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

[Alfred Persson]

Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.

[Alfred Persson]

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?

Read this verse again and answer if you believe Paul was equaling scripture authority with God's authority:

 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)

[xariskai]

Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.

Where does scripture say the canon is decided?

[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.

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

Are you saying you don't have to obey a stop sign to obey 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?

Are you saying you don't have to obey a stop sign to obey the law?

Are you answering a question with a question?

Your analogy has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

[Volnutt]

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?

Are you saying you don't have to obey a stop sign to obey the law?

What does it mean to obey a stop sign? Do I just stop and never move again as soon as it comes into view? Do I stop even if I'm walking? How do I know when to keep moving? What if the cops are in the middle of a high speed chase, do they have to stop?

You need instructions outside the stop sign itself in order to know what to do with it.

[Alfred Persson]

Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.

Where does scripture say the canon is decided?

It follows from this verse:

 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
 (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

"Was confirmed", past, not present.

It follows only those people could write scripture as God didn't confirm with signs the teaching of anyone after them.

[IsmiLiora]

And who establishes what the stop sign means?

(You go, guys!)

[primuspilus]

You must explain your argument.

I did...in 2 separate threads, you just choose to ignore it. Probably because you cant find a wikipedia entry to copy and paste to refute what I said.

PP

[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.

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

Are you saying you don't have to obey a stop sign to obey the law?

What does it mean to obey a stop sign? Do I just stop and never move again as soon as it comes into view? Do I stop even if I'm walking? How do I know when to keep moving? What if the cops are in the middle of a high speed chase, do they have to stop?

You need instructions outside the stop sign itself in order to know what to do with it.

When you obey a stop sign, you obey the law...when you do not obey the written word "stop" on a stop sign, you are disobeying the law.

Stops signs only apply to cars. Every adult knows that context.

Same with the Bible.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.

[IsmiLiora]

Well, everyone interprets the Bible differently (see: 3 million denominations or whatever pasadi's statistic was), so who is actually obeying scripture? How do we know?

Context is necessary.

[Alfred Persson]

Well, everyone interprets the Bible differently (see: 3 million denominations or whatever pasadi's statistic was), so who is actually obeying scripture? How do we know?

Context is necessary.

You didn't answer why you believe I or others like me, have Scripture authority competing with God's authority, when we speak like this:

 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)

[xariskai]

Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.

Where does scripture say the canon is decided?

It follows from this verse:

 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
 (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

"Was confirmed", past, not present.

It follows only those people could write scripture as God didn't confirm with signs the teaching of anyone after them.

I don't see a reference to "deciding the canon" in that verse. Where is it exactly?

Wasn't deciding the canon an extra-biblical decision? (extra-scriptura) Where does it say in scripture which books to include as scripture, and where does it say "that's all folks, no other books will be written after this one?"

Where does scripture say your (inconsistent) "required interim period" before verbum dei becomes verbum scriptura is suddenly over such that no more books or letters may be added to the scriptural corpus?  

[Volnutt]

Stops signs only apply to cars. Everyone knows that.

How do you know? Did you read ever book of law for yourself to find an explicit statement that "stop signs are only for cars?" Are you sola common sense now?

Scripture does not interpret itself. At the very least you need to know how to read and to reason. We all use outside authorities to some extent.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.

Who is arguing that? Not me.

[Alfred Persson]

Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.

Where does scripture say the canon is decided?

It follows from this verse:

 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
 (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

"Was confirmed", past, not present.

It follows only those people could write scripture as God didn't confirm with signs the teaching of anyone after them.

I don't see a reference to "deciding the canon" in that verse. Where is it exactly?

Wasn't deciding the canon an extra-biblical decision? (extra-scriptura) Where does it say in scripture which books to include as scripture, and where does it say "that's all folks, no other books will be written after this one?"

Where does scripture say your (inconsistent) "required interim period" before verbum dei becomes verbum scriptura is suddenly over such that no more books or letters may be added to the scriptural corpus?  

