A Review and Rebuttal of "Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura."

PRAISE GOD.

Not that bible reading is held in high regard by them for obvious reasons.
Quite the contrary but don't let the facts get in the way of ignorantly perpetuating a lie.
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112

I thought I did mention lip service in my post.

Anyway as a Catholic for 27 years, I never had a bible. In 12 years of Catholic school and daily catechism class, I never recall seeing a bible or ever being chastised for not reading a bible. I never saw anyone carry a bible to Mass, I never saw any parishoner reading a bible at Mass. I never knew anyone who read the bible in the parish. I certainly believe this to be the case in most Catholics experience.

I do recall a remark made by a Catholic apologist at a debate. He was mentioning those in the audience and said "I see we have many Catholics and Protestants here. The protestants are the ones with the bibles." Everyone understood the Jab/Joke.

MC: to tell them what the Bible means speaks to the fact that the majority of Catholics are Democrats who believe that Obama and Pelosi and Barney Frank are somehow qualified to interpret the Constitution for them.

AAC: You think you'll ever have to answer for bearing false witness?

Only if she ever does. So far I haven't seen that she has. Where is she ~~lying~~ oops... "bearing false witness"?

I have watched his debates. I have gone to his website and read his rags. He is just a fancy talking “lawyer”. I did not believe he is that honest when it comes to it. Of course thats IMHO. He is not humble in any fashion as a Christian or Person. I know his videos and writings.

Also if you go around calling yourself a Doctor like he does and still does not have a true accreditation. That means he is a fraud. You do not call yourself as such unless you are one no matter what side of the arguement.

The Bereans Acts 17:11 "... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.[1]", and many of them believed. --> these "scriptures" were the Septuagint only and maybe the Gospel of Mark and Matthew. The Gospel of John wouldn't be written for some more decades, and Acts hadn't been written yet, and neither any of the epistles.

So, in short, these folks were OT alone -- and nothing else. Is that only what's in your bible?

Furthermore, context, context, context, read the preceeding and following lines

10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

So, they did rely on a man's word initially -- two men, Paul and Silas who spread the Good News amongs them. Then they checked the OT to see if the references to the Christ were correct. And also, the Berean Church included GREEKS -- who wouldn't have read the scriptures as they were not of Jewish origin, they took the Gospel for what Paul and Silas preached, tradition alone, not scripture.

Furthermore, note what happened before -- in Thessalonia. There, "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures" --> THESE THESALLONIANS were sola scriptura folks who disagreed with Paul and Silas' interpretation of scriptures (the OT) on the Christ.

Remember, both the Thesalonians in the passages before this and the Bereans were Jews who studied the OT for the references of Jesus being the Christ. Why did they study this? because of the ORAL TRADITION that Paul and Silas brought, claiming Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

The Thesalonians rejected this as "it weren't in scripture, sola scriptura", while the Bereans accepted Holy Tradition, i.e. ORAL teaching by Paul and Silas.

if anything, the tale of the Bereans shows the error of SOLA scriptura.

Remember, the Bereans AND Thessalonians had the Septuagint and nothing from the NT.

The Thessalonians stuck to SOLA scriptura and rejected the oral teachings of Paul and Silas.

The Bereans did NOT stick to SOLA scriptura and listened to Paul and Silas. They referred to scripture but accepted the ORAL teachings of Paul and Silas. And they believed.

This is an utter refutation of SOLA scriptura.

A rebuttal of the rebuttal

first point: Every Protestant interprets sola scriptura differently! it's sola sola interpretura

None of the various types of those outside orthodoxy can agree on what they interpret by sola scriptura. so, the self-interpretation extends to the very meaning of sola scriptura!

