The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scripture meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)." (http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html) That sounds all and good but how does that hold up to scripture? -
Now I won't quote it all here; I'll Just reference it I think it further significant that early church doctrine as found in the Bible was on AT LEAST 1 occasion decided at the convening of a council. "Say what? No, it cannot possibly be true!" Acts 15: 1-3 (ESV)
"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers."
So, we see here a dispute very early on in the church, this dispute being, basically, how much of the Laws of Moses must believers follow? Need they be circumcised? Keep Kosher? The high holidays? Frankly, there was not president in scripture, how then would sola scriptura answer this question? One would assume since they are the new Israel they'd keep all the laws of Moses right?
//"Now wait one darn minute there are things in scripture about this Paul is pretty clear on this issue isn't he? Read Colossians, read Galatians that's all scripture."//
Yes, we can say Paul seemed pretty clear on the issue, and he got it from….? Thank you further, his writings were epistles (letters) valued because he was known to have been sent by Christ, apostle roughly meaning "sent one", and thus churches valued it as letters written by a man of the church, a disciple of Christ, however in the early years of the church cannon was not yet decided and Paul's letters definitely were not scripture yet. Now, if I may continue so, caught at these cross roads what is the early church in doing? And how are they to decide? That's right they have a council. Acts 15: 6-11 (ESV)
"The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between them and us, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
Well. Why don't you look at that? Peter taking a stand at a council met to decide doctrine wow that's something! Even scripture has leaders of the church deciding doctrine and where the church stands on issues. Now, it is true that James does go on to speak up and quote scripture, though the scripture doesn't directly have to do with this at all it shows the council's decision was in line with scripture, something prima Scriptura sees no issue with at all. The above, again directly from Scripture does, however, seem to throw a wrench in the sola scriptura argument.
//"Well, that is interesting, however, what about this
II Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of Godb may becomplete, equipped for every good work." (ESV) "
"So, the council still quoted scripture and this passage seems to say that scripture is all we need"//
Hmm.. That is interesting and at first seems like a powerful argument until you ask well what scripture? Remember
Paul was writing to Timothy well before most of the New Testament was written…Paul was likely referring to the Old Testament because that's all there was to scripture at the time minus, perhaps, a handful of letters that were not yet canonized but if it's complete the O.T. doesn't give the full testimony of the life of Christ so what is going on here? And further, as it likely had to be addressing the O.T. yet we know at Galatians that we're no longer bound to much of the Old Testament. If this logical point isn't enough to let is take a moment to consider the context of the above verses.
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which can make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
Note, and this may be a stretch, that Paul separates what Timothy has learned from having been acquainted from scripture. Now, what was he taught if it's not directly connected to scripture? Well, let's keep this in mind as I quote a few other passages
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (ESV) 2 Thessalonians 2:15
//"Hmm but what about II Peter 1:16-21."
“16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[a]with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (ESV)
"Well, Peter says (essentially) that he's about to die, and wants to leave the Church with something to hang onto, and the reason he wants them to hang onto it is in chapter 2, where false teachers are coming. So, what he says between 16 and 21 is intended to keep the Church from these false teachers.
And he first makes the case that we (exclusive we) were eyewitnesses, we (exclusive we) heard the voice, and we (exclusive we) saw Christ's glory. So, when we come to verse 19, it seems that he is using another exclusive "we" to associate those eyewitnesses with the prophetic word, and then tells them about "prophecy of Scripture" (scripture being specifically writings) not being of a prophet's own (interpretation is the translation, I think revelation is better, but that's a different discussion), and then says that this prophecy was produced as men spoke from God as the Holy Spirit carried them along
That's it. Peter doesn't mention any verbal traditions or anything the apostles have said but rather only refers them to the writings of those who were eyewitnesses of Christ's ministry (he later includes Paul in chapter 3.)
So, it seems to me that by prescription, Peter points the church exclusively to these writings as the anchor that will hold them firm, and as such, only these writings should be considered the primary authority for the Church.
And the reason seems obvious. Traditions can be altered through time. Who knows? It's possible that the traditions about Mary were expanded and modified over time before the Church finally adopted what the final form of the tradition produced. We see this in the Byzantine Text Type, where traditional passages not part of the original are added (John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, for example) by scribes with the best of intentions.
But writings are not so easily altered, and the fact that we have many types and families of the original text, we can discern the original from the various copies that are around, and we can discover what scribes added or altered along the way. (Much to the chagrin of the KJVOs, but that's another story)”//
Of course, scripture is primary and most important, so all is judged based on its authority. The point is that they left and taught people what came after them right? But sure I'll look at your point. How often does Paul say "as it is written" and it sounds like a creed or something yet outside of his quote is nowhere in scripture, add that to the fact that scripture was not canonized for a few hundred years after that? Of course, all tradition must be weighed by scripture for scripture is the highest authority and the only perfect one but I think scripture is pretty clear, often in what it does not say, and in what it does say, as seen above, that there is more that was left to the church.
For that matter conceder this, his emphasis on being witnesses of. Well, was he not a witness of the resurrection? And were there not people trying to deny the resurrection? Was he not a witness of the crucifix? Were there not people seeking to deny Christ's bolide existence and death? Thus I submit, as we already know based on other scripture there were concerns about such people, which maybe just maybe Peter might have been referencing a bulwark against these deceivers.
