ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

[Cruciform]

So how is this not sola scriptura to the apostles and bishops from the One true and Holy God through the Holy Spirit?

Two points:

• God revealed his character and will to the apostles/bishops not by "Scripture alone," but by the direct supernatural communication of the Holy Spirit who reminded them of all that Jesus had taught them over a period of three years.
• The apostles/bishops themselves didn't even begin to write anything down until decades after Jesus' Ascension and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. Indeed, sola scriptura was utterly unknown in the early Church, and was functionally unworkable until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[StanJ]

You provide no evidence. On my thread titled "The 'Church' at Acts 2 Was Not the Body of Christ" provides evidence to support my view.

If you want to provide actual evidence which supports your view you can do it there.

The scripture is SELF explanatory Jerry and as I already asked, WHERE is this so-called proof of yours. I need the link.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The scripture is SELF explanatory Jerry and as I already asked, WHERE is this so-called proof of yours. I need the link.

Go to the thread I mentioned and you will find it there. Or else you can click on this link:

http://www.twonewcovenants.com/pentecost/pentecost1.html

If you think that you can refute anything I said about this subject then you are welcome to post on my thread titled:

The "Church" at Acts 2 Was Not the Body of Christ​

 

[StanJ]

Go to the thread I mentioned and you will find it there. Or else you can click on this link:

http://www.twonewcovenants.com/pentecost/pentecost1.html

If you think that you can refute anything I said about this subject then you are welcome to post on my thread titled:

The "Church" at Acts 2 Was Not the Body of Christ
​

I'll look at the link, but FYI this is a huge forum so if you really want me to look at your thread then link the title to the actual thread so I can see it. Obviously you know ho to do that seeing as you posted a link above?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'll look at the link, but FYI this is a huge forum so if you really want me to look at your thread then link the title to the actual thread so I can see it. Obviously you know ho to do that seeing as you posted a link above?

Stay on this "Exclusively Christian Theology" section and then just look down to the tenth thread and you will see it there.

 

[StanJ]

Go to the thread I mentioned and you will find it there. Or else you can click on this link:

http://www.twonewcovenants.com/pentecost/pentecost1.html

If you think that you can refute anything I said about this subject then you are welcome to post on my thread titled:

The "Church" at Acts 2 Was Not the Body of Christ
​

I have two initial issues.

1. What OT scriptures are you referring to?
2. The LXX doesn't use the word your purport, it uses maqhêl, maqhêlâh, which connotes congregation. That is what we term a church today so what's the difference?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I have two initial issues.

1. What OT scriptures are you referring to?
2. The LXX doesn't use the word your purport, it uses maqhêl, maqhêlâh, which connotes congregation. That is what we term a church today so what's the difference?

Yes, it does. The Greek word in the LXX at Joel 2:16 is ἐκκλησίαν. In the Hebrew, the word is Qahal.

Here is what Alfred Edersheim, a Jewish convert to Christianity and a respected Bible scholar, said about those two words::

"Nor would the term 'Church' sound strange in Jewish ears. The same Greek word (ekklesia), as the equivalent of the Hebrew 'Qahal,' 'convocation,' 'the called,' occurs in the LXX. rendering of the Old Testament, and in 'the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach' and was apparently in familiar use at that time. In Hebrew use it referred to Israel, not in their national but in their religious unity" [emphasis added] (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. M. Eerdmans Publishing 1971] Book 3, Chapter 37, p.84).​

 

[StanJ]

Yes, it does. The Greek word in the LXX at Joel 2:16 is ἐκκλησίαν. In the Hebrew, the word is Qahal.

Here is what Alfred Edersheim, a Jewish convert to Christianity and a respected Bible scholar, said about those two words::

"Nor would the term 'Church' sound strange in Jewish ears. The same Greek word (ekklesia), as the equivalent of the Hebrew 'Qahal,' 'convocation,' 'the called,' occurs in the LXX. rendering of the Old Testament, and in 'the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach' and was apparently in familiar use at that time. In Hebrew use it referred to Israel, not in their national but in their religious unity" [emphasis added] (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. M. Eerdmans Publishing 1971] Book 3, Chapter 37, p.84).
​

Please try and address my questions AS they are posted in order to avoid equivocation or misunderstanding.

I disagree with what Edersheim states above and in your link, as we can see there is at least two Hebrew words in the OT that both connote "congregation", "assembly", or "convocation". You can read Ex 34:31 (NIV) and find a 3rd Hebrew word ‛êdâh, that also connotes congregation or gathering, whereas in the LXX, it is rendered as synagōgḗ which I'm sure you will note is what Jewish churches are called today, but still means congregation in English.