Sola scriptura by simple translation is Scripture alone -- nothing outside scripture allowed. This is the logic of those who rejected the Oral Gospel of Jesus Christ brought by Paul+Silas. This was not the philosophy of the Bereans
Many Presbyterians and other Calvinists among others hold to the meaning that only things directly in scripture should be acknowledged. This was outright rejected by the Berans

Others hold that it must be directly derived from Scripture -- but never elaborate how directly. If one says directly, then the nature of Christ is strongly hinted at in the Septuagint, but not in the Tanakh --> this writing by a Jew with a view :) outlines the Jewish point that the Tanakh does not have the same references as the Septuagint. Hence if there are Protestants who disclaim the Septuagint in favor of the Tanach then they must hold to this person's point of view which elaborates as

From the site: ajewwithaview (link above): The Jewish G-d never, ever takes human form – and certainly doesn’t pop in to planet earth to impregnate a Nice Jewish Girl...Above all, though, Jesus did not fulfill any of the Jewish messianic prophecies

--> so, if one says that the Church is wrong to take the works like Maccabees etc. from the Septuagint as all should be derived from the Tanakh, then must agree with the author of the above

Some say that sola scriptura is that that's the ONLY place to derive the truths for salvation -- again something that goes against what the Bereans did with their OT scripture (see points 1 and 2 above)
Others say that only truths needed for salvation must be SOLA scriptura

Second: Sola scriptura itself is not in scripture!

Nowhere in scripture do we see anyone saying that all should be from scripture ALONE. On the contrary we read Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 to hold fast to all traditions -- oral or written
There is nothing in Scriptura that teaches that Scripture should be held in isolation from the Church and Tradition.
Sola scriptura also fails that it can't even be derived

2 Tim. 3:16–17 says

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It nowhere says SOLA scriptura. It just says "all scripture" -- not defining scripture, not saying what is outside is wrong, just saying "if it's scripture it be good" In fact it is building words into scripture by claiming that it says sola scriptura so Sola Scriptura contradicts itself!

Now Sola Scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 3:14 which says

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

--> nowhere does it say that this learning was SOLA scriptura, in fact it was mostly ORAL teaching as with the Bereans.

Also, Sola scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 1:13–14 which says

13Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
14That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.;

--> note, words heard.... not scriptura.

And sola-scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim 2:2 which says

2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ;

"Has HEARD" what you have heard, commit and teach to others. No sola scriptura here either

Third: Ephesians 4:11-15 says something quite contrary to sola scriptura

11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, all are for the "perfecting of the saints" and to prevent being "carried about with every wind of doctrine"

The problem is reading too much into 2 Thess 2:15 --> if one holds by that as saying ONLY scripture, then the same sola scriptura-type would have to say that Ephesians 4:11-15 says ONLY pastors, etc., --> this is the contradictory nature of the ONLY doctrines -- on the contrary the Church holds to AND, Scriptura AND the Church, Water AND Spirit

Fourth: Sola scriptura -- so which one?

Let's see --

does sola scriptura say one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching)
Does sola scriptura say that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists)
Does sola scriptura say that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there should be an episcopate (Lutheran, Anglican) or not (Presbyterians)?
Does sola scriptura say that apostolic succession is important (Anglican) or not (others)?
Does sola scriptura say that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
Does sola scriptura say that God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)?
Does sola scriptura say that vestements are ok (or in the silly words of one poster allowing men in dresses and silly hats) (Anglicans, Lutherans, some Methodists, Presbyterians, even Baptists and Pentecostals) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
Does sola scriptura agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
Does sola scriptura believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
Does sola scriptura agree with being "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
Does sola scriptura say that Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
Does sola scriptura say that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
Does sola scriptura say that baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
Does sola scriptura say that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

So, in conclusion, the basic point is that there are conflicting definitions of sola scriptura and it itself is unbiblical

A rebuttal of the rebuttal

first point: Every Protestant interprets sola scriptura differently! it's sola sola interpretura

None of the various types of those outside orthodoxy can agree on what they interpret by sola scriptura. so, the self-interpretation extends to the very meaning of sola scriptura!

