Protestants: Did Sola Scriptura exist at the time of the Apostles?

[Isa_Almisry]

Acts 17:10-12 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

No “scriptura” yet??? What was the Bereans reading? The daily Berean Bugle? We are clearly shown here that they were searching the “SCRIPTURES” so yes there was indeed “scriptura”.

As for whether sola scriptura existed at the time of the apostles or not? For the Bereans it existed. Note that they did not consult priest, or tradition to see if what the apostle Paul was teaching was true, they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what he said was true.

Also note how the apostle Paul commends the Bereans for consulting the Scriptures. He didn’t condemn them, and say how they should have trusted him, and the traditions. So if sola scriptura wasn’t condemned by the apostle Paul, why is it condemned by the Catholic church?

In the name of Jesus,

Ken

Only one problem.

Show me in the OT where there is anything said about a synagogue. What were they doing there to search the scriptures, and not in the temple in Jerusalem?

Btw St. Paul wrote to “stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught.” II Thessalonians 2:15.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Nope, the Apostles didn’t teach it nor did Jesus.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What came first? The church or the bible? Did Jesus give his disciples instructions or did he say “I’m leaving and you all figure it out”.

Actually the latter John 16:7, 13.

Jesus only wrote once John 8:6. We don’t have it.

But we do have the Church He build, as the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it." Matthew 16:18

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Branden: While I do not agree with SFCatholic’s use of such harsh words in his/her reply to you, I have had a similar experience where my mother-in-law, a devout So. Baptist once told me Jesus Himself wrote those red words with pen and ink He wrote them! LOL:extrahappy: :extrahappy: Of course I didn’t bother to argue with her because it would be a waste of breath!

Peace & Love

And of course He wrote them in English.

Which brings up the point: actually besides a few phrases like “talitha qumi!” “eli, eli lama sabakhtahni” etc., we don’t have Jesus’ words, because they were in Aramaic, and we only have the Greek translation.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Early Christians judged doctrine by the rule and norm of Apostolic teaching.

That is what we do today, judge doctrine by the rule and norm of Apostolic teaching. The only difference is that the Sola source that we have 2000 years later is the Apostolic teachings that were recorded in writing.

Problem: the Scripture you speak of.

The Lutheran and all Protestants (except maybe some Anglicans) all use the Masoretic text for the OT.

But the problem is that text wasn’t fixed until the 9th century.

No Christian MSS of it exist.

The LXX (Greek translation text) was fixed in the time of the Apostles, and is the one quoted in the NT. e.g. Isaiah 7:14. And even in the Protestant translations, you have to look at the LXX for some corruption in the Masoretic text (look in the text notes). And the Dead Seas Scrolls agree with the LXX against the masoretic text.

All Christian Bibles OT and NT in Greek, all the MSS, have the LXX.

Psalms 9-10 are a single Psalm in the LXX, divided in the masoretic text. But the Hebrew of the masoretic text shows its an acrostic (every verse beginning with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet in order) across 9-10, so the Hebrew masoretic text itself showing the correct ordering of the LXX

All Sola Scriptura is (at least according to Lutherans) is judging a doctrine against the most reliable information available. Scripture is the only source we can truly count on so we use that.

And what source did you count on to decide what was the most reliable information available?

Not Luther. He took out James and a few others. I know they have been put back in, but why? (Btw I was baptized and confirmed Lutheran, and had my own copy of the Book of Concord).

Btw your signature. Where does the Book of Concord fit, between the OT and NT?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear Semper Fi

Thank you for starting such an interesting thread. I have read it through with great interest, yet am puzzled by the whole business – what are you actually trying to achieve?

You know as well as all of us that even if somebody `proved’ what you asked them to prove, you would still not accept it, ``because nobody is as blind as he who does not want to see’’. The same goes for the Protestants you are challenging! Challenges don’t help any of us to find truth, righteousness, eternal life etc. They just divide people.

