And both are very different from the living, God-given and mandated Tradition which Jesus gave His Apostles authority to dispense.
Sola Scripture?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by nate, Apr 17, 2006.
Page 13 of 16
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
If you say Tradition is just based on Interpretting Scripture or Interpretation itself, it is OK. Then we encounter the following question.
1. Interpretation cannot change the Scripture!
I don't think you are saying that Interpretation can abolish Scripture itself, do you agree? If you agree, you are agreeing to the Sola Scripture! or to Supreme Sovereignty of Scripture, right?
2. As for the interpretation of the Bible,
I would say you are WRONG! and you just follow the typical errancy of Roman Catholic way of interpretation.
2-1: 1 Tim 3:2 is primarily talking about the monogamy against Polygamy, however, can we not detect that Bible doesn't prohibit the marriage of the overseers ( Bishops) ? If Bible prohibits Marriage of the Priests as Roman Catholic does today, then can Bible say that a Bishop should be a husband of one wife?
Can we tell the Roman Catholic priests today that they can be husbands of each one's wife?
Can any one who has one wife be a bishop of Roman Catholic today?
Do you not understand the difference here yet?
If you still insist that there is no problem with COMPULSORY celibacy of Roman Catholic, you are declaring your mentality has
something wrong and you are not qualified for your job!
2-2: Infant Baptism
Where do you find Philippian Jailor had infants? from your imagination? That is the typical way of Roman Catholic interpretation, deriving a profound but whorish theory from the verses of Bible, as they derive the prayer to the dead.
Mark 10: Yes, Jesus told the people to allow the children come to the Lord, and that's why many Protestant churches have the Sunday schools.
Did Jesus ask the people to baptize the infants there? Are you claiming that one should be baptized regardless of their repentance?
That might be why Roman Catholic drowned many Anabaptists!, ?
Moreover children could hear the Gospel while the infants don't understand anything!
Allowing Children to come to the Lord and have them hear the Gospel is absolutely welcome and that is what Protestant churches are doing well today ! You should distinguish it from Infant Baptism
[ April 26, 2006, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ] -
Or the idea that we should limit ourselves to "sola scriptura"...
Ephesians 4 says the Church is here to equip us, 2 Tim 3 says the scriptures equip us. 1 Tim 3 says of the two of them that it is the Church which is the pillar and ground of the truth. The teachings of the Church - i.e. of the bishops in communion - never has nor never will contradict biblical truth.
No.
It DOES mandate that they can only ever have one wife. It does mandate that if they have kids they need to be under control.
Also, there are married Catholi priests, both in the latin rite and the eastern rites. If you want to discuss celibacy we can in another post, but to deal with it briefly: the church forces celibacy on nobody.
It DOES expect those who take vows of celibacy to keep them - but this is also very biblical! Paul himself speaks of those taking vows of celibacy then seeking to remarry and incurring condemnation. (1 Tim 5:9-16)
Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults, men and women.
The OT speaks of "entire households" being circumcized - and we know this included even children 8 days old.
The NT speaks of "entire households" being baptized - there is no reason to assume this DOESN't include children 8 days old.
And in fact, if you look at history (which of course you wont) you'll see that there WAS a controversy in the early church about infant baptism - whether or not we still needed to wait 8 days! -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Eliyahu, Living_stone put it better than I can. I agree with you that interpretation does not change Scripture, it...er...interprets it. But, since Scripture alone does not always give us that interpretation, then we have to rely on something outside of Scripture ie: the Tradition of the Church, to give us that; therefore, whilst I accept that Scripture is supreme, it cannot stand alone and needs Tradition to interpret it
-
We should all follow the "tradition" of Origen and become heretics. Even the Catholic Church finally recognized Origen as a heretic. But in his writings we do find tradition.
Or shall we follow the "tradition" of Augustine and all become hyper-Calvinists, the same Calvinism that Calvin himself plagiarized. Be sure to allegorize all of Scripture while you are at it. Is this the tradition that we should follow. Is Augustine's interpretation right?