Sola scriptura by simple translation is Scripture alone -- nothing outside scripture allowed. This is the logic of those who rejected the Oral Gospel of Jesus Christ brought by Paul+Silas. This was not the philosophy of the Bereans
Many Presbyterians and other Calvinists among others hold to the meaning that only things directly in scripture should be acknowledged. This was outright rejected by the Berans

Others hold that it must be directly derived from Scripture -- but never elaborate how directly. If one says directly, then the nature of Christ is strongly hinted at in the Septuagint, but not in the Tanakh --> this writing by a Jew with a view :) outlines the Jewish point that the Tanakh does not have the same references as the Septuagint. Hence if there are Protestants who disclaim the Septuagint in favor of the Tanach then they must hold to this person's point of view which elaborates as

From the site: ajewwithaview (link above): The Jewish G-d never, ever takes human form – and certainly doesn’t pop in to planet earth to impregnate a Nice Jewish Girl...Above all, though, Jesus did not fulfill any of the Jewish messianic prophecies

--> so, if one says that the Church is wrong to take the works like Maccabees etc. from the Septuagint as all should be derived from the Tanakh, then must agree with the author of the above

Some say that sola scriptura is that that's the ONLY place to derive the truths for salvation -- again something that goes against what the Bereans did with their OT scripture (see points 1 and 2 above)
Others say that only truths needed for salvation must be SOLA scriptura

Second: Sola scriptura itself is not in scripture!

Nowhere in scripture do we see anyone saying that all should be from scripture ALONE. On the contrary we read Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 to hold fast to all traditions -- oral or written
There is nothing in Scriptura that teaches that Scripture should be held in isolation from the Church and Tradition.
Sola scriptura also fails that it can't even be derived

2 Tim. 3:16–17 says

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It nowhere says SOLA scriptura. It just says "all scripture" -- not defining scripture, not saying what is outside is wrong, just saying "if it's scripture it be good" In fact it is building words into scripture by claiming that it says sola scriptura so Sola Scriptura contradicts itself!

Now Sola Scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 3:14 which says

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

--> nowhere does it say that this learning was SOLA scriptura, in fact it was mostly ORAL teaching as with the Bereans.

Also, Sola scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 1:13–14 which says

13Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
14That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.;

--> note, words heard.... not scriptura.

And sola-scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim 2:2 which says

2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ;

"Has HEARD" what you have heard, commit and teach to others. No sola scriptura here either

Third: Ephesians 4:11-15 says something quite contrary to sola scriptura

11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, all are for the "perfecting of the saints" and to prevent being "carried about with every wind of doctrine"

The problem is reading too much into 2 Thess 2:15 --> if one holds by that as saying ONLY scripture, then the same sola scriptura-type would have to say that Ephesians 4:11-15 says ONLY pastors, etc., --> this is the contradictory nature of the ONLY doctrines -- on the contrary the Church holds to AND, Scriptura AND the Church, Water AND Spirit

Fourth: Sola scriptura -- so which one?

Let's see --

does sola scriptura say one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching)
Does sola scriptura say that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists)
Does sola scriptura say that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there should be an episcopate (Lutheran, Anglican) or not (Presbyterians)?
Does sola scriptura say that apostolic succession is important (Anglican) or not (others)?
Does sola scriptura say that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
Does sola scriptura say that God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)?
Does sola scriptura say that vestements are ok (or in the silly words of one poster allowing men in dresses and silly hats) (Anglicans, Lutherans, some Methodists, Presbyterians, even Baptists and Pentecostals) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
Does sola scriptura agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
Does sola scriptura believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
Does sola scriptura agree with being "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
Does sola scriptura say that Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
Does sola scriptura say that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
Does sola scriptura say that baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
Does sola scriptura say that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

So, in conclusion, the basic point is that there are conflicting definitions of sola scriptura and it itself is unbiblical

The Thesalonians

The key point about the jealousy of the Jews is this:

along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women

It's clear that that was the reason for the "jealousy" -- yet also note that only "some" of the Jews were persuaded -- the others rejected the ORAL Gospel as being outside scripture. These were the early sola-scriptura-types. In contrast we have the Bereans who accepted non-SCRIPTURA information, namely the ORAL Gospel --> something that the sola-scriptura folks of today would reject.

