To vote in favor of sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition

[BobRyan]

If you favor sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition that is presented to you as a proposal for accepting or rejecting... please cast your vote BOTH on the thread at the following link

I am not arguing that all doctrine or that all tradition violates the test of scripture - just that it must be tested.

Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

This is exactly the sort of questions to be asked in the "sola scriptura" example given in Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:7-13 In both examples the scriptures are the standard and in both cases the established POV/Tradition/teaching of the nation-church magesterium started by God at Sinai - was found...

www.christianforums.com

And of course on this one where this is the OP

See the sola scriptura testing examples in Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:7-13 - and the result is 66 books that both sides accept.

For example notice this post at that thread link above #439 where the sola scriptura method as demonstrated in scripture - is shown to be both approved of by Christ and by the NT authors of Acts.

 

[Gary O']

I don't care much about tradition
But
In favor of The Bible and The Bible only in regard to doctrine

 

[Gary K]

I don't care much about tradition
But
In favor of The Bible and The Bible only in regard to doctrine

Agreed.

How you doing? Haven't seen you around much.

 

[concretecamper]

I'd vote, but non of the choice accurately reflects what His Church teaches.

 

[rturner76]

It would not be productive to vote for "Sola Scripture" when the same people who believe Sola Scriputa do not believe in the teachings of the Church that finalized The New Testament 400 years after Christ's assumption. During those 400 years and the 600 years after, we had the teachings of The Catholic Church. How can one throw out the work of The Church without throwing out The Sola Scripture that they worship which was created and approved by the same Catholic (universal) Church?

Literally 100,000 different interpretations of the work that The Catholic Church completed made by 100,000 different "churches." Where is the true gospel being preached in 100.000 different churches with different doctrines?

I'll stick with the first Church which Jesus himself founded rather than the 100,000 different variations of the true gospel we have to choose from.

 

[Gary O']

How you doing? Haven't seen you around much.

Yeah, backing off from posting for a bit.
Saving what's left of my vision for Bible study of which my eyes are best in the early mornings
Deep into the Gospels right now, along with audio of EG White's Acts of The Apostles

Thanks for checking, brother

 

[Gary K]

Yeah, backing off from posting for a bit.
Saving what's left of my vision for Bible study of which my eyes are best in the early mornings
Deep into the Gospels right now, along with audio of EG White's Acts of The Apostles

Thanks for checking, brother

OK. I'm still praying for you and your eyesight. It was good to see you here.

 

[BobRyan]

I'd vote, but non of the choice accurately reflects what His Church teaches.

Whose church rejects "sola scriptura" testing of doctrine and practice -- as we see it in Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:7-13?? yours?

 

[BobRyan]

It would not be productive to vote for "Sola Scripture" when the same people who believe Sola Scriputa do not believe in the teachings of the Church

I think we all believe in the teachings of the church.

Or did you mean "of your church"??

In any case Everyone knows about the 27 books of the NT and the 39 books of the OT - those are not in dispute at all - even Catholics accept them.

No sense in rejecting the sola scriptura testing examples in Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:7-13 - over 66 books that both sides accept.

And both sides agree that the first century NT saints were not about to wait 300 or 400 years to read their NT texts.

that finalized The New Testament 400 years after Christ's assumption.

A good example of what nobody in the first century NT church could have paid any attention to at all. And I think we can all agree on that point.

Seriously - it just doesn't get any easier than this one.

 

[concretecamper]

Whose church rejects "sola scriptura" testing of doctrine and practice -- as we see it in Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:7-13?? yours?

Like I said, His Church

 

[BobRyan]

Like I said, His Church

His Church (Jesus' church) agrees with the Bible, the one being read by the first century saints that included the Hebrew canon of scripture that had been unchanged for 500 years as the first century historian , Josephus points out..

"They studied THE SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11. That is what "HIS church" affirmed, approved of , said was "blessed" in the book of Acts.

His church did not oppose it, but rather affirmed it. May we assume that you do as well???

 

[rturner76]

Or did you mean "of your church"??

I mean THE Church, others are A church

And both sides agree that the first century NT saints were not about to wait 300 or 400 years to read their NT texts.

They didn't have to wait, they wrote it blus hundreds of other books. It was the Church that they founded that decided which ones were the most crucial.

A good example of what nobody in the first century NT church could have paid any attention to at all. And I think we can all agree on that point.

Seriously - it just doesn't get any easier than this one.

They likely couldn't as different letters were written to different Churches. It was the gathering of the most critical teachings that went into the Bible. What I don't understand is why so many people believe in the Bible but not the interpretation of the men who completed it.

 

[concretecamper]

His Church (Jesus' church) agrees with the Bible, the one being read by the first century saints that included the Hebrew canon of scripture that had been unchanged for 500 years as the first century historian , Josephus points out..

His Church chose the canon based on what Jesus taught. The canon defined in the 4th Century has remained unchanged.

"They studied THE SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11. That is what "HIS church" affirmed, approved of , said was "blessed" in the book of Acts.

His church did not oppose it, but rather affirmed it. May we assume that you do as well???

Scripture DOES NOT claim to be all that is needed for a Christian. If you claim it does, fine. But don't complain about those who don't buy your man made doctrine of SS

 

[BobRyan]

Like I said, His Church

His Church (Jesus' church) agrees with the Bible, the one being read by the first century saints that included the Hebrew canon of scripture that had been unchanged for 500 years as the first century historian , Josephus points out..

"They studied THE SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11. That is what "HIS church" affirmed, approved of , said was "blessed" in the book of Acts.

His church did not oppose it, but rather affirmed it. May we assume that you do as well???

His Church chose the canon

His NT church did not write the OT and in the first century AD - already had it in canonized unchanged form for over 500 years by the time of Josephus.

