The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

The author of confusion is alive and well on planet earth. He is still trying to adulterate The Word--just like with Eve in the Garden of Eden.

The Bereans were still more noble--it matters not which man said it--What does God say?

God is not the author of confusion.

Let God be found true--and every man a liar.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

No, your argument doesn't close the case. If the verse read: "ONLY Scripture (or "Scripture ALONE") is given by inspiration of God and it is the ONLY THING NECESSARY for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness", then you would have a point.

But my Bible doesn't say that. (And if it did say that it would contradict other Scriptures regarding the importance of keeping apostolic tradition (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15) and Church authority (Matt 18: 17-18).)

 

Actually - my argument is

#1. You can SEE them doing the VERY thing in Acts 17:11 that we are arguing for. You may not LIKE the text for some reason - but the METHOD - the PRINCIPLE is there none-the-less.

This inconvenient fact (for the RCC) is devastating to the RC position on NOT doing this when an Apostle speaks!

#2. In Mark 7 Christ CLEARLY shows that they DID know the DIFFERENCe between tradition and scripture and Christ said clearly that a VIOLATION of scripture by the traditions-of-man to be "a bad thing".

Surely we agree to that point.

That point is ALSO devastating to the RC argument since it SHOWS the ONE TRUE CHURCH of Christ's day doing EXACTLY what the RCC claims to be doing with tradition - and it shows GOD holding them accountable to HOW it CONTRADICTS the Word.

He does not offer them the "excuse" of "yes but my priest told me this was ok and he is my infallible interpreter".

Devastating to the case the RCC would make today.


#3. God is the one who ordains and writes and defines scripture. So in Acts 17 they are using the entire OT to "test" the Words of Paul to "SEE IF those things are true" that are spoken to them by Paul.

This is THE VERY PRACTICE that the RCC condemns!

No matter what you want to say about the OT text (which IS the SCRIPTURE used by all NT authors as you point out). It is the METHOD, the PROCESS, the MODEL of TESTING an APOSTLE against scripture to SEE IF his word is true that is "APPROVED" in the text.

This is devastating to Catholicism.

#4. In the case of Acts 17 -- This is not just testing a priest or a bishop or a 100th successor of the first-order-apostles - this IS testing A FIRST ORDER Apostle DIRECTLY!

A more direct and devastating challenge to the RCC's assumptions here could not be printed.

#5. This Acts 17:11 incident is not a test done by a bunch of sceptical Catholics testing a priest - NOR even a bunch of Protestant Christians testing a priest -- RATHER it is JEWS and non-Christian GENTILES testing AN APOSTLE!!

Again- it is a challenge IN THE EXTREME. Because on this thread we have primarily been talking about fellow CHRISTIANS using the Bible to "validate" or check out doctrine. But here it is NON-CHRISTIANS as well - and they are APPROVED for it!

These devastating points that arise from a careful reading of the text - would never allow the abuse of scripture practiced by the RCC today.


#6. Yet your argument is that these points do not exist. These inconvenient facts are not listed there as THEY point to the VERY METHOD the RCC rejects.


Please tell me this is "not what you object to" in the "Sola scriptura" you are calling bankrupt.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No - my argument clearly shows a method - a process that is clearly and obviously rejected by the RCC today.

If you try that method "Studying the scriptures to see IF a first order NT apostles words are SO" they call that using the "Sola Scriptura principle".

How in the world could you not notice that?

The OTHER issue of whether you "like" the fact that the NT authors used the OT as their "scripture" is purely incidental.

Though I am really glad to go into that point - it has nothing to do with the more devastaing problem that WHAT THEY DID is exactly what is called testing doctrine "Sola scriptura" today!

Testing the WORDS of someone claiming to be an apostle AGAINST scripture to SEE IF IT IS TRUE.

And what was their BASIS for interpreting the text of scripture to SEE IF Paul the Apostle is correct?