It seems like we haven’t grown up yet – my dad is stronger than yours etc. Did Jesus belong to a church, did He condemn other churches? He condemned/wept for everybody who was walking in darkness, when there was plenty of light all around!

If Jesus were walking on this earth today, would he be a Catholic or a Protestant or an Adventist or an Evangelical or a Pentecostal? I suspect He would be NONE of the above. His only concern is about truth and walking in the light that shines from heaven via the Holy Spirit. So all the bickering about Luther etc. is a waste of time. The point that Jesus came to make, was not to follow any tradition of any man or religion, but only that which had been PROVEN to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and did not contradict any previous inspired scripture.

When Jesus was tempted by Satan, He did NOT quote Abraham, or Gamalial, but only scripture: Mat 4:4 Jesus answered, ``It is written… v 7 It is also written… v10 Away from me, Satan! For it is written!" The only available writings that had stood the test of time/inspiration, were the OT writings then.

We all believe that the New Testament was merely a sample of many other writings inspired by the Holy Spirit (same applies for the OT as well), but we also have to agree that the early church fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to decide on a Canon of what was considered inspired by the Holy Spirit. Anything more than that, we have to conclude, is tradition (yours, ours, whose?) and mere speculation, which is NOT the foundation you build a spiritual house on!

Jesus’ verdict on the traditions of the chosen people of God reads like this in Mat 15:9 ``They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’’

Conclusion: We argue about these things, because we are all trying to USE Holy Scripture to prop up our own traditions. Lets get on to a more solid foundation for such a serious matter as eternal life – the Word of God (Old Testament and New Testament) seems a much better option to me.

God bless,

Friedrich

The only problem is that both the OT and NT tell us to “stand fast and hold the traditions which [we] were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” II Thessalonians 2:15.

I don’t believe God the Word had to quote anybody.

And Jesus worshipped in the synagogue. Where’s that in the OT?

Jesus wrote nothing, but did found a Church, His Body.

And as St. Peter warns (2 Peter 3:16), there are those who twist Scripture to their destruction, it’s important to find out which Body is here now, from then.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

“From henceforth All generations shall call me Blessed” - The Blessed Virgin Mary

“Hail, full of grace(or Favoured one), the lord is with thee” - Luke 1:28… note specifically the “Hail”, indicating the higher status of the one being spoken too, and the high likelyhood of the speaker being on their knees, This is a salute of a superior being. Even if you put “Favoured one” in there, this is still a salutation of a superior being and very millitary like at that… It is not “Greetings” it is “Hail”, specifically. Some translations have “blessed art thou amongst women” at the end of this…

“Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb” - Elizabeth… This is a difficult verse for protestants to deal with, It sounds rather like Elizabeth is exalting and praising the young Mary, doesn’t it? Reminiscent of the “from henceforth…” isn’t it?

Revelations Chapter 12… The Straight Interpretation: A crowned woman, who is the new ark of the covernant, is Currently in heaven, who’s son is Jesus Christ the Lord and who’s enemy is a dragon. Now who was Jesus Christ’s mother?

Lady’s and gentlemen… The Bible on the role of the Virgin Mary.

You forgot something.

"Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and then she spoke out in a loud voice and said “Blessed are…”

Don’t buy the Revalations reference though, as it conflicts with other things (the woman had birth pains while the Holy Theotokos in fullfillment of prophecy ( Isaiah 66:7) had none.

 

[Atemi]

Did Sola Scriptura exist at the time of the Apostles, and if not why should we accept it today?

No it did not.

The proper terminology when addressing all time periods is Sola Verbum Dei.

You should accept it today because the Scriptures are the only verifiable source of Apostolic doctrine on the planet. Tradition is only as authoritative as whatever church teaches it is.

Every church has their own “traditions” that they use as their authority, but no “tradition” (Word of God) can be sourced, cited, quoted, or linked to. The contents of any church’s chosen tradition are chosen by that church leadership itself whenever an authoritative claim needs to be made. Tradition is carte blanche to all churches that weild it, as it can never be verified at all by anyone.

