Topic: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23

[Alfred Persson]

Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
 3 "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
 4 "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
 5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
 6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
 7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,`Rabbi, Rabbi.'
 8 "But you, do not be called`Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
 10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
 11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Mat 23:1-11 NKJ)

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?

Christ tells the Israelites to fulfill the requirements given to them by the Pharisees, but not to imitate them in their hypocrisy. Yet, listen to the reason given by Our Lord for why the Israelites were nonetheless bound to obey the Pharisees:

If that is so, why did Christ immediately overturn their extra-biblical requirements, saying:

4 "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
 5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
 6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
 7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,`Rabbi, Rabbi.'
 8 "But you, do not be called`Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
 10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
 11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Mat 23:1-11 NKJ)

Their extra-biblical traditions re phylacteries, seating in synagogues, religious titles elevating themselves above their students, were immediately condemned by Jesus.  And He wasn’t finished, He goes on to condemn their extra-biblical requirements for prayer, proselytizing, swearing and all the traditions that went against justice, mercy and faith.):

Lest any think we should follow the extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees, Christ goes on to condemn even more extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees and scribes:
14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
 15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
 16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say,`Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.'
 17 "Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
 18 "And,`Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.'
 19 "Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
 20 "Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it.
 21 "He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it.
 22 "And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.
 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
 24 "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Mat 23:14-24 NKJ))

So what precisely did Christ mean by πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν “all therefore whatever if-ever” they bid? The same as πάντα ὅσα ἐὰν  “all whatever if-ever” in Mat 21:22 
"And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Mat 21:22 NKJ)

Whatever you ask according to God’s Law, believing you will receive. If you should ask for money, power, sex, or anything against the Law of God, you certainly will NOT receive that from God.

Same with those who sat and taught the Word of God, whatsoever they properly fetched from the Law, that we are to obey, NOT their unscriptural extra-biblical traditions.

“…The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matthew 23:2-3). Notice that the reason Christ gave for the Pharisees’ authority was that they sat “in Moses’ seat.”

Incorrect, the aorist ἐκάθισαν  “they seated themselves” is literal, not a metaphor, ancient synagogues had literal seats in honor of Moses from which the Law and the prophets were read and expounded.

Among the finds within the debris heaped in the synagogue was this “Throne of Moses,” carved of black basalt and decorated with an incised rosette on the back support and a four-line Aramaic inscription on the front. The Aramaic reads: “Be remembered for good Yudan the son of Ishmael who made this porch and its staircase. As his reward may he have a share with the righteous.” This chair, as a type, seems to be known in the New Testament as the Seat of Moses (Matthew 23:2). The Biblical World in Pictures; 2003. Biblical Archaeology Society.

While the scribes could claim Ezra gave them divine teaching authority, the Pharisees could not---they were laymen. Therefore it would be act of defiance for them usurp Mosaic authority and sit literally in Moses’ seat, therefore  the aorist literally translates as  “they seated themselves” :

saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; (Mat 23:2 NAS)
saying, 'On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees; (Mat 23:2 YLT)


It was consistent with their hypocrisy and rebellion against God that they sat themselves down in Moses’ seat, God did not put them there. They also claimed to be “masters” in contradiction to God’s law we are all equals. Christ was certainly not condoning their action, the entire chapter is one of condemnation and rejection of all  they claimed to be and teach, that was against the Word of God.

Because copies of scripture were expensive and rare before the invention of the printing press, most heard the Word of God via these hypocrites at the synagogue.  Christ’s point was clear, regardless how hypocritical its teachers are, the Word of God is Supreme and undiminished in authority over the people, all are to obey whatsoever is properly fetched from it, even if it were the Devil himself who  taught it= sola scriptura. God’s Word is undiminished in authority by anything in this world.

We are commanded not to follow them in their rebellion against God’s Word, we must obey it without hesitation, when we lay down, when we get up and when we are about in the way. God’s Word must be before our eyes, continually, to do it (Deut 6:7-9; 11:18-22).

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. (Jam 1:22 NKJ)

The start of “Moses’ seat,”—the seat of judgment from which Moses ruled on the Law before Israel in the Old Testament—is recorded in Exodus 18:13.

If Christ thought the seat imparted Mosaic authority upon those who sat in it, the verses Mat 23:5-39 would not exist, especially this:
33 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? (Mat 23:33 NKJ)

Clearly they lacked Moses authority for teaching what they did.

However, the position of authority held by the Pharisees—whose supposed connection to that of Moses in Exodus was certainly extrabiblical—was nonetheless accepted and promoted by no less than the Lord Himself.

Incorrect, the grammar and syntax is they had no authority and context confirms this as Christ lists various traditions as examples of what His disciples are not to obey.
The apostle Peter and his fellow apostles confirms this interpretation when those who sat in Moses’ seat commanded rebellion against the Word of God:

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.

While these two passages are often used together by Evangelicals to address the Roman Catholic Church’s claims to the papacy, such an issue is, firstly, a non-issue for the Orthodox, and, secondly, an ironic one for us, as the Protestants frequently use two passages that, if examined closely, present a very real problem for those very people who would seek to establish a Scripture-only view of what can be seen as authoritative for the believer.

As Christ taught obedience to God regardless what men say or do, it hardly presents a problem for sola scripturists of any denomination.

While the establishment of Moses’ seat is found within Scripture, the directive to continue it—not to mention who would then hold its authority within the community of Israel—are found absolutely nowhere within the Old Testament, yet the words of Our Lord make clear that this extrabiblical tradition is not only not anti-biblical, but also a good, worthy tradition in spite of its not being written down.