One after another ECF and other early theologians have been dead wrong when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. Early does not mean better. The Bible itself is our only authoritative guide in all matters of faith and doctrine. It alone is inspired and infallible.
DHK -
The Early Church Fathers aren't infallible. But on what they agree upon they show such beliefs existing in the early church.
And Augustine was not a hyper-calvinsit. He taught predestination is a permissable belief - jsut not Double Predestination.
And even if he did, it woudln't matter, for alone he does not speak for the Church.
I don't know quite what you're trying to "prove" or what case you're attempting to make? That the ECFs aren't infallible? Yeah, that's a given.
But they sound awfully "Catholic" on most points:
Infant Baptism
Eucharist as Christ's flesh
Apostolic Succession
Obeying the Bishops
Authority of the Church
Etc...
I must even conceed that many of them supported the primacy of the bishop of Rome because he was Peter's successor. -
Tertullian, for example, was the first one to believe in infant baptism. And that came at the end of his life when he had changed his view for about the third time in his life. Before that time he was a Montanist with a completely different view on baptism--immersion after salvation as an adult. So what part of Tertullian's life do you want to quote from? Only the part that suits you the best, right?
The Eucharist of Christ's flesh is probably accepted by very few of the ECF. I have read the literature, and the arguments for and against. The problems are at least two fold. First we must remember that we are dealing with texts that have been translated and thus have lost some of their original meaning. Secondly you can deliberately take one meaning out of what these ECF are saying whereas they are actually saying the exact opposite. You do this with the words of Jesus. In fact they may be quoting the words of Jesus, and just because they quote the words of Jesus, you will say: "Ah, Ha! Transubstantiation, just like we believe," when all along they mean something entirely different. You read into those writings what you want to believe, not necessarily what they actually wrote.
DHK -
#1. In Acts 17:1-11 They were able to do with just 39 books of the Bible what you claim you can not do with all 66!
#2. You still have not answered the question in the post above - how do you avoid the Mark 7 problem GIVEN that you already admit to the problem of Tradition that contradicts scripture! -
The "first Eucharist" admitted to outside of scripture by the RCC - makes no mention of "confecting God".
The priesthood itself is "admitted" to have "evolved over time" EVEN by RC historians themselves! They admit that the NT church leaders REFUSED to be called "priests". They also admit to the evolution of the rift dividing what "became" sacred clergy -- vs profane laity.
In Christ,
Bob -
</font>[/QUOTE]WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED SOLA SCRIPTURA
By STEVE RAY
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp
Sola Scriptura is used all throughout the Bible from the times of Moses to the Apostles throughout the early churches, and even until this day. It is a biblical doctrine that has been rejected by the Catholic Church because it would usurp the authority of the Catholic Church. The Bible would become the authority instead of the magesterium and that just wouldn’t do for the Catholic Church. So the RCC either discredits Dave Hunt or the doctrine itself, defended by honest people like Dave Hunt.
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
Acts 17:5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
Acts 17:9 And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
--This was a common occurrence wherever Paul went. He would enter a synagogue and preach the gospel. There would be many that would believe. However, there were many that would be antagonistic to the gospel and would stir up trouble. Paul met such people in every city that he went/ Mostly these were Jusaizers who believed that keeping the Law and that Circumcision ought to be necessary as a part of salvation. But Paul put a stop to that errant type of theology immediately. Salvation was always by grace through faith.
Yes that is what the Scripture says. Now what is your take on it?
