"Sola scriptura"

[Daniel DeLuca]

It is very clear from Christian witness that from the earliest times Christianity dictated monogamy.

They have a very loose definition of "earliest times".

 

[OttoM]

It is best to define witchcraft as the use of demonic powers when mentioning this subject.

Not every power is demonic, such as when Moses turned his staff into a serpent. Yet some would call that witchcraft out of ignorance.

I’m not agreeing or dis agreeing. But this is where rebellion is compared to witchcraft by the Almighty through the prophet Samuel:

1 Samuel 15:22 NLT
22 But Samuel replied, “What is more pleasing to the LORD: your burnt offerings and sacrifices or your obedience to his voice? Listen! Obedience is better than sacrifice, and submission is better than offering the fat of rams. 23 Rebellion is as sinful as witchcraft, and stubbornness as bad as worshiping idols. So because you have rejected the command of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”

 

[frederick]

Again, just me, but I sometimes see the Healing Hand of God in the actions and practices of doctors.

Amen. One of my wives is an ophthalmologist and she literally gives sight to the blind. People's lives are transformed when, one day, they only have vague light perception and the next 20/20 vision. Modern medical treatments can be (almost) miraculous.

 

[FollowingHim]

Absolutely not. We’re told what the standard for scripture is and it’s up to every believer to decide for themselves what they believe fits the standard. Study to show yourself approved is a command.

If you're right, that would simplify the matter considerably. Could you please clarify what this standard is?

I intend to then apply that standard to the books on the edge of the canon, such as Esther and Revelation (that were in doubt but ultimately included), the books of the Maccabees (which are variously considered by different branches of the church), and Baruch and the Shepherd of Hermes (which were included in various early lists of canon but ultimately rejected by the church as a whole). If there is a clear standard whereby we would all, unquestionably, come to those same answers, then that would give great clarity. I don't intend to be argumentative, I'm genuinely exploring what you are saying, and anticipate this being an informative discussion.

 

[JustUs]

I was on an Orthodox page discussing plural marriage; arguing that polygyny isn't sinful and stating that scripture doesn't suggest it is. Multiple people claimed that I was being "Sola scriptura." When I looked into the definition, I was even more confused. "Sola scriptura is a Latin phrase that means "by scripture alone" or "the Bible alone". It is a Christian doctrine that states the Bible is the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice." Why would someone take issue with this? Can someone help me understand this a little more? These are some of responses I received-

"Yes it's important to note that we are not sola Scriptura and that we don't believe that the entirety of moral teaching is contained within the Bible. It is very clear from Christian witness that from the earliest times Christianity dictated monogamy. In this way it did distinguish itself from Judaism. We could argue that this is new revelation and that we shouldn't hold that monogamy is binding for non-christians and that polygamy is immoral for non-Christians since it's explicitly permitted in the old law. But again it's very clear from Christian history that from as early as we have discussion from Christians about marriage that it is purely monogamous."

"Sola scriptura, it's a false teaching with nothing supporting it."

"That's not how it works. The burden of proof falls on those that claim Sola Scriptura"

"That's not a belief, it's a fact. Like I said, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim that scripture supports Sola Scriptura."

"The Orthodox Church (and importantly the early church) has never taught that everything is completely outlined in the Bible. Now, everything has at least some nexus in the Bible -- in this case, monogamy definitely doesn't come out of nowhere and is strongly implied in the text -- but relying on the Bible doesn't define the doctrine, and you can even find in the Old Testament a time when it wasn't the doctrine. Consider the Trinity. You can argue the Trinity from the biblical text, but it's just not the direct teaching of the Bible. Using the text alone, you can come to other conclusions. But it's clearly the teaching of the Church. The New Testament is a collection of stuff from the apostles we thought was right and important to write down as guidance, but not everything we thought was important got written down by them."

I wrote a paper on this. I find my self falling in the prima scriptura camp.

Prima Scriptura

This paper explores three primary approaches to the authority of Scripture in Christian theology: sola scriptura, prima scriptura, and sacra scriptura et traditio (Scripture and Tradition). Sola scriptura holds that Scripture alone is the final and

academia.edu

 

[theleastofthese]

I wrote a paper on this. I find my self falling in the prima scriptura camp.

Prima Scriptura

This paper explores three primary approaches to the authority of Scripture in Christian theology: sola scriptura, prima scriptura, and sacra scriptura et traditio (Scripture and Tradition). Sola scriptura holds that Scripture alone is the final and

academia.edu

Thank you, I'll check it out when I get home later

 

[FollowingHim]

I wrote a paper on this. I find my self falling in the prima scriptura camp.