Come on - you know this one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am simply referring to the "inconvenient detail" that these non-Christians were using scripture to "SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

And I am "noting" that this IS the method of "Sola Scriptura" -- in living color!

It is impossible to miss.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Matt and Bob;
What you are missing is the FACT that Paul came to the Bereans preaching Christ and Him crucified, and resurrected.
The Bereans searched the OT daily to see if THOSE things were SO.

Matt; your "what if..." doesn't hold water because
they weren't looking for whether or not baptism by immersion was SO. (or any other of the miriad of things seperating christians today) They were looking for CHRIST in the OT. Obviously they found Him, whereas other Jews of their day did not. Most Jews of that day who missed Christ, missed Him because of the traditional teachings of their rabbis.

Bob;
Whether or not the Bereans had the LXX (I submit they didn't) is immaterial. As I said to Matt; The Bereans were looking to see if CHRIST was in the OT Scriptures they had in order to validate or reject what Paul was preaching. He was NOT preaching anything other than Jesus and Him crucified. We know this by the surrounding text. Anyhow, it really doesn't matter now does it? You have effectively answered Matt's objections and yet he insists that SS in not solid doctrinally. Oh well, "que sera', sera'".

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Hmm...interesting point, particularly the last sentence. What's interesting was that the Ebionites were basically that--'Marcionites in reverse'. The Ebionites didn't accept the orthodox Christian claims about Christ (particularly Paul's teachings) because of their rigid adherence to (their interpretation of) the OT.

This brings us to the real distinction between the Bereans and the unbelieving Thessalonians in Acts 17. Both groups (being Jews--17:1,10) already had the Scriptures, and Paul was reasoning with them both from the Scriptures (v.2) to show Jesus was the Christ. He (and the other apostles) were presenting a new (at least to the hearers) interpretation of the OT Scriptures centered around and fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. Some in Thessalonica were persuaded, but the Jews that were not stirred up a mob against Paul. The Bereans are then called noble minded primarily because "they received the [Apostle's] word with all readiness". They did indeed search the OT Scriptures (from which Paul was reasoning), but it was this new Apostolic interpretation of their familiar Scriptures that they received with readiness and for which primarily they were commended. I imagine that the Jews that were not persuaded, ie that rejected the apostolic interpretation of the OT, still maintained that they were the ones who were going "by the Book". To this day Jewish apologists argue from (OT) Scripture that Christ was not the Messiah.

 

So, do you believe in sola scripture for salvation matters only?

Or like the point I was trying to make, do you deal with social issues by Sola Scripture? </font>[/QUOTE]The topic was salvation in Acts 17:11
However, we believe the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine, including social issues as social issues are dealt with in the Bible.
"Study to show yourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed but rightly dividing the world of truth."
That verse was not given to a magesterium or a teaching authority, but to each and every individual.
DHK

 

So was "inspiration" (2Tim.3:16). You mean that doesn't apply to us either?? Timothy had an inspired Bible, but we don't, because it was written to Timothy? A little absurd, don't you think.
DHK

 

Timothy had an inspired Bible? I thought he had a letter from Paul which was later decerned to be inspired and added to the canon...

 

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Were the Scriptures that Timothy had, and that Paul was referring to inspired or not?

 

I think we all agree that they were. I thought you were talking about the book of 2 Timothy... I should never read long threads when I'm tired.

 

I am simply referring to the "inconvenient detail" that these non-Christians were using scripture to "SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

And I am "noting" that this IS the method of "Sola Scriptura" -- in living color!

It is impossible to miss.
</font>[/QUOTE]Isn't it the case that every heresy does the same thing? Doesn't every heresy use scripture to "prove" itself? I know e.g. the oneness folks are very adept at that. They have looked into scriptures and SEEN that THE TRINITY IS NOT TRUE. Now what?

 

Most use the same stuff as Mormons just sometimes more or less sophisticated. May use the subjective method of "I know because the Lord told me" or "The Holy Spirit told me." When in fact it was their own spirit which told them. Just the same as Joseph Smith.