Just like today scripture reading and teaching happen in known locations, that ancient Jewish synagogues honored Moses by referring to this area as “his seat” is hardly warrant for unscriptural traditions which Christ condemned throughout His Advent:

13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."
 14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear Me, everyone, and understand:
 15 "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.
 16 "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" (Mar 7:13-16 NKJ)

It is defiling to teach the traditions of men that contradict the Word of God, and no defiled person can stand in the presence of the Almighty Holy God. “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

The sola scriptura adherent, then, has to provide and answer for why Our Lord here seems to be going against the idea that only that which is written in Scripture is to be accepted as authoritative for the people of God.

Unsound straw man argument as sola scriptura does not say only what is in scripture can be accepted. As God put teachers in the church these clearly have some authority:

And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers… (1Co 12:28 NKJ)


But like those who sat in Moses Seat, these cannot contradict what is in the Word of God:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8 NKJ)

Sola scriptura means the Only Scripture is Supreme because only it is indisputably the Word of God and He is indisputably the Supreme Being. It does not mean the church councils, fathers or modern day teachers have no authority over God’s people, it only means said authority cannot contradict what is in God’s Word.

Sola scriptura is the essence of Christ’s message to the people, everywhere and every place Christ taught obedience to God above men and their traditions.

[Justin Kissel]

How dare you challenge David "The Woot!" Wooten! Also, unless I'm missing it, you never identified where The Woot said these things. And finally, why must you create another thread on this, causing this sickness to spread?

EDIT--I see you've now edited your post to give the name of the document you're talking about... though still with no link.

[Cavaradossi]

And how then does one interpret scripture, without the aid of Tradition?

[Cavaradossi]

How dare you challenge David "The Woot!" Wooten! Also, unless I'm missing it, you never identified where The Woot said these things. And finally, why must you create another thread on this, causing this sickness to spread?

EDIT--I see you've now edited your post to give the name of the document you're talking about... though still with no link.

Isn't the article he's referencing available right here on OC.net?

[Justin Kissel]

How dare you challenge David "The Woot!" Wooten! Also, unless I'm missing it, you never identified where The Woot said these things. And finally, why must you create another thread on this, causing this sickness to spread?

EDIT--I see you've now edited your post to give the name of the document you're talking about... though still with no link.

Isn't the article he's referencing available right here on OC.net?

Yeah, at this location, I just didn't want to give al any slack... he should have posted a link himself 

[Alveus Lacuna]

Angry BARG!!!!!

[Cavaradossi]

How dare you challenge David "The Woot!" Wooten! Also, unless I'm missing it, you never identified where The Woot said these things. And finally, why must you create another thread on this, causing this sickness to spread?

EDIT--I see you've now edited your post to give the name of the document you're talking about... though still with no link.

Isn't the article he's referencing available right here on OC.net?

Yeah, at this location, I just didn't want to give al any slack... he should have posted a link himself 

That's precisely why I didn't post a link to it. I didn't want to do his homework for him. 

[Alfred Persson]

How dare you challenge David "The Woot!" Wooten! Also, unless I'm missing it, you never identified where The Woot said these things. And finally, why must you create another thread on this, causing this sickness to spread?

EDIT--I see you've now edited your post to give the name of the document you're talking about... though still with no link.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:articles&id=37:the-unbiblical-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura

[Alfred Persson]

Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
 3 "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
 4 "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
 5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
 6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
 7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,`Rabbi, Rabbi.'
 8 "But you, do not be called`Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
 10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
 11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Mat 23:1-11 NKJ)

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?

Christ tells the Israelites to fulfill the requirements given to them by the Pharisees, but not to imitate them in their hypocrisy. Yet, listen to the reason given by Our Lord for why the Israelites were nonetheless bound to obey the Pharisees:

If that is so, why did Christ immediately overturn their extra-biblical requirements, saying:

4 "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
 5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
 6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
 7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,`Rabbi, Rabbi.'
 8 "But you, do not be called`Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
 10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
 11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Mat 23:1-11 NKJ)

Their extra-biblical traditions re phylacteries, seating in synagogues, religious titles elevating themselves above their students, were immediately condemned by Jesus.  And He wasn’t finished, He goes on to condemn their extra-biblical requirements for prayer, proselytizing, swearing and all the traditions that went against justice, mercy and faith.):

Lest any think we should follow the extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees, Christ goes on to condemn even more extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees and scribes:
14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
 15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
 16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say,`Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.'
 17 "Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
 18 "And,`Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.'
 19 "Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
 20 "Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it.
 21 "He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it.
 22 "And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.
 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
 24 "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Mat 23:14-24 NKJ))

So what precisely did Christ mean by πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν “all therefore whatever if-ever” they bid? The same as πάντα ὅσα ἐὰν  “all whatever if-ever” in Mat 21:22  
"And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Mat 21:22 NKJ)

Whatever you ask according to God’s Law, believing you will receive. If you should ask for money, power, sex, or anything against the Law of God, you certainly will NOT receive that from God.

Same with those who sat and taught the Word of God, whatsoever they properly fetched from the Law, that we are to obey, NOT their unscriptural extra-biblical traditions.

“…The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matthew 23:2-3). Notice that the reason Christ gave for the Pharisees’ authority was that they sat “in Moses’ seat.”

Incorrect, the aorist ἐκάθισαν  “they seated themselves” is literal, not a metaphor, ancient synagogues had literal seats in honor of Moses from which the Law and the prophets were read and expounded.

Among the finds within the debris heaped in the synagogue was this “Throne of Moses,” carved of black basalt and decorated with an incised rosette on the back support and a four-line Aramaic inscription on the front. The Aramaic reads: “Be remembered for good Yudan the son of Ishmael who made this porch and its staircase. As his reward may he have a share with the righteous.” This chair, as a type, seems to be known in the New Testament as the Seat of Moses (Matthew 23:2). The Biblical World in Pictures; 2003. Biblical Archaeology Society.