Of course its elementary deduction, just as disobeying the stop sign IS disobeying the law, even though the word "law" isn't written in the sign.

If you can't deduce the obvious, this discussion is over.

[Alfred Persson]

Stops signs only apply to cars. Everyone knows that.

How do you know? Did you read ever book of law for yourself to find an explicit statement that "stop signs are only for cars?" Are you sola common sense now?

Scripture does not interpret itself. At the very least you need to know how to read and to reason. We all use outside authorities to some extent.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.

Who is arguing that? Not me.

Isn't there an age requirement to post here?

Only a child wouldn't understand the rules of the road.

I don't argue with children.

[Volnutt]

But we know Paul wrote other letters than just those 15, what makes them noncanonical? If Mark and Luke can write a book, why not Clement? And what of the Apocrypha? Maccabees, Sirach, and Wisdom seem to have been used as much as the OT.

[Volnutt]

Stops signs only apply to cars. Everyone knows that.

How do you know? Did you read ever book of law for yourself to find an explicit statement that "stop signs are only for cars?" Are you sola common sense now?

Scripture does not interpret itself. At the very least you need to know how to read and to reason. We all use outside authorities to some extent.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.

Who is arguing that? Not me.

Isn't there an age requirement to post here?

Only a child wouldn't understand the rules of the road.

I don't argue with children.

I understand the rules of the road just fine. Show me where you get your not-explicitly-written idea that stop signs don't apply to pedestrians.

[Alfred Persson]

But we know Paul wrote other letters than just those 15, what makes them noncanonical? If Mark and Luke can write a book, why not Clement? And what of the Apocrypha? Maccabees, Sirach, and Wisdom seem to have been used as much as the OT.

What other letters, where are they so I can read them.

If a writing didn't make it into the canon by  now, after all this time, I would highly doubt it was written the apostle. That doesn't seem possible given how these were distributed in the early church.

[primuspilus]

If you can't deduce the obvious, this discussion is over

Exactly why Im done with you. You refuse to deduce the obvious when examples are clearly provided.

You accept the canon yet deny the authority of those WHO PUT THE CANON TOGETHER.
You refuse to accept the traditions yet accept the canon that was put together BY the traditions.

Your arguments are nothing more than an overly worded version of 1+1=75.

Your whole argument is simply irrational hyper-ractionism with NO intellectual or historical basis, and rehashing of defeated "proofs" of your position that have been defeated multiple times not only on this forum, but also over the last 400 years by people of multiple diciplines.

PP

P.S. By the way, if you actually read Paul instead of Wikipedia you'd know that Paul talks about at least 3 letters to the Corinthians and his letter to the Laodicians.

[Alfred Persson]

Stops signs only apply to cars. Everyone knows that.

How do you know? Did you read ever book of law for yourself to find an explicit statement that "stop signs are only for cars?" Are you sola common sense now?

Scripture does not interpret itself. At the very least you need to know how to read and to reason. We all use outside authorities to some extent.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.

Who is arguing that? Not me.

Isn't there an age requirement to post here?

Only a child wouldn't understand the rules of the road.

I don't argue with children.

I understand the rules of the road just fine. Show me where you get your not-explicitly-written idea that stop signs don't apply to pedestrians.

Its in the rules of the road, so evidently you don't know them.

Pedestrians must stop at all intersections, whether there is a sign or not, and proceed only when it is safe.

When you apply for a driver's license, you are not applying for a pedestrian license.

[Alfred Persson]

If you can't deduce the obvious, this discussion is over

Exactly why Im done with you. You refuse to deduce the obvious when examples are clearly provided.

You accept the canon yet deny the authority of those WHO PUT THE CANON TOGETHER.
You refuse to accept the traditions yet accept the canon that was put together BY the traditions.

Your arguments are nothing more than an overly worded version of 1+1=75.

Your whole argument is simply irrational hyper-ractionism with NO intellectual or historical basis, and rehashing of defeated "proofs" of your position that have been defeated multiple times not only on this forum, but also over the last 400 years by people of multiple diciplines.

