Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[mrjinx777]

Hi tqualey,

you would note that I said that their teaching, tradition, practice were done in accordance with scripture not against. I have place in bracket Old Testament . I am keenly aware of the new testament not being written at that time.

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Mrjinx,

All of this to show that the Apostles taught according to Scripture?

The only real snag in this argument you are putting forward is that the first word of New Testament scripture had not yet been written by 47AD (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th..._New_Testament) So, the only thing that could be reviewed by these early Catholic converts and Jews was the Old Testament.

SS is not proven by any of the text you provided. The real issue is that not everything is written down in Scripture. And, as I have previously told you, John tells us this twice - just in case we were not paying attention the first time!

But here is one you may want to look at carefully - it is from this Sunday's Gospel (4th Sunday in Ordinary Time according to the Latin Rite). Mark 1:21-28. Now, what I found interesting is that Jesus is just starting off His Public Ministry - and He goes to Capernaum and stays there one week BEFORE going to local synagogue to preach and expel a demon. So, what do you think He did during the week He stayed there ... where did He say? Did He pray? do any miracles? teach the Apostles? Say and do nothing for a week? Nothing is said - but, He had to do something to keep the interest of His Apostles.

Ultimately, finding a justification for everything through Scripture is going to lead to failure and frustration because Scripture only has part of the answer. Besides, there is this problem with personal interpretation of Scripture - and how we have 30,000+ Protestant groups today. None of them can agree on the fundamentals! The proof is right there in the yellow pages of your phone book under 'Church, Protestant'.

God bless

[Newsy]

Originally Posted by mrjinx777

Hi tqualey,

you would note that I said that their teaching, tradition, practice were done in accordance with scripture not against. I have place in bracket Old Testament . I am keenly aware of the new testament not being written at that time.

But this is still incorrect. Eating with Gentiles and eating animals that were considered unclean both contradict the OT scripture.

[tqualey]

Hi, Mrjinx777,

Newsy beat me to the response ... ... so let me say, "Amen!" to that statement.

Maybe it is just that you do not see the hole that you have dug for yourself. And, it is only getting deeper! Honest.

SS is a failed 'tradition of men' for three basic reasons -

1.) There was no Canon of Scripture until about 400AD - so, the 'very early SS believers' (if there were any) would have been hard pressed for those hundreds of years when there was active persecution from the Roman Empire to maintain their faith.

2.) Throughout the OT, the Law of Moses, circumcision, unclean animals, ritual washings - were all an integral part of Judiasm. Now, we may think that the early Catholic Church (Christianity) was a break-away subset of the Jewish faith ... the Jewish leaders did at first. But, notice: the only item that remains from the Law of Moses is the Ten Commandments. Actually, these are all 'Jewish sins'... For a list of what those who follow Christ are to do, as recorded in Matthew 5:1-12, check out this link:
http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/comp...dock/Matthew_5

3.) There is no SS without private interpretation of Scripture (condemned by Peter [2Peter 1:20]) and it is this private interpretation that trashes the Word of God - and why there are 30,000+ Protestant groups with their own private interpretation - all trashing the Word of God.

I would appreciate it if you were to pick one and tell me why you think it is wrong.

God bless

Originally Posted by mrjinx777

Hi tqualey,

you would note that I said that their teaching, tradition, practice were done in accordance with scripture not against. I have place in bracket Old Testament . I am keenly aware of the new testament not being written at that time.

[tqualey]

Hi, Newsy,

Great post!

God bless

Originally Posted by Newsy

But this is still incorrect. Eating with Gentiles and eating animals that were considered unclean both contradict the OT scripture.

[Newsy]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Newsy,

Great post!

God bless

Thanks. Sorry I was so quick to respond

[mrjinx777]

Newsy,

I think you are fast to answer without considering that the apostle were quoting from the old testament.
Messiah's death on the cross was to bring to an end the old covenant and his blood remember ratified the new covenant. all this is clear from the old testament, from which the apostles taught, and PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT prophesied that the gentiles will be a part of his people.

Maybe you would want me to take the time to highlight the so many scriptures. scripture (new testament) never said Peter or Paul or the Gentiles they were associating with were eating unclean animals ,you are making an assumption - which is not based on the context.

Originally Posted by Newsy

But this is still incorrect. Eating with Gentiles and eating animals that were considered unclean both contradict the OT scripture.