While the scribes could claim Ezra gave them divine teaching authority, the Pharisees could not---they were laymen. Therefore it would be act of defiance for them usurp Mosaic authority and sit literally in Moses’ seat, therefore  the aorist literally translates as  “they seated themselves” :

saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; (Mat 23:2 NAS)
saying, 'On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees; (Mat 23:2 YLT)


It was consistent with their hypocrisy and rebellion against God that they sat themselves down in Moses’ seat, God did not put them there. They also claimed to be “masters” in contradiction to God’s law we are all equals. Christ was certainly not condoning their action, the entire chapter is one of condemnation and rejection of all  they claimed to be and teach, that was against the Word of God.

Because copies of scripture were expensive and rare before the invention of the printing press, most heard the Word of God via these hypocrites at the synagogue.  Christ’s point was clear, regardless how hypocritical its teachers are, the Word of God is Supreme and undiminished in authority over the people, all are to obey whatsoever is properly fetched from it, even if it were the Devil himself who  taught it= sola scriptura. God’s Word is undiminished in authority by anything in this world.

We are commanded not to follow them in their rebellion against God’s Word, we must obey it without hesitation, when we lay down, when we get up and when we are about in the way. God’s Word must be before our eyes, continually, to do it (Deut 6:7-9; 11:18-22).

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. (Jam 1:22 NKJ)

The start of “Moses’ seat,”—the seat of judgment from which Moses ruled on the Law before Israel in the Old Testament—is recorded in Exodus 18:13.

If Christ thought the seat imparted Mosaic authority upon those who sat in it, the verses Mat 23:5-39 would not exist, especially this:
33 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? (Mat 23:33 NKJ)

Clearly they lacked Moses authority for teaching what they did.

However, the position of authority held by the Pharisees—whose supposed connection to that of Moses in Exodus was certainly extrabiblical—was nonetheless accepted and promoted by no less than the Lord Himself.

Incorrect, the grammar and syntax is they had no authority and context confirms this as Christ lists various traditions as examples of what His disciples are not to obey.
The apostle Peter and his fellow apostles confirms this interpretation when those who sat in Moses’ seat commanded rebellion against the Word of God:

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.

While these two passages are often used together by Evangelicals to address the Roman Catholic Church’s claims to the papacy, such an issue is, firstly, a non-issue for the Orthodox, and, secondly, an ironic one for us, as the Protestants frequently use two passages that, if examined closely, present a very real problem for those very people who would seek to establish a Scripture-only view of what can be seen as authoritative for the believer.

As Christ taught obedience to God regardless what men say or do, it hardly presents a problem for sola scripturists of any denomination.

While the establishment of Moses’ seat is found within Scripture, the directive to continue it—not to mention who would then hold its authority within the community of Israel—are found absolutely nowhere within the Old Testament, yet the words of Our Lord make clear that this extrabiblical tradition is not only not anti-biblical, but also a good, worthy tradition in spite of its not being written down.

Just like today scripture reading and teaching happen in known locations, that ancient Jewish synagogues honored Moses by referring to this area as “his seat” is hardly warrant for unscriptural traditions which Christ condemned throughout His Advent:

13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."
 14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear Me, everyone, and understand:
 15 "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.
 16 "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" (Mar 7:13-16 NKJ)

It is defiling to teach the traditions of men that contradict the Word of God, and no defiled person can stand in the presence of the Almighty Holy God. “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

The sola scriptura adherent, then, has to provide and answer for why Our Lord here seems to be going against the idea that only that which is written in Scripture is to be accepted as authoritative for the people of God.

Unsound straw man argument as sola scriptura does not say only what is in scripture can be accepted. As God put teachers in the church these clearly have some authority:

And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers… (1Co 12:28 NKJ)


But like those who sat in Moses Seat, these cannot contradict what is in the Word of God:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8 NKJ)

Sola scriptura means the Only Scripture is Supreme because only it is indisputably the Word of God and He is indisputably the Supreme Being. It does not mean the church councils, fathers or modern day teachers have no authority over God’s people, it only means said authority cannot contradict what is in God’s Word.

Sola scriptura is the essence of Christ’s message to the people, everywhere and every place Christ taught obedience to God above men and their traditions.

Addendum:
Wooten's article is here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:articles&id=37:the-unbiblical-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura


TO:

“…The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matthew 23:2-3). Notice that the reason Christ gave for the Pharisees’ authority was that they sat “in Moses’ seat.”

Incorrect, the aorist ἐκάθισαν  “they seated themselves” is literal, not a metaphor, ancient synagogues had literal seats in honor of Moses from which the Law and the prophets were read and expounded.

ADD:
It was the word of God that imparted authority to what they said, not the chair according to Christ.


THAT THEY ASSUMED authority apart from any chair as is evident from the title "Rabbi," ("Master") they bestowed upon themselves. No doubt they considered themselves worthy to speak from a place of honor in the synagogues, i.e., while seated in the chair of Moses.

[primuspilus]

Didnt we go over this once before?

PP

[PeterTheAleut]

Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.

That definition works, though, only if we can establish that God speaks only through Scripture, which you have never done convincingly.

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?

Are you really qualified to know why Mr. Wooten said or did not say something? Do you know his mind that well? I'd like to know how you so mastered the art of telepathy if you do.

Christ tells the Israelites to fulfill the requirements given to them by the Pharisees, but not to imitate them in their hypocrisy. Yet, listen to the reason given by Our Lord for why the Israelites were nonetheless bound to obey the Pharisees:

If that is so, why did Christ immediately overturn their extra-biblical requirements, saying:

4 "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
 5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
 6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
 7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,`Rabbi, Rabbi.'
 8 "But you, do not be called`Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
 10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
 11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Mat 23:1-11 NKJ)

Their extra-biblical traditions re phylacteries, seating in synagogues, religious titles elevating themselves above their students, were immediately condemned by Jesus.  And He wasn’t finished, He goes on to condemn their extra-biblical requirements for prayer, proselytizing, swearing and all the traditions that went against justice, mercy and faith.):

But were these things that Christ condemned extrabiblical traditions or behaviors that showed how the Pharisees didn't even follow their own traditions?