The canon defined in the 4th Century has remained unchanged.

His church was reading the NT texts in the first century long before the 4th century - as Paul states clearly. They had accepted them as scripture "the Word of God" as Paul admits.

 

[BobRyan]

They didn't have to wait, they wrote it blus hundreds of other books. It was the Church that they founded that decided which ones were the most crucial.

Paul stated the matter clearly without a "wait a few hundred years and you will know what is the word of God" teaching.

1 Thess 2:
13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of mere men, but as what it really is, the word of God, which also is at work in you who believe.

They had no "wait a few hundred years - then someone will tell us what matters" teaching as any reader of the actual first century text can easily see in the text itself.

What I don't understand is why so many people believe in the Bible but not the interpretation of the men who completed it.

Christ Himself demonstrated how to slam hammer magisterium tradition sola-scriptura in Mark 7:7-13 as already noted in the OP

 

[BobRyan]

Scripture DOES NOT claim to be all that is needed for a Christian.

Out of curiosity - are you quoting me in some way just then??

 

[rturner76]

Paul stated the matter clearly without a "wait a few hundred years and you will know what is the word of God" teaching.

I never said they had to wait 400 years to read God's word. However there were many more than. However, the books that were chosen to be included in the Bible that we know and love was decided by the same Church that Jesus started and the Apostles carried on. The question is why should they be trusted to combine the most important writings but not be trusted how to interpret them? The the Church didn't know what it was talking about, why not choose your own writings to follow?

Christ Himself demonstrated how to slam hammer magisterium tradition sola-scriptura in Mark 7:7-13 as already noted in the OP

When did I ever say that tradition was more important than scripture? I said that all tradition has been tested by scripture.....See Catechism Catechism of the Catholic Church and you will see Bible references for every rule of the Church.

You see, the thing is, when we depend on our own understanding of the Bible Proverbs 3:5 Everyone has their own interpretation on scripture. That is why instead of one Church like there was for the first 1000 years after Christ, there are now 100,000 different churches. Don't like what you're church is teaching? Just start your own. Teach your understanding instead of the Church that Christ founded. Stick with the church Joe Shmo started or start your own. I mean, who needs to be taught anything when we can all interpret scripture for ourselves?

 

[BobRyan]

I never said they had to wait 400 years to read God's word. However there were many more than. However, the books that were chosen to be included in the Bible that we know and love was decided by the same Church that Jesus started and the Apostles carried on. The question is why should they be trusted to combine the most important writings

Your question then turns into "Why should they have been allowed to exclude any of the books being read in the first century".

It is not so much the books they invented/wrote/came-up-with in the 4th century but rather the books they rejected. And our 27 is not then a new set of books in the 4th century but the same ones as in the first century only fewer.

but not be trusted how to interpret them?

We trust ourselves to be able to "read" and we note that the 27 were never rejected in the first century to start with.
So then nobody says "believe whatever my magesterium says - that is your solution" -- because that is 'no solution at all' for clearing up divisions.

The the Church didn't know what it was talking about, why not choose your own writings to follow?

As you already admitted - they were not coming up with new books in the 4th century - they were removing books.

When did I ever say that tradition was more important than scripture?

In fact in Mark 7:7-13 tradition gets slam hammered - sola scriptura.

I said that all tradition has been tested by scripture

Then you should have no problem with everyone doing that very test.
Just as Christ did in Mark 7 when He slam-hammered tradition in his day.
Just as the Acts 17:11 example shows as they "studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were So"

 

[rturner76]

It is not so much the books they invented/wrote/came-up-with in the 4th century but rather the books they rejected. And our 27 is not then a new set of books in the 4th century but the same ones as in the first century only fewer.

We trust ourselves to be able to "read" and we note that the 27 were never rejected in the first century to start with.
So then nobody says "believe whatever my magesterium says - that is your solution" -- because that is 'no solution at all' for clearing up divisions.

Anyone can "read" but can just anyone interpret properly? We see that is not the case with Protestantism as there are 100,000 different interpretations by those who "read" and interpret however they please.

As you already admitted - they were not coming up with new books in the 4th century - they were removing books

Correct, and you trust the Church to do that but don't trust it to know how to interpret the books that they chose. Why trust their ability to discern what is and isn't divine revelation but reject that same church's revelation?

In fact in Mark 7:7-13 tradition gets slam hammered - sola scriptura.

Again, I remind you that tradition is tested by scripture so scripture/tradition.

Then you should have no problem with everyone doing that very test.
Just as Christ did in Mark 7 when He slam-hammered tradition in his day.
Just as the Acts 17:11 example shows as they "studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were So"

Everyone does not have the ability nor the inspiration to interpret properly. Feel free to trust yourself to have the proper interpretation of the Bible but remember this:

Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.?

Should you trust the Church Christ founded or trust yourself?​

 

[Gary K]

Anyone can "read" but can just anyone interpret properly? We see that is not the case with Protestantism as there are 100,000 different interpretations by those who "read" and interpret however they please.

Correct, and you trust the Church to do that but don't trust it to know how to interpret the books that they chose. Why trust their ability to discern what is and isn't divine revelation but reject that same church's revelation?

Again, I remind you that tradition is tested by scripture so scripture/tradition.

Everyone does not have the ability nor the inspiration to interpret properly. Feel free to trust yourself to have the proper interpretation of the Bible but remember this:

Proverbs 3:5-6​

5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart​

and lean not on your own understanding;​

6 in all your ways submit to him,​

and he will make your paths straight.?​

​

Should you trust the Church Christ founded or trust yourself?​

I would say any one who believes God can't prevent His own word from being completely corrupted worships a very small God.