Acts 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
--There was a great multitude that believed. It appears that those who went after Paul were in the minority, in fact just a few rabble-rousers—specifically, “took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company.” In other words, in modern language there was a “gang” that went after Paul, not the city, not a multitude, but a small number of people that were angry at what Paul had said. The Thessalonians as a whole accepted Paul, and the gospel. A great multitude, both Jews and Gentiles believed. A few rabble-rousers did not, and followed Paul to Berea. It wasn’t “the Thessalonians,” per se. It wasn’t the city. It was a few people, some of his enemies. This happened wherever Paul went is was a common occurrence. Don’t exaggerate the facts. The Jews of Thessalonica did indeed accept what Paul had to say. Read the Scripture again. Steve Ray lies at this point. He is wrong, and seeks to deceive many.
Acts 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
Now let’s look at Luke’s comment about the noble-minded Bereans: "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men" (Acts 17:10–12).[/qb][/quote]
Always good to quote the Scripture. What is his twist on this passage? Will he tell the truth this time?
Ray’s problem is this:
He errs in not knowing the Scripture neither the power of God.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--This was the standard the Jews went by. It defines sola scriptura. If it wasn’t by the Word of God (the law and testimony) it was because there was no light in them. Ray only proves there is no light in him, by denying sola scriptura.
An example of their tradition was this:
If one walked in front of a Rabbi and sneezed, he would be considered accursed. Much of their tradition is written in the Talmud. It is condemned by Jesus. Read Matthew chapter 23 and Mark 7:1-23.
Mark 7:6-13 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 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. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 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. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
To be continued
DHK -
-
</font>[/QUOTE] -
The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the "dogs," not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).Click to expand...
We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."Click to expand...
The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No.Click to expand...
Q. Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures.
Ans. Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Paul commended them because they searched the Scriptures daily. Do you not believe the Bible? Or do you just try to put your own twist on things. Ray deliberately deceives. This is obvious.
Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures.Click to expand...
A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).Click to expand...
The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a "tradition," it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures.Click to expand...
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
Paul preached the gospel (1Cor.15:3,4), which was easily verifiable through the Old Testament, and through sola scriptural.
These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an "extension" of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the "other Scriptures," which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).Click to expand...
From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.Click to expand...
Councils don’t mean much to us. We know where the canon of Scripture came from and the Catholics had nothing to do with it. But that is another topic for another thread. Your point here is a red herring. Sure the Thessalonians were noble as well. Multitudes trusted Christ. Paul wasn’t referring to them He was referring to that minority of rabble-rousers when he said “than the Thessalonians.” To be more clear he could have said “than the Thessalonian rabble-rousers.” Remember their were multitudes that were saved in Thessalonica.
Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they were the sole source of revelation and authority? No,Click to expand...
but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew—to confirm additional revelation. They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted the credibility of Paul’s teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. After that, like the converts who believed in Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old Testament equally as God’s word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16). Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.Click to expand...
By contrast, the Jews of Thessalonica would have condemned Peter’s biblical exegesis at the Council of Jerusalem. They would have scoffed at the Church’s having authority over them—the Torah was all they needed. Those who held to sola scriptura rejected Paul because he claimed to be the voice of "additional revelation."Click to expand...
Luke makes it plain that those who were willing to accept apostolic Tradition as binding were more noble-minded.Click to expand...
The Bereans passage, therefore, is hardly a proof text for those who espouse sola scriptura. This text proves too much for Fundamentalists. Anti-Catholics love to associate themselves with the Bereans, but the example of the Bereans actually condemns their exegesis.Click to expand...
Luke’s praise of the Bereans cannot be applied to Fundamentalist Protestants, who resemble rather the Thessalonians, who held to sola scriptura and rejected the oral word of God contained in Tradition and in the teaching authority of the Church.Click to expand...
To be consistent with his novel theology of sola scriptura, Dave Hunt ought to rename his monthly newsletter. Let me suggest a new title: The Thessalonian Call.
Steve Ray engages in apologetics work in Michigan. He joined the Catholic Church in 1994. He is the author of Crossing the Tiber (Ignatius Press).Click to expand...
DHK -
-
Originally posted by Living_stone:
His book, Hunting the Whore of Babylon was chocked full of errors.Click to expand...
I saw nothing in your last post about sola scriptura.