Lest any think we should follow the extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees, Christ goes on to condemn even more extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees and scribes:
14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
 15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
 16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say,`Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.'
 17 "Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
 18 "And,`Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.'
 19 "Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
 20 "Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it.
 21 "He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it.
 22 "And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.
 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
 24 "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Mat 23:14-24 NKJ))

But again, were these things that Christ condemned extrabiblical traditions or behaviors that showed how the Pharisees didn't even follow their own traditions?

So what precisely did Christ mean by πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν “all therefore whatever if-ever” they bid? The same as πάντα ὅσα ἐὰν  “all whatever if-ever” in Mat 21:22  
"And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Mat 21:22 NKJ)

Whatever you ask according to God’s Law, believing you will receive. If you should ask for money, power, sex, or anything against the Law of God, you certainly will NOT receive that from God.

Same with those who sat and taught the Word of God, whatsoever they properly fetched from the Law, that we are to obey, NOT their unscriptural extra-biblical traditions.

How do you know that this is what Christ meant?

“…The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matthew 23:2-3). Notice that the reason Christ gave for the Pharisees’ authority was that they sat “in Moses’ seat.”

Incorrect, the aorist ἐκάθισαν  “they seated themselves” is literal, not a metaphor, ancient synagogues had literal seats in honor of Moses from which the Law and the prophets were read and expounded.

Among the finds within the debris heaped in the synagogue was this “Throne of Moses,” carved of black basalt and decorated with an incised rosette on the back support and a four-line Aramaic inscription on the front. The Aramaic reads: “Be remembered for good Yudan the son of Ishmael who made this porch and its staircase. As his reward may he have a share with the righteous.” This chair, as a type, seems to be known in the New Testament as the Seat of Moses (Matthew 23:2). The Biblical World in Pictures; 2003. Biblical Archaeology Society.

Why do you trust this as evidence of a literal understanding of "Moses' Seat" and that Jesus was NOT speaking metaphorically? You've clearly shown that you can't even represent MY words correctly! Why should I trust what you have to say about anyone else's?

While the scribes could claim Ezra gave them divine teaching authority, the Pharisees could not---they were laymen. Therefore it would be act of defiance for them usurp Mosaic authority and sit literally in Moses’ seat, therefore  the aorist literally translates as  “they seated themselves” :

saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; (Mat 23:2 NAS)
saying, 'On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees; (Mat 23:2 YLT)

And yet the Gospel shows that Jesus recognized the legitimacy of the Pharisees' teaching authority as emanating from the fact that they sit in Moses' Seat, regardless of how they got there.

It was consistent with their hypocrisy and rebellion against God that they sat themselves down in Moses’ seat, God did not put them there. They also claimed to be “masters” in contradiction to God’s law we are all equals. Christ was certainly not condoning their action, the entire chapter is one of condemnation and rejection of all  they claimed to be and teach, that was against the Word of God.

Where is this interpretation found in the Bible?

Because copies of scripture were expensive and rare before the invention of the printing press, most heard the Word of God via these hypocrites at the synagogue.  Christ’s point was clear, regardless how hypocritical its teachers are, the Word of God is Supreme and undiminished in authority over the people, all are to obey whatsoever is properly fetched from it, even if it were the Devil himself who  taught it= sola scriptura. God’s Word is undiminished in authority by anything in this world.

We are commanded not to follow them in their rebellion against God’s Word, we must obey it without hesitation, when we lay down, when we get up and when we are about in the way. God’s Word must be before our eyes, continually, to do it (Deut 6:7-9; 11:18-22).

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. (Jam 1:22 NKJ)

But this is based on the a priori association of "Word of God" solely with the Scriptures, the very assumption that you're trying to prove. Don't you think this reasoning rather circular?

The start of “Moses’ seat,”—the seat of judgment from which Moses ruled on the Law before Israel in the Old Testament—is recorded in Exodus 18:13.

If Christ thought the seat imparted Mosaic authority upon those who sat in it, the verses Mat 23:5-39 would not exist, especially this:
33 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? (Mat 23:33 NKJ)

Clearly they lacked Moses authority for teaching what they did.

How is this not merely further evidence that Jesus did not question the Pharisees' authority but condemned their hypocrisy?

However, the position of authority held by the Pharisees—whose supposed connection to that of Moses in Exodus was certainly extrabiblical—was nonetheless accepted and promoted by no less than the Lord Himself.

Incorrect, the grammar and syntax is they had no authority and context confirms this as Christ lists various traditions as examples of what His disciples are not to obey.
The apostle Peter and his fellow apostles confirms this interpretation when those who sat in Moses’ seat commanded rebellion against the Word of God:

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.

Alfred, this is merely another restatement of that which you've been asked repeatedly to prove, that God speaks solely through the Scriptures. Until you can prove this thesis that is so fundamental to ALL your pontifications on this forum, your arguments will never be convincing.

While these two passages are often used together by Evangelicals to address the Roman Catholic Church’s claims to the papacy, such an issue is, firstly, a non-issue for the Orthodox, and, secondly, an ironic one for us, as the Protestants frequently use two passages that, if examined closely, present a very real problem for those very people who would seek to establish a Scripture-only view of what can be seen as authoritative for the believer.

As Christ taught obedience to God regardless what men say or do, it hardly presents a problem for sola scripturists of any denomination.

While the establishment of Moses’ seat is found within Scripture, the directive to continue it—not to mention who would then hold its authority within the community of Israel—are found absolutely nowhere within the Old Testament, yet the words of Our Lord make clear that this extrabiblical tradition is not only not anti-biblical, but also a good, worthy tradition in spite of its not being written down.

