Sola Scriptura stumped

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaldean_Rite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chaldean_Rite

Guest
Couple things that Sola Scriptura followers can’t answer (I asked Old Scholar but no reply)

Math 1:16 vs Luke 3:23 (Joseph’s father)

Matt 1:16
And **Jacob **begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ

Luke 2:23
and Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat

**By using the bible alone, try to explain this apparent contradiction SS followers

**Luke 18:35 vs Mark 10:46 (healing the blind man)

Luke 18:35
Now it came to pass, when he drew nigh to Jericho, that a certain blind man sat by the way side, begging.

Mark 10:46
And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho, with his disciples, and a very great multitude, Bartimeus the blind man, the son of Timeus, sat by the way side begging.

**By using the bible alone, try to explain this apparent contradiction SS followers

**Enjoy.
 
I’m not a SS guy, but the answer to the first one is obvious, without any tradition necessary. All one simply need understand is that the practice of scribes in keeping genealogies (historically speaking) was sometimes to omit generations that seemed unimportant to the story being told. This is attested to by a variety of genealogies in historical sources as I understand.

Also, the information is not contradictory. Matthew ways Jacob was the father of Joseph. Luke tells us that Joseph was a descendant of Heli, not the son of.

As for the second one, I would suspect that the Greek text of scripture would clear this up, and that one need only have a look at it to see where the seeming inconsistency came from. I haven’t done this research yet, however.
 
PC_Master said:
I’m not a SS guy, but the answer to the first one is obvious, without any tradition necessary. All one simply need understand is that the practice of scribes in keeping genealogies (historically speaking) was sometimes to omit generations that seemed unimportant to the story being told. This is attested to by a variety of genealogies in historical sources as I understand.

Also, the information is not contradictory. Matthew ways Jacob was the father of Joseph. Luke tells us that Joseph was a descendant of Heli, not the son of.

As for the second one, I would suspect that the Greek text of scripture would clear this up, and that one need only have a look at it to see where the seeming inconsistency came from. I haven’t done this research yet, however.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is I need to know the history of Jewish genealogies, and I need to know Greek to make sense of the bible?

In other words, you cannot interpret this using the bible alone.
 
PC_Master said:
I’m not a SS guy, but the answer to the first one is obvious, without any tradition necessary. All one simply need understand is that the practice of scribes in keeping genealogies (historically speaking) was sometimes to omit generations that seemed unimportant to the story being told. This is attested to by a variety of genealogies in historical sources as I understand.

Also, the information is not contradictory. Matthew ways Jacob was the father of Joseph. Luke tells us that Joseph was a descendant of Heli, not the son of.

As for the second one, I would suspect that the Greek text of scripture would clear this up, and that one need only have a look at it to see where the seeming inconsistency came from. I haven’t done this research yet, however.
Click to expand...
I’m certainly not an SS guy either.

I’m a firm believer that when anyone picks up a book, even the inerrant inspired word of God, they bring to the text much more than what is written in it’s pages whether they would like to admit it or not.

While I’m guessing most (or maybe all) of what you say here is probably true it is all also “extra biblical” speculation.

If you were Catholic and I was non-Catholic I would probably call it something like an “unbiblical tradition or man” or something to that effect. 😊

You may not be drawing on Catholic “tradition of man” to which anti-Catholics like to object to explain the potential contradiction, but it is still an extra-biblical explanation.

Chuck
 
The Bible was not written as a news report. It was written for various audiences using the literary forms of that day. It was written by human authors, hence subject to the limitations of those human authors. The early Church fathers, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, looked at the unity of scripture as a whole, and looked for the spiritual truths underneath the literal passages. Those truths is what we should be concerned with.The fathers weren’t worrried about small discrepancies.
.
 
Chaldean Rite, I think this is a good example of how just like Protestants sometimes have misunderstandings about Catholicism, sometimes Catholics also misunderstand Protestant views and can stand to learn a bit more about them. It’s fine to disagree with Protestants so long as you understand and present their views accurately. Proponents of “sola scriptura” would never in a million years dream of saying that you don’t need to know Greek to understand the Bible, or that knowledge of facts extrinsic to scripture are somehow impermissible in construing the document. “Sola scriptura” really boils down to questions regarding the sources of infallible doctrine, and says that the scriptures supply our sole infallible sources of doctrine. It does not forbid the consideration of extratextual facts in construing the biblical documents (let alone forbid the use of the languages in which the documents were written in doing so).

I think all of us can stand to learn more about the opposing views, and sometimes it’s not just a matter of trying to create a “gotcha” for the other side as much as trying to really understand what the other side is saying.

Regards,

CThomas
 
3bar17 said:
The Bible was not written as a news report. It was written for various audiences using the literary forms of that day. It was written by human authors, hence subject to the limitations of those human authors. The early Church fathers, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, looked at the unity of scripture as a whole, and looked for the spiritual truths underneath the literal passages. Those truths is what we should be concerned with.The fathers weren’t worrried about small discrepancies.
.
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely. The problem that Chaldean is trying to expose is that many of those who claim to adhere to SS only adhere to it when it serves their argument. When faced with an apparent discrepancy, they resort to other sources to back up their claims. I’ve been in these types of debates.

It’s the same with those who view the Bible literally. They will absolutely insist that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that Jonah spent three days inside a whale’s belly, but when confronted with John 6, they will claim that it is figurative.

The most significant problem with SS is that the Bible is not self authenticating. I believe that this is really the most important point that needs to be addressed. Pointing out apparent discrepancies among individual Scriptures, I’ve found, doesn’t get to the root of the issue and that is - where did the Bible come from, how were the books that make it up decided upon, and where does the authority reside to make that determination?
 