Given this, we cannot make your theory stand even plausible.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

.I disagree with what Edersheim states above and in your link, as we can see there is at least two Hebrew words in the OT that both connote "congregation", "assembly", or "convocation". You can read Ex 34:31 (NIV) and find a 3rd Hebrew word ‛êdâh, that also connotes congregation or gathering, whereas in the LXX, it is rendered as synagōgḗ which I'm sure you will note is what Jewish churches are called today, but still means congregation in English.

Edersheim never said that there is but one Hebrew word in the OT that mean congregation, assembly, or convocation. Where did you ever get that idea?

The point is that at Joel 2:16 the Hebrew word translated "congregation" is Qahal.

Do you deny that?

In the LXX the word Qahal is translated as ἐκκλησίαν (ekklesia).

Do you deny that?

And here is what Edersheim says about those two words:

"Nor would the term 'Church' sound strange in Jewish ears. The same Greek word (ekklesia), as the equivalent of the Hebrew 'Qahal,' 'convocation,' 'the called,' occurs in the LXX. rendering of the Old Testament, and in 'the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach' and was apparently in familiar use at that time. In Hebrew use it referred to Israel, not in their national but in their religious unity" [emphasis added] (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. M. Eerdmans Publishing 1971] Book 3, Chapter 37, p.84).​

If you think that Edersheim is in error then give your proof.

Thanks!

 

[StanJ]

Edersheim never said that there is but one Hebrew word in the OT that mean congregation, assembly, or convocation. Where did you ever get that idea?

He didn't try to discourage that inference did he?
The IDEA came from your inference and his lack of being forthright about ALL connotations of the word, as I just pointed out to you. You quoted it and that's what I used. Plus the way you emboldened certain words clearly shows you are making a very narrow interpretation when indeed all the word means for the most part, is congregation, which BTW is much more used today than ever given the institutional connotation the word "church" has taken on thanks to the RCC and mega churches.

The point is that at Joel 2:16 the Hebrew word translated "congregation" is Qahal.
Do you deny that?
In the LXX the word Qahal is translated as ἐκκλησίαν (ekklesia).
Do you deny that?
And here is what Edersheim says about those two words:

"Nor would the term 'Church' sound strange in Jewish ears. The same Greek word (ekklesia), as the equivalent of the Hebrew 'Qahal,' 'convocation,' 'the called,' occurs in the LXX. rendering of the Old Testament, and in 'the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach' and was apparently in familiar use at that time. In Hebrew use it referred to Israel, not in their national but in their religious unity" [emphasis added] (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. M. Eerdmans Publishing 1971] Book 3, Chapter 37, p.84).
​

If you think that Edersheim is in error then give your proof.

Thanks!

Demanding one word answers is a sign of a bad doctrinal position. I've given you what I saw AFTER reading the link you put up. The fact is, the Greek wouldn't sound strange to most of Israel because that was the language of academia and the Pharisees/teachers of the Law. It is why the NT was written in Koine Greek. The point is THAT doesn't support your theory in the link because it isn't a constant in the OT.
Do me a favour...find all the words in Hebrew that are translated as ekklesia, then see if they stand up to your theory, then revise your theory accordingly. At this point, it does not bear further scrutiny.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He didn't try to discourage that inference did he?

So now you are down to the level of trying to impeach the testimony of a well respected Bible commentator based on what you think that he may be inferring!

Demanding one word answers is a sign of a bad doctrinal position.

I just asked you a question. I never demanded a one word answer. Use as many words as you want to answer my questions.

 

[republicanchick]

John 14:26 Modern English Version (MEV)

26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.

I found the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church.. The Holy Spirit emanates from the Eucharist, which is Christ Himself



+++

 

[everready]

I found the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church.. The Holy Spirit emanates from the Eucharist, which is Christ Himself



+++

"Adoration of Christ in this Sacrament of love must also find expression in various forms of Eucharistic devotion: personal prayer before the Blessed Sacrament [the Eucharist], hours of adoration, periods of exposition - short, prolonged and annual (Forty Hours) - Eucharistic benediction, Eucharistic processions, Eucharistic Congresses."

The mass is the center of Catholicism and the Eucharist (that little round wafer above) is the center of the mass.

"...[E]ucharistic worship is the center and goal of all sacramental life."

--Karol Wojtyla, aka pope John Paul II

II Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.


everready

 

[Cruciform]

II Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Of course, this passage says nothing whatsoever about the Eucharist, nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with the Eucharist. Try again.

 

[StanJ]

So now you are down to the level of trying to impeach the testimony of a well respected Bible commentator based on what you think that he may be inferring!