Just like today scripture reading and teaching happen in known locations, that ancient Jewish synagogues honored Moses by referring to this area as “his seat” is hardly warrant for unscriptural traditions which Christ condemned throughout His Advent:

13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."
 14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear Me, everyone, and understand:
 15 "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.
 16 "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" (Mar 7:13-16 NKJ)

It is defiling to teach the traditions of men that contradict the Word of God, and no defiled person can stand in the presence of the Almighty Holy God. “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Outside of your rant against icons, I'm not aware that you've ever shown how any of the extrabiblical practices and doctrines of the Orthodox Church even appear to contradict Scripture.

The sola scriptura adherent, then, has to provide and answer for why Our Lord here seems to be going against the idea that only that which is written in Scripture is to be accepted as authoritative for the people of God.

Unsound straw man argument as sola scriptura does not say only what is in scripture can be accepted. As God put teachers in the church these clearly have some authority:

Now you contradict yourself, Alfred. If God speaks only through Scripture, if that apostolic doctrine we need to know to be fully equipped is found only in Scripture, as you so frequently remind us even in this post I am dissecting, then how can anything else outside the Bible have ANY authority?

And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers… (1Co 12:28 NKJ)

And yet, you appear to submit to no teachers outside yourself. Are you a member of a church? Do you go to church regularly? I'm under the impression that you aren't and you don't.

But like those who sat in Moses Seat, these cannot contradict what is in the Word of God:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8 NKJ)

Sola scriptura means the Only Scripture is Supreme because only it is indisputably the Word of God and He is indisputably the Supreme Being. It does not mean the church councils, fathers or modern day teachers have no authority over God’s people, it only means said authority cannot contradict what is in God’s Word.

This may surprise you, Alfred, but we actually agree that no true church council, no true father, no true teacher can contradict what is in God's word as revealed in Scripture.

Sola scriptura is the essence of Christ’s message to the people, everywhere and every place Christ taught obedience to God above men and their traditions.

But if Christian doctrine is contained only in Scripture, as you so repeatedly claim, wouldn't it be better to say Christ taught obedience to Scripture, to hell with men and their traditions?

[genesisone]

Didnt we go over this once before?

PP

No. Not once. I've lost count. Maybe if we switch to Spanish "once" will work.

(I'd better keep the Mods happy; Sp. once = Eng. eleven)

[PeterTheAleut]

Didnt we go over this once before?

PP

No. Not once. I've lost count. Maybe if we switch to Spanish "once" will work.

(I'd better keep the Mods happy; Sp. once = Eng. eleven)

I like you.

[primuspilus]

I mean really...how many times can one guy get pwned concerning Sola Scriptura? It's a fallacy! Enough already!

PP

[Melodist]

I've started on a reply, not finfished yet, actually not even finished commenting on the first three veres, but will hopefully follow through with this.

Long story short - they put the letter above the spirit and ignored the two greatest commandments and focused on the externals ignoring the heart - that is what Christ is condemning here. That and some of the things that they "did" according to the references in the NT is that they failed to recognize the fulfillment of the prophecies that they taught, rejected the chief cornerstone, and plotted to and had Christ crucified -  these are also some of the things we are to "not do according to their works".

Anyway has nothing to do with sola scriptura, I actually intend on not even mentioning the doctrine, but to just give comments and references with my aim to simply "call it what it is" without getting too caught up in "what it is not" (can I even do that and still be Orthodox?  ).

[orthonorm]

And how then does one interpret scripture, without the aid of Tradition?

He needs to read Gadamer. Cliff notes on a few pages of Heidegger.

[orthonorm]

Peter and Melodist,

How do you do it?

[Melodist]

Peter and Melodist,

How do you do it?

I can't speak for anyone else, but there's probably something wrong with me.

Perhaps I should pray before the next time I work on my reply. Everytime I've worked on my blog, I either wrote after praying some of the psalms and prayers form matins in my prayer book or it was a sunday and I was at liturgy that morning. I don't know how it affects the quality of my writing but I feel more free and positively centered in my approach to putting my thoughts down, or maybe that's just my perception and not reality.

Returning to your question, perhaps I need a girlfriend, I'm not really that social of a person and that might be a better use of my time than engaging in internet debates (they're kind of like the special olympics).

Anyway, gonna try to get a little bit of a nap in before work tonight.

[orthonorm]

Peter and Melodist,

How do you do it?

I can't speak for anyone else, but there's probably something wrong with me.

Perhaps I should pray before the next time I work on my reply. Everytime I've worked on my blog, I either wrote after praying some of the psalms and prayers form matins in my prayer book or it was a sunday and I was at liturgy that morning. I don't know how it affects the quality of my writing but I feel more free and positively centered in my approach to putting my thoughts down, or maybe that's just my perception and not reality.

Returning to your question, perhaps I need a girlfriend, I'm not really that social of a person and that might be a better use of my time than engaging in internet debates (they're kind of like the special olympics).

Anyway, gonna try to get a little bit of a nap in before work tonight.

I mean the shear ability to read that.

You guys are Code Talkers or something.

I can't bear to even get through three lines of his style.

Oh, since I don't "subscribe" to blogs, I've got to take a look at your new stuff.

Girlfriend? I could have three and still put the sorta numbers I do here.

We'll solve that after the Fast. The column is coming back.

Prayer? You mean, you do that outside of the church building?

Don't put your writing down. It's often some of the most concise and straight-forward stuff around here. And no seems to get angry with you.

Yin to my Yang.





 

[PeterTheAleut]

Peter and Melodist,

How do you do it?

I can't speak for anyone else, but there's probably something wrong with me.

Perhaps I should pray before the next time I work on my reply. Everytime I've worked on my blog, I either wrote after praying some of the psalms and prayers form matins in my prayer book or it was a sunday and I was at liturgy that morning. I don't know how it affects the quality of my writing but I feel more free and positively centered in my approach to putting my thoughts down, or maybe that's just my perception and not reality.

