did not preach as men whose veracity was based on ensured infallibility, but whose preaching was both subject to OT Scripture and who invoked it, and or the supernatural attesting that it reveals God giving to His Truth, under Scripture.

They preached the gospels and wrote letters that they show evidence of not being sure if they are Scripture in the very writing of them.

Sometimes true but irrelevant, as this was no doubt also the case with OT writers, but they looked to what had been established as being of God, and Scripture is the only substantive body of Truth that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, thus being the assured word of God with its unique anointing, (Heb. 4:12) to which all Truth claims are subject.

The fact that it was spread by oral methods is key. Oral Tradition is the only practice of people who cannot read. And when that makes up more than 90% of your people, then you're going to have a hard time trying to spread the doctrine of SS.

Also irrelevant, as a complete engine manual would still be the standard for operation even if no one could read, and would make the teacher of it subject to examination thereby once the subjects had that ability.

Likewise the fact that some souls are without a church would not negate the church being the supreme infallible standard for faith and obedience, if it were.

You are assuming SS means that all must have the Scriptures in possession, and that SS excludes the teaching office, neither of which is true, nor contrary to SS being the only sufficient wholly inspired infallible standard.

And don't give me that "it was given to Abraham" stuff. The gospel given to Abraham could mean anything.

What?! How could you say such a thing? It seems you have a very superficial view of Scripture, as in reality what Abraham believed was affirmed by those whom Scripture also commends as being of like faith, and under Moses more was provided by the God of the faith ,as was the gospels.

It certainly did not mean that it was given in full to him. Only what was necessary for him was given.

Yes, and likewise Scripture need not contain all that can be known in order to be the sole supreme infallible standard. For some today their conscience and culture is all they have have, which they will be judged by insofar as it conforms to the supreme law, which Scripture reveals.

Specifically, all that we know he knew is that he would bring forth a great nation, and through that nation the world would be blessed. Anything beyond that is speculation.

That is absurd as it leaves Abraham more morally ignorant than the ignorant who "have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (Romans 2:14)

Your statement even argues against oral tradition, and both by inanate sense as well as what was passed on via tradition the record of Abraham evidences that he knew such things as that lying, adultery, stealing etc,. were wrong, as well as that he could not save himself any more than he could have a great nation with a body and wife which could not procreate (though he could still run in old age). But as a man of faith with a poor and contrite spirit then he could be saved.

The gospel of Christ was passed along by word of mouth from person to person. Illiteracy did not prevent a person from spreading the gospel. He was still able to spread it without being able to read. Therefore, it had to be compatible with Oral methods.

This is why Paul very specifically refers to two paths of Tradition in II Thessalonians 2:15, the written epistles (some of the epistles had been written at this time), and the Oral teaching of the Apostles

No, as besides providing new revelation which your church does not claim to do, the apostles preached Scriptural truths, and a SS preacher today can enjoin obedience to both what he orally preaches as well as Scripture, as the former presumes the validation of the latter.

 

[BobRyan]

It's continuous, not an each 7th day or each 29-30 day. Keep in mind the concept of 8th day.

Mal. 1:1 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

Indeed "From evening until evening shall you celebrate your Sabbaths" Lev 23.

But "From New Moon to New Moon - AND from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23 - is a reference to TWO cycles - a monthly one AND a weekly one - and is never a term in all of scripture for "daily". Not even once.

To say "Every minute all mankind shall remain before Me to worship" - is how some have hope it might have read - but that cannot be inserted into the text.

Hebrews 4 tells us that the same observance valid at the time of David "remains" rather than "is deleted"

Heb 4
7 He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
“Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God

In Heb 10 we have this said about the animal sacrifices of David's day "He takes AWAY the first to establish the second" speaking of the laws of animal sacrifice.

But in Heb 4 we have "there REMAINS" for the moral law - the Ten Commandment Sabbath rest..

Rev. 15:4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

God's house a "House of prayer for ALL Nations" - a point made in Isaiah 56 as context for Isaiah 66.


Is 56
2“How blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who takes hold of it;
Who keeps from profaning the Sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”
3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely separate me from His people.”
Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.”

4 For thus says the Lord,

“To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And hold fast My covenant,
5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.

6 “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,
To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the Sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;
For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”

======================

More on this subject at this CF thread -
Nov 21, 2015 #1

 

[BobRyan]

sculleywr said: ↑
No it isn't irrelevant, because they don't have that in common. None of them test the traditions of the five solas by Scripture.

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.

wishful thinking will not make Mark 7:6-13, Acts 17:11, Gal 1:6-9 vanish.

You know, wishful thinking doesn't make those two passages which do not show the exclusive authority of the Scriptures magically show them.

On the contrary - the mere quote of the text is sufficient to make the argument against speculation raised against SS.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Gal 1:6-9 "though WE (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - ... let him be accursed"

Acts 17 in this way "11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, to see IF those things were so."

 

[Standing Up]

Indeed "From evening until evening shall you celebrate your Sabbaths" Lev 23.

But "From New Moon to New Moon - AND from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23 - is a reference to TWO cycles - a monthly one AND a weekly one - and is never a term in all of scripture for "daily". Not even once.

Except that's what it says.

And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

For it to be seen your way (every 7th day and every new moon day), it would say on each new moon, on each Sabbath. Instead it says from Sabbath to Sabbath. Not on Sabbath and the next Sabbath.

To say "Every minute all mankind shall remain before Me to worship" - is how some have hope it might have read - but that cannot be inserted into the text.

Hebrews 4 tells us that the same observance valid at the time of David "remains" rather than "is deleted"

No, it says they continued to observe it to no effect. They entered the promised land. They conquered the territory under Joshua/Jesus. But what does scripture say?

Heb. 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

There's another day. Not a 7th day. Not a 30/29 day. But what does scripture say?