Bereans would be out of luck with all the different traditions floating about.

Convince me Sola Scriptura existed in the early Church and I will become a Protestant. That is the challenge…

If you are an always faithful Catholic that believes that the Catholic Church cannot err doctrinally, why do you ask us to convince you of something that you could never accept to begin with?

That makes no sense at all.

To say you are capable of being convinced that SS is true, you are admitting that you do not believe the Catholic Church to be the one, true church it claims to be.

Do you really believe this way?

…

 

[colliric]

No it did not.

The proper terminology when addressing all time periods is Sola Verbum Dei.

You should accept it today because the Scriptures are the only verifiable source of Apostolic doctrine on the planet. Tradition is only as authoritative as whatever church teaches it is.

Every church has their own “traditions” that they use as their authority, but no “tradition” (Word of God) can be sourced, cited, quoted, or linked to. The contents of any church’s chosen tradition are chosen by that church leadership itself whenever an authoritative claim needs to be made. Tradition is carte blanche to all churches that weild it, as it can never be verified at all by anyone.

Bereans would be out of luck with all the different traditions floating about.

If you are an always faithful Catholic that believes that the Catholic Church cannot err doctrinally, why do you ask us to convince you of something that you could never accept to begin with?

That makes no sense at all.

To say you are capable of being convinced that SS is true, you are admitting that you do not believe the Catholic Church to be the one, true church it claims to be.

Do you really believe this way?

…

It makes complete sense, he is asking you to prove the doctrine was taught by the Apostles. In doing that he is showing you where Catholic belief actually really comes from. We believe in the Apostles, and they did not teach “Sola Scriptura” but instead “Scripture and Tradition”.

He is saying he believes the church, because he believes in Apostolic Authority and that authority has shown him the truth of the Catholic Church, not the opposite way around. If the Apostles taught something else, he would as a christian ditch the church in a second, but they did nothing of the sort, they taught “Scripture and Tradition” NOT “Scripture Alone”.

To be inquisitive about why protestants teach Sola Scriptura and to ask them “where is that in the bible?” or “Yeah? proove it?” does not entail disbelief in the Catholic Church… in fact rather the opposite.

He just fricken asking why you believe in it to see if your answer is valid! Nothing else!

He’s saying “Proove it”!

Tough ask considering not even James White can do it!

 

[Atemi]

To be inquisitive about why protestants teach Sola Scriptura and to ask them “where is that in the bible?” or “Yeah? proove it?” does not entail disbelief in the Catholic Church… in fact rather the opposite.

He just fricken asking why you believe in it to see if your answer is valid! Nothing else!

The OP claimed:

“Convince me Sola Scriptura existed in the early Church and I will become a Protestant.”

If one believes that the Catholic Church cannot possibly err doctrinally, then they cannot possibly consider any evidence that says otherwise.

Either the poster is asking us to do what he already admits to be impossible (and he was not honest)…or he does not believe that the Catholic Church is the one, true church of Christ.

One cannot admit that the Catholic Church may be false without admitting first that the Catholic Church is not everything she claims to be.

There are no other options. I just find such a challenge to be strange.

I would never say to anyone: “convince me Jesus Christ never lived and I will become an atheist.” I already know Jesus Christ so I cannot entertain the thought that He did not exist unless I first admit that He may be in error.

A faithful Catholic does not have the option to believe that it is possible that his church may be in error. You cannot believe that the RCC is BOTH true, and possibly in error, at the very same time. It is impossible.

…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The OP claimed:

“Convince me Sola Scriptura existed in the early Church and I will become a Protestant.”

If one believes that the Catholic Church cannot possibly err doctrinally, then they cannot possibly consider any evidence that says otherwise.