That is your OPINION, not fact. I've never heard of him before your link, but given the way you've forced it, I can't very well be blamed for thinking he is wrong. However let's just stick to YOU and YOUR explanations Jerry, which as I've shown, is FLAWED.

I just asked you a question. I never demanded a one word answer. Use as many words as you want to answer my questions.

Pretty sure I did, but lets move on by answering what I've already posted. Better yet I'll go to that thread in order to keep this one on track.

 

[moparguy]

Apparently like yourself, I have no idea what you're talking about here. Try again.

I know exactly what I was talking about.

The way you've previously chosen and are still using in the OP of this thread (if we don't have a writing of Jesus saying it explicitly, he didn't teach it!) to ignore the biblical teaching of SS is the underhanded trick of say that if a person never explicitly says/writes something, than they couldn't have meant or taught it, which is pure nonsense... wholly besides the fact that Christ is actually THE word of God and explicitly identified in a very intimate way with the content of the bible beyond the "red letters."

Jesus wasn't on vacation somewhere and not paying attention when the left side (or any other part of) of the book was being inspired.

Correct, Jesus knew absolutely nothing of the 16th-century Protestant doctrinal invention called sola scriptura.

I wasn't agreeing with you.

Go ahead and post your definition of "sola scriptura." I only know the definition I was taught at both Evangelical Protestant university and Evangelical Protestant seminary. :chuckle:

you mean, the one I've posted at least twice in these exact same kinds of threads? They're not hard to find, you know.

I'll wait until you provide your definition of sola scriptura before commenting on this text.

Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, Section VI:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.


2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work.

This reference contains all the meanings of the quotation from the WCF up to the semicolon.

For beyond the semicolon:

Colossians 2:1-4
For I want you to know what a great conflict I have for you and those at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh, that their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and to all riches of the full assurance of the understanding, to the full knowledge of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And I say this that no one may beguile you with persuasive words.

All things worth knowing and all wisdom worth having is hidden in Christ.

I Corinthians 2:11
For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of a man within him? So also no one has known the things of God except the Spirit of God.

So only The Spirit can know the things of God - and only God's prophets have given us his word, in written form, by the means of the inspiration of The Spirit; - which we have in the bible... and this bible disclaims the romish idea of a continuing tradition beyond the close of the canon.

And this is not the only reference to the futility of non-biblical "knowledge" ...:

Galatians 1:8-9
But even if we or an angel from Heaven preach a gospel to you beside what we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we said before, and now I say again, If anyone preaches a gospel to you beside what you have received, let him be accursed.

No other gospel...

Now we beseech you, my brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you should not be soon shaken in mind or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word or letter, as through us, as if the Day of Christ is at hand.

No other eschatology...

2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly, and not after the teaching which he received from us.

Do not walk after teachings which you were not given by the apostles... and note, there is no mention of any continued apostolic tradition here...

Isaiah 8:19-20
And when they shall say to you, Seek to the mediums and to wizards who peep and mutter; should not a people seek to their God, than for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because no light is in them.

Those who speak not according to the scriptures have no light...

I Corinthians 1:19-21
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

and:

Isaiah 44:24-25
So says the LORD, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb, I am the LORD who makes all things; who stretches out the heavens alone; who spreads out the earth; who was with Me? who brings to nothing the signs of the liars, and makes diviners mad; who turns the wise backward, and makes their knowledge foolish;

and:

I Corinthians 3:18-20
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this world, let him become a fool so that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, "He takes the wise in their own craftiness." And again, " The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."

God has made the worldly "wisdom" of man foolishness.

The bible quite clearly teaches that it is fully capable of equipping a man for all good works and life, and that no other source outside of the bible can do so - that in fact, extra-biblical sources of "truth" have been reduced to foolishness by God.​

Not only does this biblical text say nothing whatsoever about "Scripture alone," it doesn't even say anything about "Scripture" period. Try again.

Again, with the nonsense. Do you understand the concept of addition? Do you realize that words "add up?" If I were to say that:

All men are mortal,
Socrates is a man,
Therefore Socrates is ()

Would you be able to fill in the () without having to do any sort of information search? The 2 timothy reference states what the scriptures are sufficient for, the other references exclude ALL other sources of information as sources for ANY truth.

Merely a Straw Man Fallacy on your part, since I have never claimed any such position as you describe here.

False. The bible teaches SS.

Cite a single biblical text which even hints at the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura.

Who said "explicitly"? I asked for a single biblical text that actually teaches sola scriptura. You're welcome to offer one if you'd like.

As for your OP; at least you've expanded; now you're just saying that if it's not in red ink, it wasn't taught by Christ, which is also nonsense. Did Christ teach and believe things that are not in "red ink?" If he did, what's your reason for saying that he didn't affirm or believe that his word alone gives man access to truth?