CThomas said:
Chaldean Rite, I think this is a good example of how just like Protestants sometimes have misunderstandings about Catholicism, sometimes Catholics also misunderstand Protestant views and can stand to learn a bit more about them. It’s fine to disagree with Protestants so long as you understand and present their views accurately. Proponents of “sola scriptura” would never in a million years dream of saying that you don’t need to know Greek to understand the Bible, or that knowledge of facts extrinsic to scripture are somehow impermissible in construing the document. “Sola scriptura” really boils down to questions regarding the sources of infallible doctrine, and says that the scriptures supply our sole infallible sources of doctrine. It does not forbid the consideration of extratextual facts in construing the biblical documents (let alone forbid the use of the languages in which the documents were written in doing so).
Click to expand...
This is exactly right. It’s about what’s a credible source of doctrine, not what’s a credible source of historical factual data.
I think all of us can stand to learn more about the opposing views, and sometimes it’s not just a matter of trying to create a “gotcha” for the other side as much as trying to really understand what the other side is saying.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get this impression frequently on these boards.
 
Hi, JimO. Not trying to be argumentative here, but I’ve talked to a lot of proponents of sola scriptura and have never yet met any who take everything in the Bible literally. For example, I’ve never met anyone who thinks that when Jesus said that He was “the good shepherd” he was literally saying that He tended sheep for a living. Every sola scriptura proponent I’ve ever known thinks that parts of the Bible are intended to be read literally and others figuratively or metaphorically, and that the full text and context must be carefully evaluated to determine which is which. So there’s no contradiction at all for such people in believing that the six-day creation account should be read literally (although I express no view about whether I agree with that conclusion) and also that John 6 should be read figuratively (although I again express no view about that either). Similarly, no sola scriptura proponent I know would ever say that you can’t consider extrabibilcal facts in construing the Bible. The doctrine of sola scriptura simply doesn’t address that question at all.

Yours in working toward mutual understanding,

CThomas
 
CThomas said:
Hi, JimO. Not trying to be argumentative here, but I’ve talked to a lot of proponents of sola scriptura… Yours in working toward mutual understanding,

CThomas
Click to expand...
Agreed. However, I do know folks who are literalists and who are not consistent in applying literal “interpretations” of Scripture. As a geologist, I get a lot of flack from my Protestant friends when I tell them that I believe it possible that the earth is old, much older than would be measured strictly by interpreting Genesis literally - six days of creation, counting of generations from Adam to Abraham and Abraham to Jesus, etc. Yet, those same folks won’t even consider that Jesus meant literally what He said in John 6 or that Paul meant literally what he said in I Cor. 11.

I amended my comment above to include what I consider the most important issue in debating the merits of SS.
 
Thanks, Jim. As an aside, for what it’s worth, I as a proponent of sola scriptura also believe that the age of the Earth is billions of years, in keeping with our ordinary geological knowledge. (I also actually believe that this is consistent with a literal reading of the text, because the Hebrew word translated into English as “day” can also refer to very long periods of indeterminate length.)

Regards,

CThomas
 
CThomas said:
I think all of us can stand to learn more about the opposing views, and sometimes it’s not just a matter of trying to create a “gotcha” for the other side as much as trying to really understand what the other side is saying.

Regards,

CThomas
Click to expand...
I understand exactly what they are saying. The heresy of SS is against the Church, humilty, and history.

Anyhow, they don’t have have a definition of SS that anyone agrees on so its anyone guess.
On that note,
Sola Scriptura: DEFEATED.
 
Chaldean Rite:
I understand exactly what they are saying. The heresy of SS is against the Church, humilty, and history.

Anyhow, they don’t have have a definition of SS that anyone agrees on so its anyone guess.
On that note,
Click to expand...
Read
 
sandusky said:
Read
Click to expand...
1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice? Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but where did he, the author, get the definition from?
 
2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.–Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.
Click to expand...
Luke 16
29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Yes, Oral Tradition, not the bible ONLY.

Luke 10
26 But he said to him: What is written in the law? how readest thou?
Does not support SOLA scriptura.

Romans 4:
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.
Does not support SOLA scriptura.

John 5:39
You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.
Does not support SOLA scriptura. Note, the “even” implies that something else gives testimoney of His behalf.

2 Tim 3
15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Does not support SOLA scriptura.

Is this guy serious? Where does it say the word ONLY? Please show me one verse at least.
 
Matt: 18
16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Note that the Church is the FINAL authority here.

The Church is the TEACHER OF EVEN THE ANGELS!

Ephesians 3:
10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places **through the church.

**NOT THROUGH THE “SCRIPTURES” ALONE. **THROUGH THE CHURCH.
**
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
Matt: 18
16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Note that the Church is the FINAL authority here.

The Church is the TEACHER OF EVEN THE ANGELS!

Ephesians 3:
10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places **through the church.

**NOT THROUGH THE “SCRIPTURES” ALONE. **THROUGH THE CHURCH.
**
Click to expand...
You’re changing the subject. Re-focus.

Points 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19.
 
Hey, sandusky. You’re doing a fine job here, but my sense is that it’s going to be difficult to make progress with Chaldean Rite until he gets a better sense of what it is we believe. It’s hard for me even to respond to the claim that any of the passages below (all of which are his own citations) are even arguably problematic for sola scriptura. Clearly either I’m completely missing his point or else he is operating from some fundamnetal misperceptions about what the doctrine is. The problem is that unless CR is willing to hear our views out sincerely before jumping to debunk them, it’s going to be hard to have a productive discussion.

CThomas

Luke 16
29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Luke 10
26 But he said to him: What is written in the law? how readest thou?

Romans 4:
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.

John 5:39
You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.

2 Tim 3
15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top