PP

P.S. By the way, if you actually read Paul instead of Wikipedia you'd know that Paul talks about at least 3 letters to the Corinthians and his letter to the Laodicians.

sorry you feel that way. goodbye.

[JLatimer]

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.

From reading the text, I do not even think it is apparent that Christ rejects the Pharisaic traditions. On the contrary, he tells his followers to

A) do what the Pharisees teach them to do.
B) provides a justification for their authority.

Then, he says not to do what they do; but what they do, according to Jesus, is practice hypocrisy. In other words they don't do what they tell others to do.

Given all that, I frankly don't see how the most basic reading of the text wouldn't be

1) Obey the Pharisees, since
2) the Pharisees have the authority to bind burdens. However, since
3) the Pharisees do not lift the burdens themselves that they bind on others, i.e. they are hypocrites who do not practice what they preach,
3) (a) follow their instructions and (b) do not emulate their behavior.
[(a) and (b) are essentially synonymous, since by following the Pharisees' example, one would not be following their instructions.]

In other words, authority is not necessarily "personal". Avoid the easy-to-make mistake of thinking that because someone exercises God-given authority, their life is automatically pure and worthy of emulation. Authorities are not necessarily "better" than others. Their authority is delegated to them by God and is not intrinsic to them as a person, nor is it given to them based on merit, but by grace.

This fits with Christ's criticism in this passage of the Pharisees self-exaltation, including their self-appropriation of titles (as if they "deserved" them). It also fits with other saying of Christ, such as his discussion with Pilate about the nature and source of Pilate's authority.

Nowhere in this passage do I see condemnation of extra-biblical traditions, or endorsement of sola scriptura.

[JLatimer]

Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.

LOL. where in the scriptures does it say that? And nevermind the canon was decided by Orthodox bishops.

[theistgal]

If you can't deduce the obvious, this discussion is over

Exactly why Im done with you. You refuse to deduce the obvious when examples are clearly provided.

You accept the canon yet deny the authority of those WHO PUT THE CANON TOGETHER.
You refuse to accept the traditions yet accept the canon that was put together BY the traditions.

Your arguments are nothing more than an overly worded version of 1+1=75.

Your whole argument is simply irrational hyper-ractionism with NO intellectual or historical basis, and rehashing of defeated "proofs" of your position that have been defeated multiple times not only on this forum, but also over the last 400 years by people of multiple diciplines.

PP

P.S. By the way, if you actually read Paul instead of Wikipedia you'd know that Paul talks about at least 3 letters to the Corinthians and his letter to the Laodicians.

sorry you feel that way. goodbye.

I seriously doubt it!

[primuspilus]

I seriously doubt it!

You're not the only one who doubts it 

PP

[Andrew Crook]

So I keep reading through all of these posts.  Alfred, I respect your position that Holy Tradition must agree with Scripture and that it is counter-productive to argue an "only scripture" viewpoint.  Even though I will never understand how sola scriptura is not the same as solo scriptura?  The mechanics of Latin grammar must leave "solo" ending in an A to produce "sola".  

  What the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church believes is here for all to see.  I think it would be more productive for you to show us where what the Orthodox churches teach is not in alignment with Scripture?  I'm all for scripture but as has been posted before, Scripture is not self-explanatory.  Many people can look at the same passages and come to entirely different meanings.  So you know what they say everyone has an opinion, just like everyone has a belly button.  

Besides, we Orthodox Christians have been around since the time of Christ.  We trace our lineage to the Apostles, and those who knew him personally -- not everyone can make that claim.  Since then the Protestants have subtracted whatever they didn't like, and the Roman Catholics have added plenty of things in their ever yearning process to "develop" doctrine which should never change.

[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.

From reading the text, I do not even think it is apparent that Christ rejects the Pharisaic traditions. On the contrary, he tells his followers to

A) do what the Pharisees teach them to do. snip

on the contrary, I listed the reason why it is apparent:

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.

Will you respond to my argument, or is your purpose just to state what you believe, which requires no response from me.