Either the poster is asking us to do what he already admits to be impossible (and he was not honest)…or he does not believe that the Catholic Church is the one, true church of Christ.

One cannot admit that the Catholic Church may be false without admitting first that the Catholic Church is not everything she claims to be.

There are no other options. I just find such a challenge to be strange.

I would never say to anyone: “convince me Jesus Christ never lived and I will become an atheist.” I already know Jesus Christ so I cannot entertain the thought that He did not exist unless I first admit that He may be in error.

A faithful Catholic does not have the option to believe that it is possible that his church may be in error. You cannot believe that the RCC is BOTH true, and possibly in error, at the very same time. It is impossible.

…

The only problem I was a Protestant, and a firm believer in sola scriptura, untill I saw that it wasn’t in scripture, had never been believed by the Apostles, didn’t exist until well over a thousand years after the Apostles, led to all sorts of conflicted dogmas (the JW believe in sola scriptura, but their results didn’t match mine). It also didn’t make logical sense when I thought about it: I didn’t believe the authority of the tradition that put the Bible together, but yet I accepted its decisions. I mean, there is no table of contents in the original scriptures, and Jesus didn’t hand it to me. I depended on all those tradition types who copied it for generations until Guttenberg. If I trusted the transmission, I had to trust the interpretation. As such, I became Orthodox.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No it did not.

The proper terminology when addressing all time periods is Sola Verbum Dei.

You should accept it today because the Scriptures are the only verifiable source of Apostolic doctrine on the planet. Tradition is only as authoritative as whatever church teaches it is.

Every church has their own “traditions” that they use as their authority, but no “tradition” (Word of God) can be sourced, cited, quoted, or linked to. The contents of any church’s chosen tradition are chosen by that church leadership itself whenever an authoritative claim needs to be made. Tradition is carte blanche to all churches that weild it, as it can never be verified at all by anyone.

Bereans would be out of luck with all the different traditions floating about.

If you are an always faithful Catholic that believes that the Catholic Church cannot err doctrinally, why do you ask us to convince you of something that you could never accept to begin with?

That makes no sense at all.

To say you are capable of being convinced that SS is true, you are admitting that you do not believe the Catholic Church tobe the one, true church it claims to be.

Do you really believe this way?

…

The fact that there are Latins who adopt SS and become Protestants, and Protestants who are led by SS to become Latin (or better, Orthodox ) belies this.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Early Christians judged doctrine by the rule and norm of Apostolic teaching.

That is what we do today, judge doctrine by the rule and norm of Apostolic teaching. The only difference is that the Sola source that we have 2000 years later is the Apostolic teachings that were recorded in writing.

All Sola Scriptura is (at least according to Lutherans) is judging a doctrine against the most reliable information available. Scripture is the only source we can truly count on so we use that.

If you don’t mind, I’ve posted on the Thread “Does Lutheran Eucharist remain Body/Blood or revert back to bread/wine?”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=178039&page=4

Could you take a look and make sure my memory hasn’t mistated. Thanks.

 

[colliric]

The OP claimed:

“Convince me Sola Scriptura existed in the early Church and I will become a Protestant.”

If one believes that the Catholic Church cannot possibly err doctrinally, then they cannot possibly consider any evidence that says otherwise.

Either the poster is asking us to do what he already admits to be impossible (and he was not honest)…or he does not believe that the Catholic Church is the one, true church of Christ.

One cannot admit that the Catholic Church may be false without admitting first that the Catholic Church is not everything she claims to be.

There are no other options. I just find such a challenge to be strange.

I would never say to anyone: “convince me Jesus Christ never lived and I will become an atheist.” I already know Jesus Christ so I cannot entertain the thought that He did not exist unless I first admit that He may be in error.

A faithful Catholic does not have the option to believe that it is possible that his church may be in error. You cannot believe that the RCC is BOTH true, and possibly in error, at the very same time. It is impossible.