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by mrjinx777

Newsy,

I think you are fast to answer without considering that the apostle were quoting from the old testament.
Messiah's death on the cross was to bring to an end the old covenant and his blood remember ratified the new covenant. all this is clear from the old testament, from which the apostles taught, and PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT prophesied that the gentiles will be a part of his people.

Maybe you would want me to take the time to highlight the so many scriptures. scripture (new testament) never said Peter or Paul or the Gentiles they were associating with were eating unclean animals ,you are making an assumption - which is not based on the context.

Are stating the Jews were allowed to eat uncean food and with Gentiles under the OT?

[Newsy]

Originally Posted by mrjinx777

Newsy,

I think you are fast to answer without considering that the apostle were quoting from the old testament.
Messiah's death on the cross was to bring to an end the old covenant and his blood remember ratified the new covenant. all this is clear from the old testament, from which the apostles taught, and PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT prophesied that the gentiles will be a part of his people.

Maybe you would want me to take the time to highlight the so many scriptures. scripture (new testament) never said Peter or Paul or the Gentiles they were associating with were eating unclean animals ,you are making an assumption - which is not based on the context.

You said "you would note that I said that their teaching, tradition, practice were done in accordance with scripture not against. I have place in bracket Old Testament ". So I was pointing out the error in your statement. I understand what you are saying in the post I have quoted, but that is not what you said in the earlier post. You were trying to say that the Apostles never contradicted Scripture, the OT, I am just showing you that is a false statement. If it was understood that the OT was completed, that all animals were now clean, why is Peter's vision recorded in Acts? If this was common knowledge, then it would not need to be recorded. As for eating with Gentiles, that is why the early Christians were shocked at first reaction, if this was understood then why were they shocked? Where does it say that these thing changed before the Apostles changed them? I believe they were acting in accordance with God's will, but they were working against what Jews were taught.

You may want to keep in mind that Jesus did not end the Old Covenant, but He COMPLETED the Old Covenant. There is a difference.

[tqualey]

Hi, Mrjinx777,

I am not entirely sure what your real agenda is - but, you are honestly stumbling all over this SS issue bring up even more problems! While it is interesting to watch someone make an argument for you ... I do not believe this is your intention... So, maybe it would be good if you just took one item and addressed it in depth.

Your misapplied comment to Newsy was really not a smooth way to start ... but, since you apparently want to address the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross - that is a good place to begin...

There are numerous references of the promise of God to send a Savior and that the Savior would die that we might live. Here is a nice Protestant site for you: http://biblestudysite.com/foretold.htm But, please note - SS implies that everyone can interpret Scripture as they wish. From a strictly historical standpoint - all of this 'personal interpretation' got those ancient readers no where when it came to identifying Christ as the Messiah. Here are a couple of example:

1.) Herod is told that the 'new born King of the Jews' had arrived - but, he did not know where He was - so Herod is told but took no action then. Just knowing something does not cause effective action.

2.) The Pharisees and other Jewish religious persons were constantly trying to trap Christ in some type of error or violation of a command - and refused to believe He was the Messiah because they thought they knew where Christ was born - but, they were wrong. Just knowing something does not cause effective action.

3.) Peter is confronted with the first doctrinal crisis of the Early Catholic Church - the Judiazers and their demand that Gentile converts first be circumcised, conform to the Law of Moses and then taught about Christ. Peter rejects this concept and directs - no more circumcision as an outward sign of being one of God's people. The Judiazers wanted to continue on with what had already been fulfilled. Just knowing something does not cause effective action.

Now, claiming SS because something appears in the Bible is something like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise. That bird can crow all day long - but, the sun is a reality by itself and not dependent on any proclamation. So, just saying that the Apostles pointed out that Christ had fulfilled the Old Testament is a fine and truthful statement - but, it certainly does not advance your position on SS.

As you may or may not know, Protestants are all over the place on any given issue you can think of. Some claim Christ is not God, that His Resurrection is not important - if it happened at all - and virtually all of the things He said need to be interpreted in light of today's realities. For the past 2,000 years the Catholic Church has been teaching about Christ being God, Who founded His Church on Peter, He died for our sins and rose from the dead - and gave men the Power of God to forgive sin! As you know, the SS crowd worked very hard from the 16th Century forward to today to trash these teachings - and have only succeeded in splintering themselves further!

So, if you have a specific aspect to the Death of Christ on the Cross and how it applies to SS and one's personal interpretation - I would be interested in hearing it. But, please, stay focused on the topic and leaving slighting other posters aside.

