Did Jews follow "Sola Scriptura"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LuciusMaximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BohemianBrother said:
Sola Scriptura is a practice of the whole church to hold all doctrine accountable to scripture, as scripture is the Word of God and also the most reliable witness of the gospel. It has absolutely nothing to do with people reading the Bible at their homes.
Click to expand...
I love the concept, I love immersing myself in the Bible, that wrestling with God, but here’s the rub - who gets to decide or judge the degrees of church accountability to scripture? Isn’t the current wildly divided world of Protestantism proof that SS is at best only half of the answer? Seems to me that without an empowering authority by & with the Holy Spirit, division is inevitable. How do we KNOW whose interpretation of scripture is right, without a God appointed magisterial authority?

It never ceases to amaze me how often in all these discussions I find myself back at the question of authority. It’s why I’m back in the church.
 
Last edited:
A non-Catholic Christian struggled with the same question, and he ultimately realized the problem came down to authority.

He went on to write a book, “By What Authority”.

I recommend it, and it’s an easy easy read.

God bless,
Sandra
 
adf417 said:
I suppose we must have different definitions of implicit and explicit. I will continue waiting for these “direct proofs”.
Click to expand...
Explicit does not necessarily mean “direct proofs”.
The Trinity is a classic case where there are few “direct” proofs, but many many deductive or indirect proofs, which can hardly be dismissed by any person who accepts the inspiration of Holy Scripture: God’s revelation.
Click to expand...
No single passage states, “The one God exists in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Yet, for example, we see a verse that strongly suggests the same, with just a little deduction:
Matthew 28:19 (RSV) “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”
If the Bible teaches that God (and only God) has certain characteristics, and proceeds to apply them to three Persons: called the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then they are all one God (since the Bible teaches there is but one: Dt 6:4; 32:39; Is 43:10; 44:8; 1 Cor 8:4-6).

As an aside, no Catholic should lower their opinion of Dave Armstrong simply because I referenced him. Guilt by association is unfair.
 
JonNC said:
No single passage states, “The one God exists in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Yet, for example, we see a verse that strongly suggests the same, with just a little deduction:
Matthew 28:19 (RSV) “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”
If the Bible teaches that God (and only God) has certain characteristics, and proceeds to apply them to three Persons: called the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then they are all one God (since the Bible teaches there is but one: Dt 6:4; 32:39; Is 43:10; 44:8; 1 Cor 8:4-6).
Click to expand...
I defend the Trinity myself for many years and i do use scripture. :+1:t2:

However our definitions of implicit and explicit may vary and im open to being corrected to a deeper understanding.

Based on this definition of the two -


it seems you are describing the usage of implicit in the above statement. If not please give me your definition of implicit in the current context.

Peace!!!
 
adf417 said:
I defend the Trinity myself for many years and i do use scripture. :+1:t2:
Click to expand...
It is, effectively, our only resource on the matter, along with the writings of the ECFs.
  • Explicit means something is made clear and stated plainly.
Click to expand...
I think that scripture makes it completely clear. Does it use the word “Trinity”? No, but it does clearly state, Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Why would we be asked to baptize in a name other than God?
We know that the Father and Son are one from John 1.
We also know that, according to the angel in Luke 1:35. it is the Holy Ghost who
…shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Click to expand...
If the Holy Ghost is not God, how is Christ the Son of God?

Pretty explicit
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
Pretty explicit
Click to expand...
  • Implicit means something is implied but not stated directly.
JonNC said:
No single passage states, “The one God exists in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Yet, for example, we see a verse that strongly suggests the same, with just a little deduction:
Click to expand...
Seems more implicit to me.
 
adf417 said:
40.png
JonNC:
Pretty explicit
Click to expand...
  • Implicit means something is implied but not stated directly.
JonNC said:
No single passage states, “The one God exists in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Yet, for example, we see a verse that strongly suggests the same, with just a little deduction:
Click to expand...
Seems more implicit to me.
Click to expand...
What about the scriptural references I made?
Do you view those as merely implicit?
 
JonNC said:
An example of implicit.
Hail, Mary, full of grace”.
Implies sinlessness
Click to expand...
I agree. And when you state -
No single passage states, “The one God exists in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Yet, for example, we see a verse that strongly suggests the same, with just a little deduction:
Click to expand...
…it seems like the same form of implication to me.

Maybe one day i will see what you see Jon. :pray:t3:

Peace man!!!
 
po18guy said:
Let’s keep it simple: Did Jesus teach that the faith - the New and eternal Covenant - should be propagated by consulting writings?
Click to expand...
Well, He chose by the foolishness of preaching should men be saved, and that by the Word of God.
 
When you read the NT, the main reason the Jews rejected Christ was because they had added so many “traditions” about who they thought the Messiah was to be, such as being a military leader who would overthrow their oppression from Rome, as well as rejected the passages that explicitly taught His Deity. Had they gone by sola scriptura like the disciples did (John 1:45), they would have accepted Jesus as their long-awaited Jewish Messiah.
 
RaisedCatholic said:
Had they gone by sola scriptura like the disciples did (John 1:45), they would have accepted Jesus as their long-awaited Jewish Messiah
Click to expand...
What I find amazing is is Simeon and Anna with their prophecies of baby Jesus.

Apparently we have a devout “lay” person, Simeon, not part of any “magisterium”, with an amazing annointing and prophecy, that definitely was quite scriptural.

So had they all been sola scriptura not sure they all would have been spiritually astute to Jesus, requiring being called of Father, rebirth, Godly revelation etc. Yet tradition made them twice as lost, and Jesus says so. Those on the outskirts of their religion received the gospel more readily. For sure, those like Simeon and Anna and others trusted more in scripture than tradition.
 
Last edited:
billsherman said:
In the first century, there was no Jewish Canon in the sense that there is today
Click to expand...
Well what about the Septuagint?

In justifying the deutero books many say Jesus and the disciples read out of it. Our first bibles closely followed it. ( key word closely, as in not entirely).

While I agree they never counciled to make a canon like us, yet those that had an ear to hear (an eye to read) were not lost to their sacred scriptures.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Well what about the Septuagint?
Click to expand...
Good question!

The Septuagint is a translation of previously existing work, not a canon in the sense that most people mean that word. I suppose you could consider it one if you so desire, but I’m not aware of any evidence that Jews at the time considered it such. It has many differences from later accepted Jewish canon, so even if it was canonical to some, it clearly wasn’t seen as such by a large percentage of believers.

The biggest reason I wouldn’t call it a canon is because that is really an anachronistic term when it comes to first century Judaism. Aside from the Torah, there really wasn’t a set group of accepted texts. Different Jewish groups (the Essenes are an excellent example) used different groups of texts, some unique to themselves.

It’s not until the late second century ACE that we can be certain there was an established Jewish canon.
 
Zaccheus said:
Jesus repeatedly taught using the form “It is written that” …“but I say to you”.
Click to expand...
He says “you have heard it said that… but I say to you” a lot. I do not think I have ever read Jesus say “It is written… but I say to you…” I could be wrong and it could be half and half, but I dont think so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top