…

You are reading WAY WAY too much into the question he posed. He is giving you a challenge, not questioning his own church at all. In fact let me let you in on a little secret…

…we’re told to do this often by Catholic Apologists giving us advice on how to argue against Sola Scriptura. We’re told to ask “if you can convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is Biblical… I will become a protestant!”

It’s not lying to ask someone to “convince me” of something I already know isn’t true, and in arguments, it’s the best way to get the best they have out of them. You know they’re probably not going to convince you, but you give them the opportunity to try anyway.

And yes I’d say this poster knows you can’t answer the challenge, not even James White, prominent Protestant Apologist, can.

 

[Atemi]

You are reading WAY WAY too much into the question he posed. He is giving you a challenge, not questioning his own church at all. In fact let me let you in on a little secret…

…we’re told to do this often by Catholic Apologists giving us advice on how to argue against Sola Scriptura. We’re told to ask “if you can convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is Biblical… I will become a protestant!”

That is not a secret. LOL.

What you are saying is that the OP was not honest.

It would have been more forthright just to say they believe X and there is nothing you can say that can change that. That is the most honest approach.

It’s not lying to ask someone to “convince me” of something I already know isn’t true, and in arguments, it’s the best way to get the best they have out of them.

“Convince me of something I cannot be convinced of no matter the evidence”?

Exactly.

Silly and nonsensical challenge.

What they are saying is that the Catholic Church may not be teaching the truth.

And you like that?
That is an acceptable “secret” method in RC apologetics?

That is amazing to me, and definitely not a witness that encourages me to be Catholic again.

And yes I’d say this poster knows you can’t answer the challenge, not even James White, prominent Protestant Apologist, can.

I did and James White did too.

Done.

…

 

[Sixtus]

That is ridiculous seeings there were no New Testament at the time of the Apostles.

It could not have applied to the Torah seeings they were witnesses to Christ.

 

[Fisher]

Did Sola Scriptura exist at the time of the Apostles, and if not why should we accept it today?

Convince me Sola Scriptura existed in the early Church and I will become a Protestant. That is the challenge…

Yes only they had the old testament at that time. And the new covenant. Then came Paul .

God gave us the Bible to teach us, to guide us, to correct us, and to enable us to lead Godly lives. Through the Bible, God reveals Himself and His ways to us. Scripture says:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” (Psalm 119:105)

“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.” (Psalm 19:7-8)

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12)

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)

“…receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.” (James 1:21)

“The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” (Psalm 119:131)

“…If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31-32)

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4)

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)

“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

“Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” (Psalm 119:89)

For Jesus’ evaluation of the religious traditions of his time, read Mark 7:1-13 and Matthew 15:1-9. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees because their traditions nullified the Word of God. He used Scripture to measure the validity of their religious traditions. He was distressed because the religious leaders of his time considered their traditions to be equal in authority to Scripture. He rebuked them saying, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:8-9) In Mark 7:8, Jesus says, “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the traditions of men”. (See Mark 7:6-8.)

The Bible clearly tells us that we are not to add to Scripture or take away from it. We need to stay with what has been written.

Deuteronomy 4:2 says, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” In other words, adding to Scripture results in disobeying God. If we say that Tradition is equal in authority to Scripture, then we can no longer use Scripture to test Tradition, like Jesus did. Instead, we are allowing Tradition to determine how we interpret Scripture. Either this is “adding to Scripture” or else it is perilously close to it.

Deuteronomy 12:32 says, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” Proverbs 30:5-6 says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Revelation 22:18-19 warns that adding to God’s words can cause a person to have their name be removed from the “book of life”.

 

[colliric]

Yes only they had the old testament at that time. And the new covenant. Then came Paul .

