Sola Scriptura part II

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Well now, this is a man after my own heart, and an intellectually honest one at that. :clap:

Sola Scriptura, of course, sounds like a doctrine that is so obviously true that to question it could only indicate a doubt in the infallible divine inspiration of Scripture. However, I assure you that the doubts I began to consider that finally led me to shed my belief in Sola Scriptura were only because of my firm conviction in the absolute infallible divine inspiration of Holy Scripture. I must also say that my beliefs that must replace Sola Scriptura are still being worked out in my mind and heart. I simply do not yet know precisely how I will articulate the alternative at this time. This is the collection of thoughts that led me to consider Sola Scriptura as itself a man-made doctrine that is internally inconsistent and ultimately leads to an ironic conclusion characterized by complete uncertainty.

As I said previously, one doesn't have to accept the Apostolic Church's Sacred Tradition as an alternative, but one does need to find something that actually works.
 

Starman3000m

New Member
Yep, I started a new one. The following blog entry is long but I found it interesting....

Second Thoughts on Sola Scriptura « genu(re)flection

The author of the article expresses his opinion about the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) but does not address the question about the "Jesus" that he believes.

1.) Roman Catholicism teaches a different "Jesus" and "Mary" than the Holy Bible;

2.) Mormonism teaches a different "Jesus" than the Holy Bible;

3.) Jehovah's Witnesses teach a different "Jesus" than the Holy Bible;

4.) Islam teaches a different "Jesus" than the Holy Bible;

5.) Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church teaches a different "Jesus" than the Holy Bible;

6.) Extra-Biblical denominations teach a different "Jesus" than the Holy Bible when they change the identity of the first-century accounts of Yeshua HaMashiach, (Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah) and change the Scripture's teaching on Salvation through repentance and faith in Christ alone.

There Is Only One Truth.
 

onel0126

Bead mumbler
The author of the article expresses his opinion about the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) but does not address the question about the "Jesus" that he believes.]

Speaking of what Jesus believed.....Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions, no? For example, the Gospels and other NT scripture refer to events that are not in the Old Testament but are apart of oral rabbinic tradition.
 

Starman3000m

New Member
Speaking of what Jesus believed.....Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions, no? For example, the Gospels and other NT scripture refer to events that are not in the Old Testament but are apart of oral rabbinic tradition.

Whenever Jesus made reference to Oral and Written Traditions it was to show that such were traditions and teachings of doctrines of men or misunderstood as to the intent of a law. For example:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

and;

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39)

and other examples.
 
Last edited:

onel0126

Bead mumbler
Whenever Jesus made reference to Oral and Written Traditions it was to show that such were traditions and teachings of doctrines of men or misunderstood as to the intent of a law. For example:



and other examples.

The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.

In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

"As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament......and other examples.
 

Starman3000m

New Member
The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.

In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

"As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament......and other examples.

C'mon, onel. Can't you see that what you have posted is from Sola Scriptura?

Your example/intent doesn't justify the validity of additional/extra-Biblical teachings that have come along and been conjured up by pseudo-Christian denominations after the Advent of Christ and His teachings and the teachings of His Disciples that are found in The Holy Bible.

Remember that Christ and Paul also warned that various teachings would come later and teach a different Jesus and a different gospel than what had been revealed through the Revelation and Messianic fulfilment of Jesus.

Any doctrine that teaches a different Messiah/Jesus than what has been established within the pages of the Holy Bible is teaching people to follow a false doctrine and false Jesus.

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22)

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
(2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

and;

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-7)

The fact remains:
The RCC, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists, Moonies, and all other extra-Biblical denominations that do not teach the Jesus of the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) are teaching another gospel, another Jesus and in the case of the RCC another Mary!

There Is Only One True Jesus and There Is Only One Truth.
 

onel0126

Bead mumbler
C'mon, onel. Can't you see that what you have posted is from Sola Scriptura?

Your example/intent doesn't justify the validity of additional/extra-Biblical teachings that have come along and been conjured up by pseudo-Christian denominations after the Advent of Christ and His teachings and the teachings of His Disciples that are found in The Holy Bible.

Remember that Christ and Paul also warned that various teachings would come later and teach a different Jesus and a different gospel than what had been revealed through the Revelation and Messianic fulfilment of Jesus.

Any doctrine that teaches a different Messiah/Jesus than what has been established within the pages of the Holy Bible is teaching people to follow a false doctrine and false Jesus.



The fact remains:
The RCC, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists, Moonies, and all other extra-Biblical denominations that do not teach the Jesus of the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) are teaching another gospel, another Jesus and in the case of the RCC another Mary! Your posts remind me of Fred Flinstone's feet......or Scooby Doo's feet....

There Is Only One True Jesus and There Is Only One Truth.

Ugh, no. Your inability to explain and defend SS is clear. When you get frustrated with something you can't defend you quickly shift to the whole "The RCC, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists, Moonies, and all other extra-Biblical denominations that do not teach the Jesus of the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) are teaching another gospel, another Jesus and in the case of the RCC another Mary!" crapola. You do this all of the time. All's I can hear is wheels spinning.
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Aswers to your post and Radiant questions.

1) I didn't ask questions in this thread.

2) I don't truly have questions about Sola Scriptura that haven't already been answered. At this point my questions are more of a dialectical method.

3) Your first two links didn't work for me, the other one by James White was nothing but more anti-Catholic Protestant polemic (as we would expect from James White) and did not answer any of those dialectical-based questions that I asked in the other thread.
 

Starman3000m

New Member
Ugh, no. Your inability to explain and defend SS is clear. When you get frustrated with something you can't defend you quickly shift to the whole "The RCC, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists, Moonies, and all other extra-Biblical denominations that do not teach the Jesus of the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) are teaching another gospel, another Jesus and in the case of the RCC another Mary!" crapola. You do this all of the time. All's I can hear is wheels spinning.

Okay, let's try this. What part of the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) is not the Truth?

And by the way, there is no frustration. I will gladly continue to reiterate that extra-Biblical teachings develop into heretical teachings that produce "another Jesus," "another gospel," and in the case of the RCC, "another Mary".

Nowhere in the Old Testament teachings were even the most Orthodox of Jews taught that their Moshiach ben David was going to reign in co-partnership with his mother and nowhere in the New Testament were there indications that Jesus was going to share His Glory and Redemptive Authority with His mother, Mary and that followers could also pray to the dead and to His deceased Disciples for spiritual guidance.

I believe it is the RCC that cannot justify its claim to the Vatican's extra-Biblical teachings about Mary, transubstantiation, purgatory, etc., from the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) just like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Muslims, Moonies, etc. are unable to and that's why ALL psuedo-Christian cults (and false religions) need to have "supplemental revelations" in order to base their false doctrines upon.
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Okay, let's try this. What part of the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) is not the Truth?

The bible is NOT sola scriptura, who are you trying to kid? :eyebrow: There's no part of the bible that's not true; it is the Word of God after all. It's sola scriptura that's not true, and oh so ironically proven by scripture itself (!).

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
 

StoneThrower

New Member
1) I didn't ask questions in this thread.

2) I don't truly have questions about Sola Scriptura that haven't already been answered. At this point my questions are more of a dialectical method.

3) Your first two links didn't work for me, the other one by James White was nothing but more anti-Catholic Protestant polemic (as we would expect from James White) and did not answer any of those dialectical-based questions that I asked in the other thread.

Fixed them!
 
Top