You mean the authoritative Catholic Council of Nicea held in 325 A.D.? Of course I affirm its decrees, including those on the Incarnation and Trinity.

... and yet the trinity is not something that can be found in any single verse... or passage. Probably not even in any book. It is a *necessary consequence* that is nowhere explicitly taught in scripture.

On inspiration: Than that's sorted as an episode of confusion between us. Moving on.

 

[Cruciform]

I...

You have already been sufficiently answered on these points. In any event, not one of the biblical text you referenced even implies---let alone teaches---the 16th-century Protestant invention known as sola scriptura. The Protestant exegete must read this pre-fabricated theological assumption into the biblical narrative (eisegesis) in order to then "get it out" of the Bible, just as you have done here.

Moving on...



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Here is what John Chrysostom wrote:

"When you shall see the wicked heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the church, then let those who are in Judea head for the mountains, that is, those who are Christians should head for the Scriptures. For the true Judea is Christendom, and the mountains are the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, as it is written: “Her foundations are in the holy mountains.” But why should all Christians at this time head for the Scriptures? Because in this period in which heresy has taken possession of the churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who want to know the truth of the faith except the divine Scriptures. Earlier we showed in many ways which is the church of Christ, and which heathenism. But now there is for those who want to know which is the true church of Christ no way to know it except only the through the Scriptures. Why? Because heresy has everything just like the church. How, then, will anyone who wants to know which is the true church of Christ know it in the midst of this great confusion resulting from this similarity, except only through the Scriptures?" (John Chrysostom, Homil. IX in Ep. Coloss).​

 

[Cruciform]

Here is what John Chrysostom wrote:

"When you shall see the wicked heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the church, then let those who are in Judea head for the mountains, that is, those who are Christians should head for the Scriptures. For the true Judea is Christendom, and the mountains are the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, as it is written: “Her foundations are in the holy mountains.” But why should all Christians at this time head for the Scriptures? Because in this period in which heresy has taken possession of the churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who want to know the truth of the faith except the divine Scriptures. Earlier we showed in many ways which is the church of Christ, and which heathenism. But now there is for those who want to know which is the true church of Christ no way to know it except only the through the Scriptures. Why? Because heresy has everything just like the church. How, then, will anyone who wants to know which is the true church of Christ know it in the midst of this great confusion resulting from this similarity, except only through the Scriptures?" (John Chrysostom, Homil. IX in Ep. Coloss).​

And yet, John Chrysostom also wrote the following:

"'So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours' (2 Thess. 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the Tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is Tradition, seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians).​

Thus, Chrysostom held to BOTH Scripture AND Tradition as apostolic and divinely authoritative, just as Catholics have continued to do right down to the present day.


Also, since you see fit to quote John Chrysostom as an authority, do you also affirm and follow the other fully Catholic teachings that he believed and taught? For example:

• the hierarchical structure of the Church (bishop, priest, deacon)
• Tradition as Divine Revelation (God's word)
• the doctrine of the Trinity
• the full humanity and Divinity of Jesus Christ
• seven sacraments
• baptismal regeneration
• Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist
• the Mass as a true sacrifice
• etc...

If you believe that Chrysostom actually held to sola scriptura---and presume to quote him (however erroneously) as an authority to that effect---why then do you refuse to follow his authority regarding these other historic Christian beliefs? :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[everready]

You Forgot Purgatory

You Forgot Purgatory

Purgatory is an Impossibility

Charles Spurgeon

Be not deceived about it, you are either on the way to heaven or on the road to hell. There is no purgatory or middle condition…

Purgatory is an impossibility, if full assurance be possible.

For what does Rome offer when you have done all? Purgatory and its pains! It tells you that when you have done all, you may have to lie for hundreds of years in a place of misery till you have been purged from sin.

Be not deceived about it, you are either on the way to heaven or on the road to hell. There is no purgatory or middle condition in the next world Purgatory is an invention of the Pope for the filling of his cellar and his larder; and no more profitable speculation has ever been set agoing than the saying of masses and the robbing of dupes, under the pretence of altering that state which is fixed for ever.

Purgatory Pickpurse was the name the first reformers gave it. You will go to heaven or to hell, and you will remain in one place or the other; for you have either a character that is fit for heaven or a character that is fit for hell, and there is no character which can be supposed, if we understand the Scriptures aright, which would be fit for a middle place, neither is there any middle place prepared for it.

I have no authentic communication by which to describe purgatory, but by Romish report it is a terrible place; now, if true believers go there, then God either does remember their sins, which he says he will not do; or else he punishes them for sins which he does not recollect.

Charles Spurgeon

http://www.pilgrimspassage.org/?p=1694


everready