Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[Standing Up]

Didn't the Devil quote Scripture to Jesus?

Did the devil?

 

[BrendanMark]

For more on Logos:

For the New Testament, the big jump came when Jesus was identified as the incarnation of Heraclitus’ Logos, not as the Messiah. Indeed, it is quite clear that the New Testament tried to redefine the Messiah along Logos lines. Not only do the New Testament books say so explicitly, as in John 1, but the roles of Jesus and his effects also demonstrates Jesus as the Incarnate Word (Logos). All subsequent Christian doctrine, at least initially, flowed from that one categorical assertion.

What the Earliest Church has to assimilate were three different things. First, a humiliated and crucified Messiah figure, Jesus. Second, a risen Messiah figure. And, third, the outpouring of the spirit on Jews and Gentiles, sinners and righteous, binding them into a new community. Heraclitus’ philosophy afforded them the proper understanding of these events, an understanding that would have been quite natural in that this philosophy in several manifestations was nearly pervasive in the world of the First Century. Jesus’ teachings, concerns, values, and the process of his descent to crucifixion to resurrection to ascent to return mesh with Heraclitus rather well.
Ketzel, James A. – Panta 1: The Philosophical Basis of the New Testament [UPA, 1997, p.21]

 

[BrendanMark]

Did the devil?

Matthew 4:5-7:
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”




Both were quoting Scripture. "It is written . . ."

 

[Standing Up]

The Living Word (Logos) from the opening of the Gospel of John is Christ Himself, not the ink on the page or the preaching from the lips of others.

Is that obvious?

 

[BrendanMark]

It is if you can read the Greek of the Gospel of John 1:1:

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

 

[BrendanMark]

και θεος ην ο λογος
and God was the Word


We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, as we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεος thrown forward? And (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely confirmed in και θεος ην ο λογος.
Wallace, Daniel B. quoted from Mounce, Willam D. – Basics of Biblical Greek [Zondervan 1999, 2003 p27-28]

 

[Standing Up]

Matthew 4:5-7:
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”




Both were quoting Scripture. "It is written . . ."

Jesus had the better grasp. IOW, context. (Look at the name it/claim it groups.)

 

[Standing Up]

It is if you can read the Greek of the Gospel of John 1:1:

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

The question is what's your point? That scripture is not sufficient? That anyone with the Spirit in them is sufficient? We need a bishop, priest, deacon mentality? We need Tradition? We need the ECFs that agree with what we say today? What?

 

[Montalban]

I'd testify to the scripture alone.

Based on what? Certianly not scripture

They were turned back, as the devil was after the first 3 tries, but Jesus submitted unto death.

So how many times do you think you have left?

 

[Standing Up]

Based on what? Certianly not scripture


So how many times do you think you have left?

Now what are you asking?

 

[StThomasMore]

The scriptures have authority over the visible church which is the only way that the church can be the pillar and foundation of truth. Once a local church teaches unbiblically they are no longer the pillar and foundation of truth as has happened historically. "T"radition does not hold the same authority given the multiple variations of "T"radition among visible churches.

the early church did not believe that, nor does scripture say that.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth because it is led by the Holy Spirit.

Scripture is part of divine revelation. And oral tradition is a part of divine revelation. The operations of the Holy Spirit guard the Church and guide her. The Holy Spirit was behind the ecumenical councils, the defining of creeds and pronouncements, just as much as it was with scripture and oral teachings.

You should not divide the word and limit the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit works in all areas of the Church and christian life, both written and oral. All proceed from the same Holy Spirit, and thus one is not above the other. Both the Church, christian life, the analogy of the faith, and scripture are all on equal footing.

 

[StThomasMore]

The question is what's your point? That scripture is not sufficient? That anyone with the Spirit in them is sufficient? We need a bishop, priest, deacon mentality? We need Tradition? We need the ECFs that agree with what we say today? What?

yes we need priest and bishop. Why would St. Ignatius, who was a student of the apostle John say "do nothing without the consent of the Bishop". And that there can be no Church with an apostolic bishop.