The Bereans

As Steve Ray says in the article (from above)

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul's new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded-not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

And, as the article itself points out

From the perspective of sola scriptura types, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.

Also, note, Bkaycee -- your recollections are your own, from your time and your experiences. They do not reflect The Church today or the Church I grew up in (80s-90s).

Perhaps these were the errors in the 60s-70s as your experiences relate, but these are not reflective of The Church that I or other Catholics (cradle or converts) know.

Further errors in sola scriptura

Now the sola scriptura types say they hold to scripture alone,

Yet they hold on to things like

the Rapture
"Accept Jesus as your personal Savior" --> this bears more time. This is never taught from scripture, yet parroted by many. While the Bible says that (Matt. 1:21 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins, Acts 4:12 12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.) Jesus is the savior, but nowhere can one make the fallacious derivation -- where is it per sola scriptura?

In fact the Bible says
Matthew 28.20

20Teaching 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.

Revelation 2.10

10Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

1 Corinthians 15:58

58Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 15.1-4

1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

There's not quick fix, just "accept", but 12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Then the "accept Jesus and ask Him to come into your heart" which seems at odds with Matt 7:21.

Also, the sad thing is that many do not pay heed to 1 Corinthians 13

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

This is what the Orthodo Presbyterian C says about solo scriptura

The Reformation view of "sola Scriptura" (the "Bible alone" is the rule of faith and practice) insists that God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of Christ, revealed in Scripture (2 Pet. 1:3).

The OPC rejects both new revelations of the Spirit (sought in the modern charismatic movement)

We do not seek to speak in tongues, believing that the gift of tongues as described in the book of Acts was unique to the apostolic age before the completion of the canon of Scripture. To require anyone to believe something because man said it (whether an ancient tradition or a supposed new revelation received five minutes ago) is to lord it over the consciences of God's people and grieve the Holy Spirit of God.

And they add on more

Another aspect of "sola Scriptura" is that we believe that God alone has the right to order how we may worship Him. We may do only those things in worship that God has appointed in His word, whether by express teaching or approved example. The biblical elements of worship are enumerated in WCF 21. Aiming to do all things decently and in order, we do not allow women to preach or speak in church meetings or to rule the church, as in the Assemblies of God

Sometimes I wonder if any of the Usual Suspects even reads any posts except their own. Well done, BTW.

IC, I thought you might appreciate this thread, and the remarks on it.

The problem is that sola scriptura is a seductive theology that fails ultimately, because it is built on sand -- ultimately the "believers" in sola scriptura become one of two things:

They follow the interpretation of some other man (some say they are of Calvin, others that they are of Machen, others that they are of Joel Osteen, whatever...)
They then become Church of One types -- who believe in opening up the bible and believing random verses

Many of our friends here are highly intelligent, but I can see they glaze over these inconsistencies.

I have watched his debates. I have gone to his website and read his rags. He is just a fancy talking “lawyer”. I did not believe he is that honest when it comes to it. Of course thats IMHO. He is not humble in any fashion as a Christian or Person. I know his videos and writings.

Thanks for your opinion. Do you have any opinions that actually relate to the topic of the thread?

This is an utter refutation of SOLA scriptura.

It seems like an utter refutation of your mistaken understanding.

I see you failed to comment about the church's normative state vs. the time of revelation. I believe that is the heart of your mistaken understanding.

Interaction with the topic instead of cut and paste off-topic re-dumps from other threads is preferable.

not really -- as I pointed out, what is sola scriptura -- the very definition has it's own interpretations and is open to interpretation by various groups and individuals

first point: Every Protestant interprets sola scriptura differently! it's sola sola interpretura

None of the various types of those outside orthodoxy can agree on what they interpret by sola scriptura. so, the self-interpretation extends to the very meaning of sola scriptura!