Returning to your question, perhaps I need a girlfriend, I'm not really that social of a person and that might be a better use of my time than engaging in internet debates (they're kind of like the special olympics).

Anyway, gonna try to get a little bit of a nap in before work tonight.

I mean the shear ability to read that.

You guys are Code Talkers or something.

I can't bear to even get through three lines of his style.

Oh, since I don't "subscribe" to blogs, I've got to take a look at your new stuff.

Girlfriend? I could have three and still put the sorta numbers I do here.

We'll solve that after the Fast. The column is coming back.

Prayer? You mean, you do that outside of the church building?

Don't put your writing down. It's often some of the most concise and straight-forward stuff around here. And no seems to get angry with you.

Yin to my Yang.

Listening to others speak in my Toastmasters meetings helps.

[DennyB]

Sola Scripturist serve a "book god" not a living, breathing,personal,and EVER PRESENT human and divine God, in Jesus Christ. Nuff Said!!

P.S. And using the Latin here, is somehow supposed to make this even more convincing,get real!!!

[Alveus Lacuna]

We'll solve that after the Fast. The column is coming back.

Us old-school REAL Orthodox don't start the Dormition Fast until Sunday. You Newbie Calendarists are always throwing my True rhythm off.

[biro]

The phrase he made up isn't in Scripture, or anywhere else except his threads on this board.

Also, once again, the passage he picked to 'explain' doesn't have anything to do with the claim he makes about it.

 

He couldn't win if he wanted to.

[Alfred Persson]

Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.
That definition works, though, only if we can establish that God speaks only through Scripture, which you have never done convincingly.

I never tried, it would be wrong. God speaks through His servants, and that ends up being written down. So the question to be answered, are there servants of God through whom He speaks today. Many cults say yes, and both Catholic and Orthodox (evidently) believe the word of God is in their “living tradition”, but that isn’t what the apostles taught:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Jude’s words convince me, why don’t they convince you?

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?
Are you really qualified to know why Mr. Wooten said or did not say something? Do you know his mind that well? I'd like to know how you so mastered the art of telepathy if you do.

Evidently Mr. Wooten's argument and my counter isn't clear to you---if it were you would state precisely how I misunderstood his argument.

I’ll end this here and give you time to reread carefully what we both said, and then either correct my misunderstanding, or your  misunderstanding.

Of course I don’t read minds, so there is no sense continuing until you reread the text and be certain of the issues.

[Alfred Persson]

I've started on a reply, not finfished yet, actually not even finished commenting on the first three veres, but will hopefully follow through with this.

Long story short - they put the letter above the spirit and ignored the two greatest commandments and focused on the externals ignoring the heart - that is what Christ is condemning here. That and some of the things that they "did" according to the references in the NT is that they failed to recognize the fulfillment of the prophecies that they taught, rejected the chief cornerstone, and plotted to and had Christ crucified -  these are also some of the things we are to "not do according to their works".

Anyway has nothing to do with sola scriptura, I actually intend on not even mentioning the doctrine, but to just give comments and references with my aim to simply "call it what it is" without getting too caught up in "what it is not" (can I even do that and still be Orthodox?  ).

Christ details what He rejects about the Pharisees and Scribes, BOTH their hypocrisy, and a bunch of their extra biblical traditions.

 Any discussion of the spirit of the law is tangential to Christ's purpose, which is what both Mr. Wooten and I refer to.

Such a discussion is irrelevant to sola scriptura, but might be just fine in Sunday School.

[theistgal]

I'm puzzled as to why you don't think God has any servants through whom He speaks today.

And if that's true, then He's not speaking through you either,  so why should we care what you say?

[Alfred Persson]

I'm puzzled as to why you don't think God has any servants through whom He speaks today.

And if that's true, then He's not speaking through you either,  so why should we care what you say?

I never said God doesn't speak to us today, I merely deny any of that material is "the Word of God" as defined by Paul:

36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?  

37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.  

38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. (1Co 14:36-38 NKJ)  

 
So God gifted the Corinthians with prophets and spiritual men who spoke in tongues and gave "inspired" readings of psalms and scripture:


 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.
 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.
 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.
 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
 (1Co 14:27-33 NKJ)

But notice, in vs 32 Paul insists these Prophet's control their spirit and make sure what they say is in accord with God's Word. So its possible these be wrong.

So God speaking through me or you is not the same as Him speaking through Paul.

We might get it wrong, but when God spoke through His apostles and prophets, there was no error.

This "special delivery" of the Word of God is over now, having been once delivered, there can't be multiple deliveries:

 3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

So as Scripture alone indisputably is the Word of God, and what we say may not be = sola scriptura, the Bible alone has Supreme authority for doctrine.

[PeterTheAleut]

Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.
That definition works, though, only if we can establish that God speaks only through Scripture, which you have never done convincingly.

I never tried, it would be wrong. God speaks through His servants, and that ends up being written down. So the question to be answered, are there servants of God through whom He speaks today. Many cults say yes, and both Catholic and Orthodox (evidently) believe the word of God is in their “living tradition”, but that isn’t what the apostles taught:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Jude’s words convince me, why don’t they convince you?

Actually, your words show a misunderstanding of the Orthodox faith. We agree that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints by the Apostles and that nothing can be added to that faith. We recognize that the Holy Spirit is constantly guiding the Church into a deeper understanding of that faith once for all delivered, and that this perpetual guidance is manifest in what we call Tradition, but we don't presume to add anything new to this faith once for all delivered. You, however, must show that everything in this faith once for all delivered was written down and compiled into the Bible. This you have not yet done.

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?
Are you really qualified to know why Mr. Wooten said or did not say something? Do you know his mind that well? I'd like to know how you so mastered the art of telepathy if you do.

Evidently Mr. Wooten's argument and my counter isn't clear to you---if it were you would state precisely how I misunderstood his argument.