Heb 4:7 He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
“Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”

 

[BobRyan]

Except that's what it says.

And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Instead of "daily" we have TWO cycles for worship in that text. We do have "daily" and "morning and evening" in the bible for "daily" -- but never the weekly cycle as "daily"

And instead of "Shall remain daily" we have "shall come before Me" on those TWO cycles.

That is actually "what it says" in the text.

And there is not one text in all of scripture where the reference to those cycles means "daily" or "not the cycle being mentioned"

=================

So may argue that this is a SS argument that only Bible seventh day Sabbath keeping Christians would notice.

But in fact the majority of pro-sunday scholarship argues for that continued cycle -

This is an SS case where BOTH sides manage to admit to the same detail on this specific point.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

================= pro-Sunday Bible commentaries

Isaiah 66:23


Jamieson Fausset Brown

23. Literally, "As often as the new moon (shall be) in its own new moon," that is, every month (Zec 14:16).
Sabbath--which is therefore perpetually obligatory on earth.
all flesh-- (Ps 65:2; 72:11).
before me--at Jerusalem (Jer 3:16, 17).

Matthew Henry Isaiah 66:23

6. That the public worship of God in religious assemblies shall be carefully and constantly attended upon by all that are thus brought as an offering to the Lord, Isaiah 66:23. This is described in expressions suited to the Old-Testament dispensation, to show that though the ceremonial law should be abolished, and the temple service should come to an end, yet God should be still as regularly, constantly, and acceptably worshipped as ever. Heretofore only Jews went up to appear before God, and they were bound to attend only three times a year, and the males only; but now all flesh, Gentiles as well as Jews, women as well as men, shall come and worship before God, in his presence, though not in his temple at Jerusalem, but in religious assemblies dispersed all the world over, which shall be to them as the tabernacle of meeting was to the Jews.


God will in them record his name, and, though but two or three come together, he will be among them, will meet them, and bless them. And they shall have the benefit of these holy convocations frequently, every new moon and every Sabbath, not, as formerly, at the three annual feasts only.


There is no necessity of one certain place, as the temple was of old. Christ is our temple, in whom by faith all believers meet, and now that the church is so far extended it is impossible that all should meet at one place; but it is fit that there should be a certain time appointed, that the service may be done certainly and frequently, and a token thereby given of the spiritual communion which all Christian assemblies have with each other by faith, hope, and holy love. The new moons and the sabbaths are mentioned because, under the law, though the yearly feasts were to be celebrated at Jerusalem, yet the new moons and the sabbaths were religiously observed all the country over, in the schools of the prophets first and afterwards in the synagogues (2 Kings 4:23,Am+8:5,Ac+15:21), according to the model of which Christian assemblies seem to be formed.


Where the Lord's day is weekly sanctified, and the Lord's supper monthly celebrated, and both are duly attended on, there this promise is fulfilled, there the Christian new moons and Sabbaths are observed. See, here, (1.) That God is to be worshipped in solemn assemblies, and that it is the duty of all, as they have opportunity, to wait upon God in those assemblies: All flesh must come; though flesh, weak, corrupt, and sinful, let them come that the flesh may be mortified. (2.) In worshipping God we present ourselves before him, and are in a special manner in his presence. (3.) For doing this there ought to be stated times, and are so; and we must see that it is our interest as well as our duty constantly and conscientiously to observe these times.

 

[BobRyan]

The fact that both sides agree - indicates objectivity but is not used as scripture evidence.

 

[Standing Up]

Instead of "daily" we have TWO cycles for worship in that text. We do have "daily" and "morning and evening" in the bible for "daily" -- but never the weekly cycle as "daily"

And instead of "Shall remain daily" we have "shall come before Me" on those TWO cycles.

That is actually "what it says" in the text.

And there is not one text in all of scripture where the reference to those cycles means "daily" or "not the cycle being mentioned"

=================

So may argue that this is a SS argument that only Bible seventh day Sabbath keeping Christians would notice.

But in fact the majority of pro-sunday scholarship argues for that continued cycle -

This is an SS case where BOTH sides manage to admit to the same detail on this specific point.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

================= pro-Sunday Bible commentaries

From : to not on : again on

And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Worship from one Sabbath to another Sabbath.

 

[Sophrosyne]

From : to not on : again on

And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Worship from one Sabbath to another Sabbath.

I don't think he cares for logic, I've tried using it with him and get nowhere but having a thread instead flooded with endless Sabbath spam.

 

[fhansen]

That sounded very reasonable and persuasive, but when I hold it up to scripture, it fails.

A catechism is designed to be understood without the personal witness of the Holy Spirit.
When disagreements arise, we have a conscience to help us decide for ourselves which interpretation is right.

Well, at least you have an explanation for how interpretations might be arrived at, even if others, claiming the same inspiration, may still disagree. There are other explanations as well, including, simply, the perspicuity of Scripture or also the role of one's methodology-relying on the science of biblical studies to get at the truth. The RCC also claims guidance by the HS in understanding the faith, both for herself as well as Christians individually.

We have the liberty to allow others to be different.

Sure, but that's not a reason for compromising important truths of course.

So "who wins" may have some ecclesiastical consequences, but it doesn't eliminate personal accountability for truth.

"Who wins" is at issue with every minor debate on these forums and elsewhere. People are passionate about what they believe, considering faith to be of critical importance, and passionate enough to call others wrong in their beliefs- or worse-while denying any infallibility of their own beliefs, of course.

SS stands even tho men don't always agree what it means.
Truth do need man's agreement to be true.

Yes, and yet truth must be comprehended by man in order to have any value for us..

At the end of the day, everyone decides for themselves whom to believe.

This is true, for better or worse, right or wrong. Everyone does the best they can.