The reason why an apostolic bishop was so important, was to prevent any schmoo from trying to institute himself as a bishop or head of a certain city Church. Rather the Catholic Church looked for people with experience and people who were involved with the apostles, like Igantius, Clement of Rome, Linius, Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus, Timothy, and Titus. Just as they only allowed people who were seriously involved with Christ's ministry to be candidates for the place of Judas.

You seriously need to read Eusebuis Church history to get a grasp of the early church, as it had a hierarchy right from the starting of Jesus choosing the 12 apostles and later the 70. You think St. Paul was just traveling to preach only? No, he was also instituting bishops, deacons, and priests in the areas of Lydia and Greece. Stephen himself, the first christian martyr, was a deacon.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

The scriptures have authority over the visible church which is the only way that the church can be the pillar and foundation of truth. Once a local church teaches unbiblically they are no longer the pillar and foundation of truth as has happened historically. "T"radition does not hold the same authority given the multiple variations of "T"radition among visible churches.

now that's some serious eisegesis right there...

 

[Montalban]

Now what are you asking?

You said "I testify to scripture alone"

I asked "Based on what?"

 

[heymikey80]

I came across this article a while ago:

The Practical Problems With Sola Scriptura

Protestant apologists, please read and counter the above criticism against sola scriptura.

Thanks!

To the OP -- the first corollary is not concluded, I stopped there. Individuals don't have an absolute right to their own interpretation: God has plenty of right, there. But delegated authorities have not been given this right.

In addition, the authority God delegates to other entities for enforcement and maintenance of the Body of Christ is not infringed by the right of conscience.

These points are both clearly and indeed explicitly stated in confessions dealing with conscience.

The right of conscience doesn't even extend to the right of free distribution of that viewpoint, either.

What it does extend to is the right of the person to hold to a viewpoint that's not consistent with the church's. That is, an inquisition into personal conscience isn't supposed to be possible, nor is a forced recantation of beliefs. Neither are valid before God; both are offenses against the authority the person holds within his own capacities for thought and consideration.

 

[Montalban]

To the OP -- the first corollary is not concluded, I stopped there. Individuals don't have an absolute right to their own interpretation: God has plenty of right, there. But delegated authorities have not been given this right.

So the Ethiopian was wrong to ask for help from the Deacon? (See Acts).

They should have said at the end "Don't do this!"

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So the Ethiopian was wrong to ask for help from the Deacon? (See Acts).

Perhaps all have the authority to teach, but permission to do something doesn't mean such is unaccountable in such.

Over and over, God warns us about FALSE teacher... and never tells us to lay aside the issue of truth and instead embrace whatever the RCC says with quiet, docilic submission to it itself.




.

 

[Montalban]

Funny that the Ethiopian didn't meet just 'anyone' but a deacon

Warning about false teachers is not the same as saying "Don't let yourself be taught"

It's another case of 'forest for the trees'.

The Bible clearly shows men going out and teaching.

Paul doesn't go around with a text and leaves it on people's doorsteps in the hope someone will read it.

And when Paul teaches, both written and by word of mouth he tells us how to pick bishops. He tells us to obey our elders.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Warning about false teachers is not the same as saying "Don't let yourself be taught"

True, but welcoming instruction is not the same thing as surrendering truth.

IMO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, eager to embrace accountability, confident that God's truth is revealed in the light. It's the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield self from accountability, build around self tall, thick walls of remarkable, egotistical, accountability-evading claims of self alone for self alone. My study of several cults impressed that upon me.

Friend, no one here is suggesting that things can't be taught or read or song or proclaimed or believed or shared. The issue is accountability - and specifically, the evaluation of truthfulness that embraces and most sound rule for such.





.

 

[Montalban]

True, but welcoming instruction is not the same thing as surrendering truth.

How did the Ethiopian know he was being taught the truth?

IMO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, eager to embrace accountability, confident that God's truth is revealed in the light. It's the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield self from accountability, build around self tall, thick walls of remarkable, egotistical, accountability-evading claims of self alone for self alone. My study of several cults impressed that upon me.

... so long as he only uses the bible, hey?

Friend, no one here is suggesting that things can't be taught or read or song or proclaimed or believed or shared. The issue is accountability - and specifically, the evaluation of truthfulness that embraces and most sound rule for such.

How do you know what's being taught is true?