[Alfred Persson]

If you can't deduce the obvious, this discussion is over

Exactly why Im done with you. You refuse to deduce the obvious when examples are clearly provided.

You accept the canon yet deny the authority of those WHO PUT THE CANON TOGETHER.
You refuse to accept the traditions yet accept the canon that was put together BY the traditions.

Your arguments are nothing more than an overly worded version of 1+1=75.

Your whole argument is simply irrational hyper-ractionism with NO intellectual or historical basis, and rehashing of defeated "proofs" of your position that have been defeated multiple times not only on this forum, but also over the last 400 years by people of multiple diciplines.

PP

P.S. By the way, if you actually read Paul instead of Wikipedia you'd know that Paul talks about at least 3 letters to the Corinthians and his letter to the Laodicians.

sorry you feel that way. goodbye.

I seriously doubt it!

You mean he lied, he's not done with me?

[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?

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.

And THIS is where you actually DO teach solo 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.
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.

And THIS is where you actually DO teach solo scriptura.

Again I failed to communicate.

It must be explicit IF I want to consider the teaching "a must for every Christian."

Those teachings I must deduce from scripture, can't be considered "rule of the faith," as they aren't expressly taught.

They are deduced.

I can believe in quantum mechanics etc., which isn't in scripture, but can't make those "a rule of the Christian faith" because they aren't expressly taught in scripture.

[primuspilus]

Just to clarify theistgal, as I predicted another reactionary response from someone I was not speaking with, I was speaking to you 

PP

[Alfred Persson]

I seriously doubt it!

You're not the only one who doubts it 

PP

How can you doubt your own words?

Exactly why Im done with you. You refuse to deduce the obvious when examples are clearly provided.



Are you well?

[primuspilus]

*sigh* last time I checked you were not a forum thread but a person. Cant read a simple statement, yet you're right on the money with scripture huh? Good luck Champ

PP

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

Speaking now as a moderator, I must say that your attempts to dodge criticism of your point of view by engaging in such attempts to require others to prove their arguments before you will engage them is getting very trying of our patience. Please make an effort to engage ALL questions and challenges that force you to defend your arguments, not just those softballs you can hit out of the park. Otherwise, you're just using this forum as your personal soap box, which is not why this forum exists.

[PeterTheAleut]

Stops signs only apply to cars. Everyone knows that.

How do you know? Did you read ever book of law for yourself to find an explicit statement that "stop signs are only for cars?" Are you sola common sense now?

Scripture does not interpret itself. At the very least you need to know how to read and to reason. We all use outside authorities to some extent.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.

Who is arguing that? Not me.

Isn't there an age requirement to post here?

Only a child wouldn't understand the rules of the road.

I don't argue with children.

Any more ad hominems like this, Alfred, and you will be placed back on Warned status.

[xariskai]

[biro]

Nice car!   

[Alfred Persson]

Stops signs only apply to cars. Everyone knows that.

How do you know? Did you read ever book of law for yourself to find an explicit statement that "stop signs are only for cars?" Are you sola common sense now?

Scripture does not interpret itself. At the very least you need to know how to read and to reason. We all use outside authorities to some extent.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.

Who is arguing that? Not me.

That wasn't ad hominem, it was a question.

But i'll apologize anyway.



Isn't there an age requirement to post here?

Only a child wouldn't understand the rules of the road.

I don't argue with children.

Any more ad hominems like this, Alfred, and you will be placed back on Warned status.

A question isn't a statement, but I'll apologize anyway.

I'm sorry for asking that question.

[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.

Speaking now as a moderator, I must say that your attempts to dodge criticism of your point of view by engaging in such attempts to require others to prove their arguments before you will engage them is getting very trying of our patience. Please make an effort to engage ALL questions and challenges that force you to defend your arguments, not just those softballs you can hit out of the park. Otherwise, you're just using this forum as your personal soap box, which is not why this forum exists.

His argument rested upon what I didn't say, it needed to be set straight before treating the rest.