Sola scriptura by simple translation is Scripture alone -- nothing outside scripture allowed. This is the logic of those who rejected the Oral Gospel of Jesus Christ brought by Paul+Silas. This was not the philosophy of the Bereans
Many Presbyterians and other Calvinists among others hold to the meaning that only things directly in scripture should be acknowledged. This was outright rejected by the Berans

Others hold that it must be directly derived from Scripture -- but never elaborate how directly. If one says directly, then the nature of Christ is strongly hinted at in the Septuagint, but not in the Tanakh --> this writing by a Jew with a view :) outlines the Jewish point that the Tanakh does not have the same references as the Septuagint. Hence if there are Protestants who disclaim the Septuagint in favor of the Tanach then they must hold to this person's point of view which elaborates as

From the site: ajewwithaview (link above): The Jewish G-d never, ever takes human form – and certainly doesn’t pop in to planet earth to impregnate a Nice Jewish Girl...Above all, though, Jesus did not fulfill any of the Jewish messianic prophecies

--> so, if one says that the Church is wrong to take the works like Maccabees etc. from the Septuagint as all should be derived from the Tanakh, then must agree with the author of the above

Some say that sola scriptura is that that's the ONLY place to derive the truths for salvation -- again something that goes against what the Bereans did with their OT scripture (see points 1 and 2 above)
Others say that only truths needed for salvation must be SOLA scriptura

Second: Sola scriptura itself is not in scripture!

Nowhere in scripture do we see anyone saying that all should be from scripture ALONE. On the contrary we read Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 to hold fast to all traditions -- oral or written
There is nothing in Scriptura that teaches that Scripture should be held in isolation from the Church and Tradition.
Sola scriptura also fails that it can't even be derived

2 Tim. 3:16–17 says

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It nowhere says SOLA scriptura. It just says "all scripture" -- not defining scripture, not saying what is outside is wrong, just saying "if it's scripture it be good" In fact it is building words into scripture by claiming that it says sola scriptura so Sola Scriptura contradicts itself!

Now Sola Scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 3:14 which says

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

--> nowhere does it say that this learning was SOLA scriptura, in fact it was mostly ORAL teaching as with the Bereans.

Also, Sola scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 1:13–14 which says

13Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
14That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.;

--> note, words heard.... not scriptura.

And sola-scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim 2:2 which says

2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ;

"Has HEARD" what you have heard, commit and teach to others. No sola scriptura here either

Third: Ephesians 4:11-15 says something quite contrary to sola scriptura

11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, all are for the "perfecting of the saints" and to prevent being "carried about with every wind of doctrine"

The problem is reading too much into 2 Thess 2:15 --> if one holds by that as saying ONLY scripture, then the same sola scriptura-type would have to say that Ephesians 4:11-15 says ONLY pastors, etc., --> this is the contradictory nature of the ONLY doctrines -- on the contrary the Church holds to AND, Scriptura AND the Church, Water AND Spirit

Fourth: Sola scriptura -- so which one?

Let's see --

does sola scriptura say one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching)
Does sola scriptura say that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists)
Does sola scriptura say that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there should be an episcopate (Lutheran, Anglican) or not (Presbyterians)?
Does sola scriptura say that apostolic succession is important (Anglican) or not (others)?
Does sola scriptura say that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
Does sola scriptura say that God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)?
Does sola scriptura say that vestements are ok (or in the silly words of one poster allowing men in dresses and silly hats) (Anglicans, Lutherans, some Methodists, Presbyterians, even Baptists and Pentecostals) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
Does sola scriptura agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
Does sola scriptura believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
Does sola scriptura agree with being "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
Does sola scriptura say that Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
Does sola scriptura say that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
Does sola scriptura say that baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
Does sola scriptura say that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

So, in conclusion, the basic point is that there are conflicting definitions of sola scriptura and it itself is unbiblical

Because it's a circular, nebulous argument put forth by the author.