DHK -
Let's just take the first bogus example of error claimed at your link.
#1: Seven Hills
Hunt argues that the Whore "is a city built on seven hills," which he identifies as the seven hills of ancient Rome. This argument is based on Revelation 17:9, which states that the woman sits on seven mountains.
The Greek word in this passage is horos. Of the sixty-five occurrences of this word in the New Testament, only three are rendered "hill" by the King James Version. The remaining sixty-two are translated as "mountain" or "mount." Modern Bibles have similar ratios. If the passage states that the Whore sits on "seven mountains," it could refer to anything. Mountains are common biblical symbols, often symbolizing whole kingdoms (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Amos 4:1, 6:1; Obad. 8–21). The Whore’s seven mountains might be seven kingdoms she reigns over, or seven kingdoms with which she has something in common.
The number seven may be symbolic also, for it often represents completeness in the Bible. If so, the seven mountains might signify that the Whore reigns over all earth’s kingdoms.
Even if we accept that the word horos should be translated literally as "hill" in this passage, it still does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven hills as well.
Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome, which Rome are we talking about—pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of Hunt’s criteria as well, or better, than Rome during the Christian centuries.
Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City—the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered—and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one:Click to expand...
#1. Rome was called the "city of 7 hills" OUTSIDE of the book of Revelation! ALL historians (even Catholic ones) admit this.
#2. This is only ONE identifying mark. But the obvious fact is that the RCC ITSELF as identified ITSELF with "ROME" see it's name as an example.
#3. RC authors and historians and others "like Malachi Martin" ALSO freely admit that the RCC WAS the GREAT super power in Europe to follow Pagan Rome. The succession is admitted to by ALL historians!!
#4. Trying to "pretend" that the "city of 7 hills" is not being mentioned here is totally bogus EVEN in the text of the argument it is ADMITTED that pagan Rome IS identifiable as such!!
#5. Constantine TURNED OVER the entire city as the Capital city of the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome when he MOVED his capital to Constantinople. This gave the Bishop of Rome supremecy over the other Bishops.
In any case - this first example is a good one for how their case WAS NOT made against Hunt!
In Christ,
Bob -
Originally posted by Living_stone:
Ephesians 4 says the Church is here to equip us, 2 Tim 3 says the scriptures equip us. 1 Tim 3 says of the two of them that it is the Church which is the pillar and ground of the truth. The teachings of the Church - i.e. of the bishops in communion - never has nor never will contradict biblical truth.
[/QB]Click to expand...
Idol worshipping church or Idol rejecting church?
or Goddess worshippers church or Human Hierarchy church?
How can we discern the True church out of thousands?
In that case should we not refer to the Bible? Doesn't Bible have the authority to discern the True church from the heretic Idol Worshipping church?
Is Bible insufficient to teach us all the Truth for our living?
Any interpretation of traditions are under Scripture or on top of Scripture? -
Idol worshipping church or Idol rejecting church?Click to expand...
Goddess worshippers churchClick to expand...
or Human Hierarchy church?Click to expand...
In that case should we not refer to the Bible?Click to expand...
Any interpretation of traditions are under Scripture or on top of Scripture?Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Living_stone:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />or Human Hierarchy church?Click to expand...
/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Where are Priests mentioned else than 1 Pet 2:5-9? Are we all the born again believers not the priests?
No man is on top of any man, no church is on top of any other church shown in NT.
There is no hierarchy in the church as we read in Matt 23:8-11. -
Originally posted by Living_stone:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Idol worshipping church or Idol rejecting church?Click to expand...
Goddess worshippers churchClick to expand...
</font>[/QUOTE]Then Roman Catholic church is disqualified to interpret the Bible Scripture, because they worship idols.
http://www.aloha.net/%7Emikesch/baruch.htm
They worship goddess only by changing the name into Mary or Maria, as we see this:
http://www.aloha.net/%7Emikesch/crown.htm
Page 13 of 16