Posted on 08/15/2009 6:00:50 AM PDT by Kolokotronis
“...regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
As Luther noted, Scripture is excellent, but evil men can turn anything to evil use.
What in that passage suggests scripture is not authoritative? If men can twist the God-breathed words of Scripture to evil end, how much more traditions?
Jesus, Paul & Peter all used Scripture as authoritative. We are regularly admonished to study it with diligence...the same epistle says, “to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts”.
A lamp in a dark place reveals, it doesn’t conceal. It makes sight possible. Yet you would have 2 Peter teach us not to trust scripture?
NOTHING suggests that Scripture is not authoritative, this verse states that by itself it is destructive to the untrained.
There is only one instance in Scripture of someone exalting Mary to Jesus or the Apostles - and Jesus says, ““On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” (NASB)
Yes, negating special honor to Mary.
Not a negation. That’s a common mistake.
“...by itself it is destructive to the untrained.”
No, it says “the untaught and unstable distort” scripture. Of this, there is no doubt. And when they twist scripture for evil, it brings “their own destruction”.
People of evil intentions use scripture to their own destruction, but an untrained person can certainly learn. Scripture doesn’t destroy the unlearned, it teaches them - for “16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Odd. “On the contrary” doesn’t normally imply agreement...
Luther, Zwingli, Spurgeon, Calvin, Machen, Smith, et al.
I don’t disagree with you, but if sola scriptura works why don’t ALL of the adherents to it reach the SAME conclusion?
Then why, in the development of sola scriptura, did Luther not reach this conclusion?
On the contrary to what?
Christ is saying that following His teachings is more important than biological relationship.
Notice He did not call on us to deprecate her submission to His will in her consent given as “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.”
Because the Holy Spirit is revealing conflicting--sometimes mutually-exclusive--Truths to them....
Oh, wait....
"On the contrary" is a (poor) translation selected to try to make your point.
T'ain't working.
“Jesus, Paul & Peter all used Scripture as authoritative.”
Yes, they did. Hebrew Scripture, as they were all Jews - and Septuagint Hebrew Scripture at that, as it was the only one around at that point.
The New Testament Canon was not finalized until the 4th Century...by (GASP!!!) Orthodox Bishops...out of the (GASP!!!) tradition of the Church. The first known evidence of the New Testament books in the form which they are known today was in an Easter letter by St. Athanasius in 367, between the first (Nicea) and second (Constantinople) Ecumenical Councils.
Anything else is, as Kolo would put it, ahistorical nonsense.
27 And it came to pass, as he said these things, a certain woman out of the multitude lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou didst suck. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. — ASV (Generally considered the most literal of major translations, to the point of being difficult to read.)
27And it came to pass, in his saying these things, a certain woman having lifted up the voice out of the multitude, said to him, `Happy the womb that carried thee, and the paps that thou didst suck!’ 28And he said, `Yea, rather, happy those hearing the word of God, and keeping [it]!’ — (Young’s Literal Translation)
27Now it occurred that as He was saying these things, a certain woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, Blessed (happy and to be envied) is the womb that bore You and the breasts that You sucked! 28But He said, Blessed (happy and to be envied) rather are those who hear the Word of God and obey and practice it! — Amplified (a translation that allows extra words to try to convey the full sense of the translated passage.)
27 While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.” 28 He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” — NAB (Catholic translation - http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke11.htm)
The NAB footnote says, “8 [27-28] The beatitude in Luke 11:28 should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the mother of Jesus; see the note on Luke 8:21. Rather, it emphasizes (like Luke 2:35) that attentiveness to God’s word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus.”
I agree with the footnote. Jesus is not condemning his mother, but emphasizing “that attentiveness to God’s word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus”.
The Canon recognized what the Church was already using...notice 2 Peter mentions the writings of Paul as Scripture, while Paul quotes Luke as Scripture.
Nothing against the Old Testament, but the church did NOT wait 400 years before using the New as Scripture. Most of the 27 book canon was accepted without question, but about 5 books were in doubt - and several other possible candidates were considered (and thus, being used by some congregations at that time).
Great.
You said Peter, Paul, AND Jesus, man. The only WRITTEN scripture when Jesus walked the earth was Septuagint Hebrew Scripture.
I am not going to argue that the Gospels existed prior to the end of the first century, nor the Epistles. Of course they did.
But the Canon of New Testament Scripture wasn’t finalized. You can’t change history, Fred.
“Nothing against the Old Testament, but the church did NOT wait 400 years before using the New as Scripture. Most of the 27 book canon was accepted without question, but about 5 books were in doubt - and several other possible candidates were considered (and thus, being used by some congregations at that time).”
Actually, more than several, and a number of the contending canons were quite short. The best story revolving around the canon concerns the widespread adoption of Hebrews and Revelation. The East accepted Hebrews early on. The West soundly rejected it. Similarly, the East rejected Revelation. There was a deal of sorts whereby the East promised to accept Revelation if the West accepted Hebrews. The West accepted Hebrews and we waited until the 8th century to accept Revelation and even at that we never use it.
Now this is a fact. Not an opinion, or matter of faith. Doesn't this fact completely destroy any sort of notion of "sola scriptura"? ... and if it doesn't, and the Protestants believe God's "tractor beam" was still in complete control of the compilation of the Bible, can somebody please tell me at what point the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church and made it obsolete so men could go off and form 30,000 churches on their own?
Wow, you remembered! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.