Now I won't quote it all here; I'll Just reference it I think it further significant that early church doctrine as found in the Bible was on AT LEAST 1 occasion decided at the convening of a council. "Say what? No, it cannot possibly be true!" Acts 15: 1-3 (ESV)
"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers."
So, we see here a dispute very early on in the church, this dispute being, basically, how much of the Laws of Moses must believers follow? Need they be circumcised? Keep Kosher? The high holidays? Frankly, there was not president in scripture, how then would sola scriptura answer this question? One would assume since they are the new Israel they'd keep all the laws of Moses right?
//"Now wait one darn minute there are things in scripture about this Paul is pretty clear on this issue isn't he? Read Colossians, read Galatians that's all scripture."//
Yes, we can say Paul seemed pretty clear on the issue, and he got it from….? Thank you further, his writings were epistles (letters) valued because he was known to have been sent by Christ, apostle roughly meaning "sent one", and thus churches valued it as letters written by a man of the church, a disciple of Christ, however in the early years of the church cannon was not yet decided and Paul's letters definitely were not scripture yet. Now, if I may continue so, caught at these cross roads what is the early church in doing? And how are they to decide? That's right they have a council. Acts 15: 6-11 (ESV)
"The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between them and us, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
Well. Why don't you look at that? Peter taking a stand at a council met to decide doctrine wow that's something! Even scripture has leaders of the church deciding doctrine and where the church stands on issues. Now, it is true that James does go on to speak up and quote scripture, though the scripture doesn't directly have to do with this at all it shows the council's decision was in line with scripture, something prima Scriptura sees no issue with at all. The above, again directly from Scripture does, however, seem to throw a wrench in the sola scriptura argument.
//"Well, that is interesting, however, what about this
II Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of Godb may becomplete, equipped for every good work." (ESV) "
"So, the council still quoted scripture and this passage seems to say that scripture is all we need"//
Hmm.. That is interesting and at first seems like a powerful argument until you ask well what scripture? Remember
Paul was writing to Timothy well before most of the New Testament was written…Paul was likely referring to the Old Testament because that's all there was to scripture at the time minus, perhaps, a handful of letters that were not yet canonized but if it's complete the O.T. doesn't give the full testimony of the life of Christ so what is going on here? And further, as it likely had to be addressing the O.T. yet we know at Galatians that we're no longer bound to much of the Old Testament. If this logical point isn't enough to let is take a moment to consider the context of the above verses.
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which can make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
Note, and this may be a stretch, that Paul separates what Timothy has learned from having been acquainted from scripture. Now, what was he taught if it's not directly connected to scripture? Well, let's keep this in mind as I quote a few other passages
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (ESV) 2 Thessalonians 2:15
//"Hmm but what about II Peter 1:16-21."
“16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[a]with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (ESV)
"Well, Peter says (essentially) that he's about to die, and wants to leave the Church with something to hang onto, and the reason he wants them to hang onto it is in chapter 2, where false teachers are coming. So, what he says between 16 and 21 is intended to keep the Church from these false teachers.
And he first makes the case that we (exclusive we) were eyewitnesses, we (exclusive we) heard the voice, and we (exclusive we) saw Christ's glory. So, when we come to verse 19, it seems that he is using another exclusive "we" to associate those eyewitnesses with the prophetic word, and then tells them about "prophecy of Scripture" (scripture being specifically writings) not being of a prophet's own (interpretation is the translation, I think revelation is better, but that's a different discussion), and then says that this prophecy was produced as men spoke from God as the Holy Spirit carried them along
That's it. Peter doesn't mention any verbal traditions or anything the apostles have said but rather only refers them to the writings of those who were eyewitnesses of Christ's ministry (he later includes Paul in chapter 3.)
So, it seems to me that by prescription, Peter points the church exclusively to these writings as the anchor that will hold them firm, and as such, only these writings should be considered the primary authority for the Church.
And the reason seems obvious. Traditions can be altered through time. Who knows? It's possible that the traditions about Mary were expanded and modified over time before the Church finally adopted what the final form of the tradition produced. We see this in the Byzantine Text Type, where traditional passages not part of the original are added (John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, for example) by scribes with the best of intentions.
But writings are not so easily altered, and the fact that we have many types and families of the original text, we can discern the original from the various copies that are around, and we can discover what scribes added or altered along the way. (Much to the chagrin of the KJVOs, but that's another story)”//
Of course, scripture is primary and most important, so all is judged based on its authority. The point is that they left and taught people what came after them right? But sure I'll look at your point. How often does Paul say "as it is written" and it sounds like a creed or something yet outside of his quote is nowhere in scripture, add that to the fact that scripture was not canonized for a few hundred years after that? Of course, all tradition must be weighed by scripture for scripture is the highest authority and the only perfect one but I think scripture is pretty clear, often in what it does not say, and in what it does say, as seen above, that there is more that was left to the church.
For that matter conceder this, his emphasis on being witnesses of. Well, was he not a witness of the resurrection? And were there not people trying to deny the resurrection? Was he not a witness of the crucifix? Were there not people seeking to deny Christ's bolide existence and death? Thus I submit, as we already know based on other scripture there were concerns about such people, which maybe just maybe Peter might have been referencing a bulwark against these deceivers.
No comments:
Post a Comment