The Great Protestant Fallacy

Gee, maybe the Holy Spirit made a mistake putting the NT Scriptures into the common tongue of the people? I am being facetious.

Instead of starting a thread negatively as this, why don't we discuss on of the Solas of the Protesteant Reformation: Sola Scriptura. For your post in nothing more than an attack on it. What say ye?

 

Yet we read of the Jews at Berea being commended because they studied the scriptures (the Old Testament at that time, of course) to see if what Paul and Silas preached was actually true. Those Bereans weren't Christians already, so they would not have been members of any church. No, they studied the scriptures. Think also of what John wrote in John 20.30-31:

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.​

Not "these are written, that ye may call upon the church to interpret them to you."

Your suggestion sounds more than faintly Roman Catholic to me.

 

As usual, you are far away from the Bible Truth.

1 Cor 14
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

1 John 2:

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.


How can you teach the people?

 

On that basis then, given that the Bereans studied only the OT, we should all adhere to the doctrine of "sola-Old-Testament" as being "sufficient for salvation". OK, then, I'm off home to rip out those last 27 books from my Bible, including all those quotes from that pesky person Jesus.

 

Define, please.

 

In other words you are espousing your belief that Church tradition is the final authority over the Scripture. No thanks...

I perfer to let the Scriptures speak for themselves and hold the traditions of men under the final authority of God's Word.

 

Matt, that is not what I meant at all. I just meant that at the time the events in Acts were happening, the New Testament had not been written, so when the Bereans searched "the Scriptures", it could only have been the Old Testament.

 

Luther would choke on this statement. I thought you are a Lutheran pastor? What's up? Are you switching to Catholicism? Luther stood up for sola scriptura, almost invented the term, and yet you are attacking its very foundation. Do you preach this in your church? And what do you define as "Church Militant"? Catholic or Lutheran?

 

Given the clarification you made prior to this statement, I agree with it.

 

1) Are you talking about the "Church" by meaning the rule of Majority? or the Clergy system which is condemned by Jesus as the Nicolaitanes ( Re 2:6 and 15) ? Do you vote among the church members for the interpretation of Bible? or are you trying to be a dictating mono-pastor for the interpretation of the Bible?
If you are on the first, you don't have to oppose to the individual interpretation very much. If your claim is based on the latter, you revealed the greedy monopoly interpretation by the RCC alone.

2) 1 John 2:27 has been the warning against the dictatorship of Bible interpretation as you claimed.
Doctrines of Nicolaitanes prohibited the interpretations of the Bible, and that's how the so-called clergies could keep the people in darkness and slavery, without informing the Truth to the people. Clergies like you are scared that the people might know about the Bible better than you do.

 

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,
:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Shooting that down was pretty easy, Chemnitz

 

Cutter, I hope you are not suggesting that you or anyone else can speak with the authority or understand with the depth of clarity conferred on the Apostle Paul by none other than Jesus Christ Himself. I think you need to go back to the drawing board and think this over some more.

 

I think you need to go back and reread the OP! He said something never happened and I showed him the scripture disproved his assertion. Did I or not? Did I say that was my training or revelation? Get a grip, buddy and make sure you understand a post before you make such an outlandish claim! Really! :tonofbricks:

 

OK Cutter, I have reread the OP and it is not contradicted by Galatians 1:9-19, which nowhere suggests interpretation of scripture. You may be able to prove Chemnitz wrong but not with this scripture.

 

The Gospel is the Word of God.
The Word of God is scripture.
The scripture is the revelation of God.

The Gospel Paul preached, according to Paul, was not after men, nor was it received of man.
The Word of God came to Paul on the road to Damascus from the Lord Himself, not man.
The scripture Paul wrote he received from God and not man.
Does the Holy Spirit speak to any of you guys today, or are you either deaf to Him or underestimate His ability to guide you "into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and He will shew you things to come."
Or maybe you think God's too busy to speak to you or sup with you and you don't bother to challenge God when He says, "Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not."

Oh yeah, Consulting so and so is easier, probably faster, too.

Is the scripture sufficient for the believer?
Is it enough?
Will it get me to heaven?

The way some believers are today I'm not sure they believe the Word of God is the final authority.

 

Yet that is the logical conclusion of your statement.

Chemnitz, thanks for your earlier clarification, but I'm not sure that gets us out of the hole. It doesn't for example address Eliyahu's question: whose interpretation do we go with - someone who is ordained with a degree in theology, or Joe Pew-Fodder who's been a Christian for 3 weeks? It also doesn't address the related issue of absolutely contradictory interpretations: how do you judge between the Calvinist and the Arminian, the cessationist and charismatic, the dispensationalist and the covenantist etc? Who gets to judge? etc etc

 

It is clearly logical to you, Matt, but I'm afraid not to me. Here are some possible meanings of your objection that occur to me. Are any of them correct, or do you mean something I haven't thought of?

1. Maybe you think that the passage about the Bereans searching the scriptures cannot apply to the subject under discussion, because they did not have the New Testament.

2. Perhaps you thought that because I said that the Bereans only had the Old Testament, I was saying that we too should only use the Old Testament. (If so, I must assure that I did not mean that).

3. Could it be that you believe the Bereans already had at least part of the New Testament?

I stress again that all I meant was that, for people living at the time of those Bereans, the only Scriptures they could have searched would have been the Old Testament. The verse I quoted was Acts 17.11:

11 These were more fair–minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.​

If we want to know what "these things" were, we only need to look back at Acts 17.1-3:

1 ¶ Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ."​

Paul reasoned with the Jews from the Old Testament Scriptures, the New having not yet been written, concerning the person, the death and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I have no desire at all to be "nit-picking". I'm just trying to understand what you meant.

Incidentally, I should add that I agree with what you wrote in reply to Chemnitz.