I've learned not to bury points beneath other points.

If you dont' want me here, just say so.

i don't like being talked at, I want conversation.

If you don't, just say so.

[Thankful]

Alfred, when you come to a Stop sign in your vehicle you stop.  And then you go.  Why do you go?  Who told you you could go?  The sign says Stop.  Shouldn't you stay there?  It says Stop, not Go.

You go, after stopping, because you took a class in which the teacher told you this is what the stop sign means.  And you read something other than the Stop sign (the rules of the road book that taught you that this is what the Stop sign means).  And your parents confirmed that you go after you make a full stop because that's what they'd learned, too, and they passed that along to you.  All things work together to interpret the sign for you.  If you ony read the Stop sign and the Stop sign alone (and based your actions upon what it's saying to you), you would have to stop and stay stopped.   Instead, you know -- because you learned it from the Road Sign Tradition -- that you can step on the gas again after coming to a full stop.

This is Tradition and Scripture.  Scripture certainly gives us the "rules of the road" -- but since just reading them by themselves can tell different people different things, the Church has provided interpretation for us (Tradition).  

Isn't God good?  

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred, when you come to a Stop sign in your vehicle you stop.  And then you go.  Why do you go?  Who told you you could go?  The sign says Stop.  Shouldn't you stay there?  It says Stop, not Go.

You go, after stopping, because you took a class in which the teacher told you this is what the stop sign means.  And you read something other than the Stop sign (the rules of the road book that taught you that this is what the Stop sign means).  And your parents confirmed that you go after you make a full stop because that's what they'd learned, too, and they passed that along to you.  All things work together to interpret the sign for you.  If you ony read the Stop sign and the Stop sign alone (and based your actions upon what it's saying to you), you would have to stop and stay stopped.   Instead, you know -- because you learned it from the Road Sign Tradition -- that you can step on the gas again after coming to a full stop.

This is Tradition and Scripture.  Scripture certainly gives us the "rules of the road" -- but since just reading them by themselves can tell different people different things, the Church has provided interpretation for us (Tradition).  

Isn't God good?  

You seem to be arguing against solo scriptura, if you search this thread, I've repeatedly stated I hold sola scriptura as true.

God put teachers in the church, of course I heed them, they are an authority. Solo scriptura would not do this, sola scriptura will.

What we require of teachers, is they never contradict scripture.

As long as they teach consistent with it, then they are teachers sent by God and we heed them.

But ONLY scripture is the Supreme Authority being it is the Word of God---The Supreme Being, what teachers teach, is of less authority.

ps: Your analogy is flawed, the context of the experience, common sense, shows the command to stop, is just that, stop. Not "remain," there are other rules against impeding traffic and for pulling off the road if you will remain stopped. So the rules of the road, entire, with rules interpreting the rules, and the context of reality with a little common sense, says "go" after one "stops."

[ialmisry]

I see you are back Alfred:

Alfred, when you come to a Stop sign in your vehicle you stop.  And then you go.  Why do you go?  Who told you you could go?  The sign says Stop.  Shouldn't you stay there?  It says Stop, not Go.

You go, after stopping, because you took a class in which the teacher told you this is what the stop sign means.  And you read something other than the Stop sign (the rules of the road book that taught you that this is what the Stop sign means).  And your parents confirmed that you go after you make a full stop because that's what they'd learned, too, and they passed that along to you.  All things work together to interpret the sign for you.  If you ony read the Stop sign and the Stop sign alone (and based your actions upon what it's saying to you), you would have to stop and stay stopped.   Instead, you know -- because you learned it from the Road Sign Tradition -- that you can step on the gas again after coming to a full stop.

This is Tradition and Scripture.  Scripture certainly gives us the "rules of the road" -- but since just reading them by themselves can tell different people different things, the Church has provided interpretation for us (Tradition).  

Isn't God good?  

You seem to be arguing against solo scriptura, if you search this thread, I've repeatedly stated I hold sola scriptura as true.