The statement of normative appeals to my engineering parlance filled cerebrum as holding forth to the idealized state as in the case of the perfect vacuum or a Fibonacci sequence however, with regards to and in relevance to the theological nay philosophical sophistry put forth by the author in attempting to draw a dis-located correlationship between an idealized situation he refrains from elucidating whether he infers this as idealized in the sense of an idęe fixę or as one which persists.

With regards to the latter, the issue is one that highlights the difference in perception, nay of cognizance as differing from our position of a living God, a living Word, a living tradition as delineating and outlining the thread that rolls in the interpretation of what is birthed from this living Word that is the written Word. And since this is birthed one from the other, however the written Word bears the issue of possibilities of ambiguity as borne out by the points I list below when the thread, the path, the guiding hand of the living Word that is living Tradition is discarded, then one sees theological anarchy right from one doubting double-predestination to others doubting Jesus as God, all is up for grabs as it is humanities want that when there are two witnesses there are five opinions and the sixth is what really happened, whereas in contrast to this and in juxtaposition to this anarchistic interpretation one has the assuredness that this is what has been handed down from one to another, from Christ to John to Polycarp to Ignatius, and so on for all one or the other. This holds forth in the same fashion as which the rabbinical teachers identified the true keepers of their Holy Tradition and scripture in juxtaposition to those who distorted it -- by asking the question: who taught you and who taught your teacher and who taught your teacher's teacher, so holding back in line to the ultimate Teacher who is Christ, the LIVING Word. So hence this living Word, this living Holy Tradition is kept as the way, the path in which we have always understood the faith from Apostolic Times. Just as right now we have the argument over whether infants ought to be baptised or not, yet we read the ambiguity that is open for dispute on whether a household means a household or not and which have the lack of time and place and localization in the sense that one living in an atomic family in a highly individualistic culture lacks the background to understand the situation in a society of joint families of group sensibilities. It is not just language which divides but also the very mores especially now two millenia later, but even three hundred years post the event it was puzzling for a Romanized Berber who had been a member of the indo-iranian zoroastrian influenced manichaenism, yet his reasons were simple "What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held," (+AugustineOn Baptism against the Donatists) and that is the refuge against the numerous rounds of multiple interpretations, namely that we know this because our teachers knew it and their teachers knew it and so on because they learnt from the Ultimate Teacher -- Jesus Christ, Our LIVING Word, our Living Holy Tradition.

“You think you’ll ever have to answer for bearing false witness?”

I’ll have to answer for a lot of things. But in this case there’s nothing to answer for. While I applaud the Catholics who eschew the politics of the liberal Democrats it is demonstrably true that the majority of Catholics support liberal Democrat politics. Since the Catholic mind is apparently geared to having someone in authority to ‘interpret’ the meaning of the Bible for them it then seems to me to be a logical explanation for why Catholics overwhelmingly support liberal Democrats.

The liberal Democrat assertion that the Constitution is a ‘living document’ whose meaning changes from day to day based upon how it is interpreted is consistent with the view that the Bible is valid only as it is interpreted by church leadership.

And, yes, I stand by what I said with the silly hat and dress comment. That’s because Jesus and the Apostles wore the clothing of the common man of their time and their teachings and Authority were neither diminished nor enhanced by their clothes and there’s nothing in Scripture that says otherwise.

Pope John Paul II was still every bit the Pope when he was dressed for the ski slopes he was fond of and whether or not he wore the effeminate garb of the Vatican did nothing to enhance or diminish his wisdom.

The Reverend Billy Graham never wore such things and no one ever questioned his authority on Scripture because he declined to dress in silk robes and a silly hat.

In some respects, I think Catholicism would be more approachable were the Catholic clergy to dress like normal people as opposed to setting themselves apart from and above the common people.