God bless

Originally Posted by mrjinx777

Newsy,

I think you are fast to answer without considering that the apostle were quoting from the old testament.
Messiah's death on the cross was to bring to an end the old covenant and his blood remember ratified the new covenant. all this is clear from the old testament, from which the apostles taught, and PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT prophesied that the gentiles will be a part of his people.

Maybe you would want me to take the time to highlight the so many scriptures. scripture (new testament) never said Peter or Paul or the Gentiles they were associating with were eating unclean animals ,you are making an assumption - which is not based on the context.

[Newsy]

Hello... mrjinx...

I think we've been disconnected.

[tqualey]

Hi, Newsy,

Maybe he went fishing (for better references and answers...)

God bless

Originally Posted by Newsy

Hello... mrjinx...

I think we've been disconnected.

[mrjinx777]

[quote=Safia;8888993]Looks like I forgot to mention here, too -- eep -- I always try to cite. I pulled from John Salza.[/QUOT

Are you suggesting the "oral tradition of the Apostles" were teachings that were (1) different (2) in direct opposition (3) in conflict with written scripture ?

Because I disagree: I see no conflict with Sola Scripture and the preaching of the Word of God.

Now I don't see a problem with preaching and teaching against the scriptures , I agree that all that Jesus said could not be contain in books however based on his own words and lifestyle, I hasten to add that all that he said and did was done according to scripture.

May be another view of Sola Scripture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

[mrjinx777]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Newsy,

Maybe he went fishing (for better references and answers...)

God bless

You know fishing is not a bad thing however I have learned from Jesus silence has its value and now I am ready to continue.

I have selected one of your questions - The canonization of scripture .

I am convinced that the old testament existed during the
time of Jesus and the apostles and for centuries prior. The new testament although not bonded together as we know it today after being written by their authors had existed throughout the church. here is a link that will go into full details. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a...ture#highlight

[submariner2]

Whose intention? Luther & Co voluntarily left the Catholic Church through apostasy. The truth is they willfully cut themselves off from the Church founded by Christ. They initiated and enacted a revolt - Luther may have started out to reform some genuine practice abuses , but apparently was drawn in by the power he thought he control. His actions in the Peasants War of 1524 shows that he was willing to do whatever was necessary to stay in power. [url]

tqualey,

I think it is unfair to say Martin Luther left the church volunarily. He was exommunicated and most do not even know why specificallly. Do you really think he would have been excommunicated today?

SS is all about interpretation - it has nothing to do with whatever may be written. With 30,000+ examples of groups that actively believe in SS - take any verse, or passage or chapter or book in Scripture - and it can be interpreted to mean anything the interpreter wants it to mean. All Protestant doctrines seem to spring from Scripture - yet, there are 30,000+ because none of them agree with one another. This is a major issue and one that deserves to be addressed clearly. It appears to me that you are confusing things.[/

I dont think any of that disqualifies the common sense of SS. It simply means that scripture alone is sufficient to understand the Gospel Message and how to find salvation.

After all scripture is the Word of God and not any doctrines taught by any church. It is the words of Jesus and the apostles. Why is that not sufficient?

Rob



[

[Isaiah45_9]

Originally Posted by mrjinx777

You know fishing is not a bad thing however I have learned from Jesus silence has its value and now I am ready to continue.

I have selected one of your questions - The canonization of scripture .

I am convinced that the old testament existed during the
time of Jesus and the apostles and for centuries prior. The new testament although not bonded together as we know it today after being written by their authors had existed throughout the church. here is a link that will go into full details. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a...ture#highlight

And where exactly, in the Bible, did Jesus and His Apostles say anything about the Canon they had, in other words the Septuagint? Not Josephus, Origen, etc, etc. On the Bible Alone, where do Jesus and the Apostles complain about the Scriptures they had?

And, Does your Bible have ALL the books Paul was referring to in 2 Tim 3:16? What is Paul referring to when He says all Scripture is breathed by God? Since Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Septuagint about 85% of the time approx. (300/350 quotes).

If Sola Scriptura was... well... Scriptural. How come it didn't include a list of books?

However, Scriptures does say that there is a Church. The revealed mystery hidden for ages and generations (1 Col 24-26), the pillar and buttress of Truth (1 Tim 3:15), and the highest authority to resolve matters among the faithful (Matt 18:15-17).

Thanks.