God gave us the Bible to teach us, to guide us, to correct us, and to enable us to lead Godly lives. Through the Bible, God reveals Himself and His ways to us. Scripture says:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” (Psalm 119:105)

“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.” (Psalm 19:7-8)

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12)

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)

“…receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.” (James 1:21)

“The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” (Psalm 119:131)

“…If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31-32)

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4)

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)

“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

“Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” (Psalm 119:89)

For Jesus’ evaluation of the religious traditions of his time, read Mark 7:1-13 and Matthew 15:1-9. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees because their traditions nullified the Word of God. He used Scripture to measure the validity of their religious traditions. He was distressed because the religious leaders of his time considered their traditions to be equal in authority to Scripture. He rebuked them saying, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:8-9) In Mark 7:8, Jesus says, “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the traditions of men”. (See Mark 7:6-8.)

The Bible clearly tells us that we are not to add to Scripture or take away from it. We need to stay with what has been written.

Deuteronomy 4:2 says, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” In other words, adding to Scripture results in disobeying God. If we say that Tradition is equal in authority to Scripture, then we can no longer use Scripture to test Tradition, like Jesus did. Instead, we are allowing Tradition to determine how we interpret Scripture. Either this is “adding to Scripture” or else it is perilously close to it.

Deuteronomy 12:32 says, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” Proverbs 30:5-6 says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Revelation 22:18-19 warns that adding to God’s words can cause a person to have their name be removed from the “book of life”.

None of these verses proves Sola Scriptura… not one. Words can be both said and written down, and sola scriptura denies this obvious fact by misinterpreting the word “word” as only “Written words” when in fact words can be Spoken(Tradition) and Written(The Bible)

If Deuteronomy 4:2 supported Sola Scriptura, it would actually have to say, “Ye shall not add unto the written word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”. But it DOESN’T!

 

[St_Violet]

Yes only they had the old testament at that time. And the new covenant. Then came Paul .

God gave us the Bible to teach us, to guide us, to correct us, and to enable us to lead Godly lives. Through the Bible, God reveals Himself and His ways to us. Scripture says:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” (Psalm 119:105)

“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.” (Psalm 19:7-8)

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12)

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)

“…receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.” (James 1:21)

“The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” (Psalm 119:131)

“…If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31-32)

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4)

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)

“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

“Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” (Psalm 119:89)

For Jesus’ evaluation of the religious traditions of his time, read Mark 7:1-13 and Matthew 15:1-9. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees because their traditions nullified the Word of God. He used Scripture to measure the validity of their religious traditions. He was distressed because the religious leaders of his time considered their traditions to be equal in authority to Scripture. He rebuked them saying, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:8-9) In Mark 7:8, Jesus says, “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the traditions of men”. (See Mark 7:6-8.)

The Bible clearly tells us that we are not to add to Scripture or take away from it. We need to stay with what has been written.

Deuteronomy 4:2 says, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” In other words, adding to Scripture results in disobeying God. If we say that Tradition is equal in authority to Scripture, then we can no longer use Scripture to test Tradition, like Jesus did. Instead, we are allowing Tradition to determine how we interpret Scripture. Either this is “adding to Scripture” or else it is perilously close to it.

Deuteronomy 12:32 says, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” Proverbs 30:5-6 says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Revelation 22:18-19 warns that adding to God’s words can cause a person to have their name be removed from the “book of life”.

although I feel these passage do not prove sola scriptura, I have to ask you, if the bible is something “God gave us to teach us, to guide us, to correct us, and to enable us to lead Godly lives. Through the Bible, God reveals Himself and His ways to us.” why is there soo many protestant denominations that contradict each other by just using the bible alone

 

[Montalban]

Acts 8:30
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31
**“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” **So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The Bible doesn’t teach. People teach/learn. Why didn’t Philip say to the Ethiopian “Go away and be guided by the Holy Spirit”? The Ethiopian was obviously eager to learn. Wasn’t that enough for God?

There’s *learning *and there’s right learning.

If Jesus had have wanted us to rely solely on the ‘word’ he’d have dictated to the Apostles and instructed them to write everything down AT THAT TIME.