Sola scriptura and corrections?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brianjmc1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ταῦτα δέ, ἀδελφοί, μετεσχημάτισα εἰς ἐμαυτὸν καὶ Ἀπολλῶν δι’ ὑμᾶς, ἵνα ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε τό · Μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται, ἵνα μὴ εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου.

I know you don’t have tor trust me. But you can check it by yourself. Literal translation:

Not above what has been written.

The question is what written thing is he meaning and you seem to exclude
 
Last edited:
Ok, and the Church agrees on those points, whether for interpreting Scripture or Tradition. But those resources alone still won’t necessarily guarantee sufficient understanding.
 
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thess 2:15
 
steph03 said:
When I was in a Baptist church, a group of people disagreed with the Sabbath. They tought we should observe the sabbath… They left and formed their own group. A couple of years later a controversy occured around the speaking in tongues and gift of the spirits… They finally split and formed their own baptist church. Still a few years later a strong dispute arose around the Lord’s return… Some were premillenial pretribulationist, and a smaller group was premillenial postribulationist… The later left and formed their own group. Today in my home town there are six baptist churches, that all originated from one and split and formed their own churches. Each convinced of Sola Scriptura…
Click to expand...
Excellent point.

AND

The scriptures they claim is their sole source of truth, condemns such activity they exhibit and continue in .
 
Sure we are over that, I already said tradition is good as long as it does not contradict scripture, you say how you interpret scriptures and I gave my response and we have been engaging in the eternal debate.

🙂
 
Actually the case he presents was done by Judaizers (sabbath issue), and for minor issues like escathology. That has nothing to do with sola scriptura.
 
Yes, Sola Scriptura has given rise to much confusion and controversy. And Tradition is on equal par with Scripture in terms of being a source of revelation. Neither can contradict the other; they both support each other.
 
Last edited:
I think we are not gonna arrive to any agreement. But we can agree if tradition does not contradict scripture then even to me it is Holy. But anyways, much respect and love. God bless you
 
Thank you, you too. Either way you’ll come around eventually-Logic Alone demands it. 😀
 
Sorry, couldn’t resist. That’s the way it worked for me anyway.
 
MCA said:
Actually the case he presents was done by Judaizers (sabbath issue), and for minor issues like escathology. That has nothing to do with sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
Actually I think contemporary examples were being described…

I say that because

Historically speaking,

the Baptist sect, was originally started by Joseph Smyth in the 16th century. From Smyth’s errors, gave rise to dozens of future sects/divisions/errors that followed from that sect
 
Last edited:
Well? I mean its such a stunted and shallow viewpoint. Then the question also arises within Protestantism as to whether or not man’s will is involved at all in salvation. So first we’re presented with Sola Fide as the means to being justified, with varying understandings of how exactly that works, and then we’re told by some that even that gift of faith cannot be rejected, and that regeneration/salvation is a one-time event that precedes faith and that this state cannot be compromised or forfeited (we cannot become unjustified again by sin/turning away from God) which further alters a person’s basic understanding of their obligation to God. Just a lot of confusion is birthed the by whole SS notion.
 
Last edited:
Different manuscripts say different things. That is why you see such a difference in translations from one to another. I think Dr. Sungenis wrote a book on this.

And one translation says don’t exceed the Tanakh.

CJB

Now in what I have said here, brothers, I have used myself and Apollos as examples to teach you not to go beyond what the Tanakh says, proudly taking the side of one leader against another.
 
Well brother that was my branch in seminnary textual criticism and translations dont come because different variants. They come for methods of translation. Dr. Sungenis is not an authority as far I know on this very issue, you have plenty of catholic scholars known by their authority on textual criticism.

That’s my point tho why he points to scripture and its my question to you.
 
I actually appreciate for real. When catholics show eagerness to get somebody non catholic to catholicism they show love. And thats amazing. I thank you for that

Some catholics as some protestants seem instead to be happy that the other (each one in their view) are incorrect and do smash and put down others even personally. That shows no love, But pride and hate
 
Thank you-and I appreciate that. Upholding and defending truth in love, rather than defending ourselves, should be the protocol. And I know that everyone here is sincere in their beliefs.
 
https://www.amazon.com/Not-Scripture-Alone-Protestant-Scriptura/dp/1579180558

Dr. Sungenis wrote about 25 pages about this. If you ever want to see a very articulate presentation about that particular and controversial passage, you will find it in this book. It does not teach Sola Scriptura, IMO.

Scripture points to scripture as you rightly point out. No debate there.

Also points to Tradition. 2 Thess 2:15

Also points to the Church 1 Tim 3:15

Also points to Church leadership speaking through Council ACTS 15.

I’ve heard James White make the ridiculous assertion that if you don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura you must then take a lesser and more critical view of the scriptures. Not true. Scriptures are sufficient so long as properly understood. But not possible when a person is wearing the wrong lense. Catholic tradition/1st century Judea make up the correct prescription for proper interpretation.
 
IIRC, a lot of the (Protestant) commentaries I read on that verse point out that this phrase – “not above what has been written” – is a very common saying in Antiquity referring to respecting a common agreement (here presumably between Paul’s and Apollos’ supporters), particularly in politics, so as to favor harmonious relationships – " that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other". They do not think it refers to any form of Sola Scriptura.

ETA: I hope I’m not reacting too strongly, but I am actually surprised because in 10 years spent at various Reformed seminaries, as a student and then as a NT research and teaching assistant, I had never seen this verse used to support SS, and the thought to do so hadn’t even occurred to me.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top