God put teachers in the church, of course I heed them, they are an authority. Solo scriptura would not do this, sola scriptura will.

What we require of teachers, is they never contradict scripture.

As long as they teach consistent with it, then they are teachers sent by God and we heed them.

But ONLY scripture is the Supreme Authority being it is the Word of God---The Supreme Being, what teachers teach, is of less authority.

ps: Your analogy is flawed, the context of the experience, common sense, shows the command to stop, is just that, stop. Not "remain,"

Most buttons I push that are labeled "stop" don't restart the machine.  your mileage must vary.

there are other rules against impeding traffic and for pulling off the road if you will remain stopped. So the rules of the road, entire, with rules interpreting the rules, and the context of reality with a little common sense, says "go" after one "stops."

well you just go after that stop sign.

[xariskai]

Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.

Where does scripture say the canon is decided?

It follows from this verse:

 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
 (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

"Was confirmed", past, not present.

It follows only those people could write scripture as God didn't confirm with signs the teaching of anyone after them.

I don't see a reference to "deciding the canon" in that verse. Where is it exactly?

Wasn't deciding the canon an extra-biblical decision? (extra-scriptura) Where does it say in scripture which books to include as scripture, and where does it say "that's all folks, no other books will be written after this one?"

Where does scripture say your (inconsistent) "required interim period" before verbum dei becomes verbum scriptura is suddenly over such that no more books or letters may be added to the scriptural corpus?  

I don't see any reason you have "Dodged" the questions in black' if there is a reason I'd like to know what it is.

Now suddenly you are not insisting the disciples followed Christ's supposed ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT rule, but that after receiving that supposed rule there was an additional subsequent period where they didn't follow ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT (sola scriptura) but rather followed an additional verbum dei which was not predicted or commanded in previous WRITTEN TEXT. And you do not see (or refuse to admit) the irony!

Also you have spoken of a verbum dei "until the canon was decided" but have failed to explain how one gets a canon ala sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT) since there is no scriptural list of a canon, or if you allow that you must get the canon extra-biblically how this is not a violation of Christ's alleged commandment to his disciples to use ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT, which is not what Christ or scripture ever said when it commanded only the word of God rather than the traditions of men be followed.

Pleas also answer the question if we are to follow ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT:  How on earth do *YOU* (autonomously, as one "radically individualized," WITHOUT APPEALING TO ANY CHURCH) conclude the canon is CLOSED? Did God tell you this directly? Or did you read in a written text THE CANON WILL BE NOW CLOSED AND HERE IS WHAT IS IN IT? And if not, are you disobeying the ONLY WRITTEN TEXT RULE and teaching an extra-biblical assumption to others that we should suppose the canon was or ever will be closed? Are you really following your ONLY THE WRITTEN TEXT philosophy, or are you being hypocritical in "sliding the canon under the door of your assumptions?" In fact you are obviously affirming an extra-biblical teaching unless you can show us a biblical passage that closes and defines the parameters of the canon. Luther supposed a different canon than is in our NT canon, and modern scholars speak today of a "canon within the canon" -meaning some books assumed canonical in the past should not have been. Bart Ehrman wants to add numerous Gnostic books which were considered scripture. Many early church fathers had different ideas about what books were canonical. Where is your scriptural proof as to who was right, since doctrines can only be based on only scripture in your view?

2 Thess 2:15 "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." NOT ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT! Such a position is unbiblical, and if it *was* biblical one would have to conclude that it was disobeyed continually from the time Christ allegedly commanded it. We would probably also have to conclude that there is no written text Christ approved other than the OT and specific writings authorized by ONLY THAT WRITTEN TEXT, and unfortunately no further writings were authorized by the ONLY WRITTEN TEXTS that existed during the tenure of Christ's earthly mission.

[Asteriktos]

I don't know what's going on in this thread. I'm not reading it, sorry. However, as I scrolled through I saw 1) a founder, and 2) dodgeball movie. I don't know why or for what reason one of the best TV shows ever and one of the best movies of the last decade were mentioned in a post, but good job. I salute you!