You don't know MY mind well enough to know what I would or would not do, so don't presume to say such things about me. Now, if you cannot know MY mind, how much less can you presume to know anybody else's?

I’ll end this here and give you time to reread carefully what we both said, and then either correct my misunderstanding, or your  misunderstanding.

Of course I don’t read minds, so there is no sense continuing until you reread the text and be certain of the issues.

I am quite certain of the issues, and I am correcting your misunderstandings. Now, will you accept this correction, or will you ignore it?

[Thankful]

3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

But it says the FAITH was once for all delivered to the saints, not the written words of God were delivered once for all to the saints.  There's a difference.  By your reasoning, the faith had already been delivered, so how could Jude's letter later make it into Scripture?  

So as Scripture alone indisputably is the Word of God, and what we say may not be = sola scriptura, the Bible alone has Supreme authority for doctrine.

But Christ is the Word of God. Why are you leaving him out of the picture?  

Your seem to have an unhealthy ability to see "written word of God" in places it's not there, Alfred.  Take off the scripture-colored glasses you wear to see what the Church (the one that received the faith once for all) has always said about these things. There's so much more depth and beauty to the Word than you are allowing it.  

[Αριστοκλής]

I see the OP argument falls apart in the first three sentences. One has to buy his illogical premise contained therein to begin making sense of his proof-texting.

[Volnutt]

[Melodist]

Christ details what He rejects about the Pharisees and Scribes, BOTH their hypocrisy, and a bunch of their extra biblical traditions.

Any discussion of the spirit of the law is tangential to Christ's purpose, which is what both Mr. Wooten and I refer to.

I thought your point was that Jesus was condemning anything not explicitly spelled in scropiture and that Mr Wooten's point was that Christ endorsed the teaching authority of those who sat in Moses seat. My point will be that Christ acknowledged their teaching authority and condemned not extra-biblical traditions but the traditions of men that "make the word of God of no effect". Jesus didn't have a problem with the extra-biblical tradition of washing hands and doing dishes, he condemned the idea that having clean hands was more important than having a clean heart. By declaring one to be "clean" because of the condition of their hands when their heart was impure was what made "the word of God of no effect" and not the simple act of hand washing.

Such a discussion is irrelevant to sola scriptura,

That's because it's not in there, which is my point.

but might be just fine in Sunday School.

Hopefully something postitive will come out of it then and it will prove to be edifying to someone somewhere.

[Melodist]

You guys are Code Talkers or something.

Oh, that, I got one of those decoder rings that two certain somebodies are always fighting over.

[Volnutt]

You guys are Code Talkers or something.

Oh, that, I got one of those decoder rings that two certain somebodies are always fighting over.

Captain Midnight and Ivan Stark?

[Melodist]

You guys are Code Talkers or something.

Oh, that, I got one of those decoder rings that two certain somebodies are always fighting over.

Captain Midnight and Ivan Stark?

Who else could it be?

[David Young]

Didnt we go over this once before?

No. Not once. I've lost count. Maybe ...Sp. once = Eng. eleven)

I say not eleven, but eleventy times eleven.

[Volnutt]

You guys are Code Talkers or something.

Oh, that, I got one of those decoder rings that two certain somebodies are always fighting over.

Captain Midnight and Ivan Stark?

Who else could it be?

Knowing that referrence makes me feel old beyond my years  !

[primuspilus]

Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet. you can make all the arguments you want but facts are facts.

1. Sola cant be true because if it were then the entire New Testament is heretical as it was not yet written and put together yet (NOTE: The New Testament was put together in light of tradition...tradition set down by those who were contemporaries of the apostles, which I mentioned to you before and you conviently ignored)

2. The scriptures of which are spoken of is the Old Testament as the Christians were still members of the Temple AND that was the only scripture at the time.

3. Most "solas" say that now that the scriptures are complete we should be sola scriptura...prove it.

4. These are facts easily proven through history. So, no more copy pasta arguments and scriptures taken out of context. Enough. Your arguments are weak, unconvincing, and TOTALLY bereft of historical accuracy.

PP


NOTE: You are like another Christian who decided to use what he wanted and throw away anything that didnt support his ideas....Martin Luther.

[Alfred Persson]

Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.
That definition works, though, only if we can establish that God speaks only through Scripture, which you have never done convincingly.

I never tried, it would be wrong. God speaks through His servants, and that ends up being written down. So the question to be answered, are there servants of God through whom He speaks today. Many cults say yes, and both Catholic and Orthodox (evidently) believe the word of God is in their “living tradition”, but that isn’t what the apostles taught:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Jude’s words convince me, why don’t they convince you?

Actually, your words show a misunderstanding of the Orthodox faith. We agree that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints by the Apostles and that nothing can be added to that faith. We recognize that the Holy Spirit is constantly guiding the Church into a deeper understanding of that faith once for all delivered, and that this perpetual guidance is manifest in what we call Tradition, but we don't presume to add anything new to this faith once for all delivered. You, however, must show that everything in this faith once for all delivered was written down and compiled into the Bible. This you have not yet done.

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?
Are you really qualified to know why Mr. Wooten said or did not say something? Do you know his mind that well? I'd like to know how you so mastered the art of telepathy if you do.

Evidently Mr. Wooten's argument and my counter isn't clear to you---if it were you would state precisely how I misunderstood his argument.

You don't know MY mind well enough to know what I would or would not do, so don't presume to say such things about me. Now, if you cannot know MY mind, how much less can you presume to know anybody else's?

I’ll end this here and give you time to reread carefully what we both said, and then either correct my misunderstanding, or your  misunderstanding.

Of course I don’t read minds, so there is no sense continuing until you reread the text and be certain of the issues.

I am quite certain of the issues, and I am correcting your misunderstandings. Now, will you accept this correction, or will you ignore it?

Reading comprehension is taught in school.

Not mind reading.

I've repeatedly explained the sola scriptura position to you, but can't seem to communicate it. I'll try again.

I do not believe in solo scriptura, that everything I believe must be explicitly taught in scripture.

I believe in sola scriptura, which is the Bible alone is the final (supreme) authority. I do not have to show everything I believe is  in scripture, I only have to show its not in conflict with scripture, and if I want it to be a “dogma of the faith,” that scripture explicitly teaches it.

If its not explicitly taught in scripture, then it cannot be a rule of the faith.


I have not misunderstood Wooten's argument. if you believe I have, then state precisely how, I cannot read your mind, never claimed i could.

But I can read and understand his argument. If you think I got it wrong, then explain how.

[xariskai]

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.

Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). Seeing sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT) in this passage is completely ridiculous.

First of all, when Peter and John were before the Sanhedrin in Acts 5 **NO NT BOOK HAD BEEN WRITTEN YET**. Answer me this riddle. During the period before the NT was written, what scriptural passage in the OT (remember, there is no NT yet!) told the disciples to baptize? What scriptural passage told them to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit? (if the apostles were ONLY TO OBEY A WRITTEN TEXT, how could they obey Christ unless he wrote his instructions on paper first??). What OT passage told the disciples to witness to "fill Jerusalem with their doctrine" (which they said not doing would be disobedience to God -without a written text available to prove it) or witness to the resurrection? Were they disobeying God in doing and commanding (e.g. in the case of baptism) these (at that time) EXTRA-BIBLICAL THINGS? If there was no scriptural text at that time telling them to fill Jerusalem with their doctrine, on your hypothesis anyone who does something not recorded on paper is disobeying God, Peter and John were disobeying God even as they claimed to be obeying Him.

As for your apparent claim Jesus taught anyone they would be disobeying God unless something was written in scripture, what do you make of this:

Matt 19:20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Didn't Christ command His disciples to do things He hadn't written down yet? How can you suppose the disciples' obedience to Christ (e.g. "follow me") is an exception to your principle if you insist anyone obeying anything that isn't ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT (sola scriptura) is disobedience to God? How could Abraham have obeyed God at Mount Moriah, without a scripture telling him to sacrifice his only son on your principle? Or any other action in the OT or NT that was undertaken before a written text existed to command a particular thing be done?

What scripture ever told anyone to write the New Testament? If the authors of the New Testament were writing, with no explicit scriptural command saying "THOU SHALT WRITE A NEW TESTAMENT..." weren't they doing something "extra-scriptural" in that very act, and on your view, disobeying God in the process since writing a NT isn't commanded in the OT?

Think about your absolutism; it leads to ridiculous consequences unless you make literally thousands of exceptions. And yet if even ONE exception must be admitted for any reason whatsoever, your apparent view that one must obey ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT refutes itself.

Esegetically speaking you are importing a hidden assumption into almost every text you cite, e.g. in the Acts text "obey God" = "obey written scripture and nothing whatsoever beyond written scripture." How then can Samuel have obeyed God by delivering a prophecy to the priest Eli in the opening portion of 1 Samuel? Did he find that written in a book before he delivered it?
 
Think about it. Your whole view is self-contradictory and ridiculolz.

And how then does one interpret scripture, without the aid of Tradition?

He needs to read Gadamer. Cliff notes on a few pages of Heidegger.

If Gadamer's thesis that one cannot get to the original intent of a text is the case one cannot help but wonder who Gadamer would write a book for other than himself, or how anyone one who presumed to review his work favorably would suppose they know what it says. Still, when one considers not only the stunningly diverse historiography of biblical interpretation, but also something like this thread, one cannot help but wonder if Gadamer was onto something...

[IsmiLiora]

I believe in sola scriptura, which is the Bible alone is the final (supreme) authority.

I always thought that God was the supreme authority, but maybe I'm in the wrong religion.

That's what gets me about the Sola Scriptura argument. There are moments where it seems halfway convincing, but the absolute reverence given the Bible, especially when the Logos simply transcends the text of the Bible...

Someone told me that I didn't "respect the Bible" during a similar argument. I said, "Wait, am I not supposed to respect God first?"

This is why I don't engage in those kind of arguments.

[Alfred Persson]

I believe in sola scriptura, which is the Bible alone is the final (supreme) authority.

I always thought that God was the supreme authority, but maybe I'm in the wrong religion.

That's what gets me about the Sola Scriptura argument. There are moments where it seems halfway convincing, but the absolute reverence given the Bible, especially when the Logos simply transcends the text of the Bible...

Someone told me that I didn't "respect the Bible" during a similar argument. I said, "Wait, am I not supposed to respect God first?"

This is why I don't engage in those kind of arguments.

Those who consider God the Supreme Being and His Word therefore the Supreme authority, do sometimes speak of scripture as though it is God speaking:

 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." (Gal 3:8 NKJ)

 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (Gal 3:22 NKJ)

But to not realize that is a "figure of speech" is odd.

Why don't you realize Paul is not disrespecting God?

I'm not arguing, just curious.

[Alfred Persson]

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.

Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). snip

Prove that argument first, then I'll address the rest.

Go through a stop sign, and explain your position to the judge, that the sign is only written text, that disobeying it was not disobeying the law.

Lets us know if the judge agrees, that disobeying the written command was not disobeying the law.

[xariskai]

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.

Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). snip

Prove that argument first, then I'll address the rest.

Go through a stop sign, and explain your position to the judge, that the sign is only written text, that disobeying it was not disobeying the law.

Lets us know if the judge agrees, that disobeying the written command was not disobeying the law.

Are you saying one must only obey a written text or aren't you?

[IsmiLiora]

Those verses do NOT justify Sola Scriptura. They only establish the importance of Scripture, which we agree with.

Just looking through the various translations, including Greek, I find it interesting how some have capitalized Scripture and others haven't. So are they equaling scriptural authority with God's authority now? Does capitalizing the word give the idea more authority than the verse implies?