Prima Scriptura

This paper explores three primary approaches to the authority of Scripture in Christian theology: sola scriptura, prima scriptura, and sacra scriptura et traditio (Scripture and Tradition). Sola scriptura holds that Scripture alone is the final and

academia.edu

Very interesting paper. I do see some problems with it - it is rather clear that the author comes to it from a presupposition of prima scriptura, defining that as an acceptance of church decisions prior to 681AD but not afterwards, and this choice of date / definition is just presented as an a-priori assumption. The paper does not explain or defend this position, and it is obvious that many other lines could be chosen of which tradition is accepted and which is not.

However, the most interesting part of the paper is that it shows by example how many people who would call themselves "sola scriptura", are actually relying on tradition. We know this well when it comes to polygamy, and criticise others for that. But it is a simple fact that even the Reformers relied on tradition, and even we do, often without even realising it. So some form of "prima scriptura" is actually the standard Protestant position.

And this also introduced me to the idea of "steelman argument", which is a very good principle to be aware of, I find I naturally do this already often but didn't have a term for it. Thankyou for that.

The Steel Man Technique: How To Argue Better And Be More Persuasive

The steel man is the opposite of the straw man. It's being charitable, and building up the best possible form of the argument for the other side.

constantrenewal.com

 

[NBTX11]

NLT

I like the NLT for ease of reading, but they take a lot of translation liberties with the word of God. For example, changing the word virgin in the parable of 10 virgins to bridesmaids.

 

[The Revolting Man]

If you're right, that would simplify the matter considerably. Could you please clarify what this standard is?

I intend to then apply that standard to the books on the edge of the canon, such as Esther and Revelation (that were in doubt but ultimately included), the books of the Maccabees (which are variously considered by different branches of the church), and Baruch and the Shepherd of Hermes (which were included in various early lists of canon but ultimately rejected by the church as a whole). If there is a clear standard whereby we would all, unquestionably, come to those same answers, then that would give great clarity. I don't intend to be argumentative, I'm genuinely exploring what you are saying, and anticipate this being an informative discussion.

Yeah, I’ll look up the verses. There’s only a couple.

 

[Mark C]

I like the NLT for ease of reading, but they take a lot of translation liberties with the word of God. For example, changing the word virgin in the parable of 10 virgins to bridesmaids.

"Ease of reading" can be a nasty trap. There will almost certainly be other "shortcuts" (like the outright lie you caught) they slip in that you WON'T catch, without more in-depth study. And other things that you simply won't see in there at all.

 

[MGAZ]

I was on an Orthodox page discussing plural marriage; arguing that polygyny isn't sinful and stating that scripture doesn't suggest it is. Multiple people claimed that I was being "Sola scriptura." When I looked into the definition, I was even more confused. "Sola scriptura is a Latin phrase that means "by scripture alone" or "the Bible alone". It is a Christian doctrine that states the Bible is the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice." Why would someone take issue with this? Can someone help me understand this a little more? These are some of responses I received-

"Yes it's important to note that we are not sola Scriptura and that we don't believe that the entirety of moral teaching is contained within the Bible. It is very clear from Christian witness that from the earliest times Christianity dictated monogamy. In this way it did distinguish itself from Judaism. We could argue that this is new revelation and that we shouldn't hold that monogamy is binding for non-christians and that polygamy is immoral for non-Christians since it's explicitly permitted in the old law. But again it's very clear from Christian history that from as early as we have discussion from Christians about marriage that it is purely monogamous."

"Sola scriptura, it's a false teaching with nothing supporting it."

"That's not how it works. The burden of proof falls on those that claim Sola Scriptura"

"That's not a belief, it's a fact. Like I said, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim that scripture supports Sola Scriptura."

"The Orthodox Church (and importantly the early church) has never taught that everything is completely outlined in the Bible. Now, everything has at least some nexus in the Bible -- in this case, monogamy definitely doesn't come out of nowhere and is strongly implied in the text -- but relying on the Bible doesn't define the doctrine, and you can even find in the Old Testament a time when it wasn't the doctrine. Consider the Trinity. You can argue the Trinity from the biblical text, but it's just not the direct teaching of the Bible. Using the text alone, you can come to other conclusions. But it's clearly the teaching of the Church. The New Testament is a collection of stuff from the apostles we thought was right and important to write down as guidance, but not everything we thought was important got written down by them."

That translates into "we treat the Bible like a salad bar. We take what we want and make the rest up." "If we change about monogamy only we have to change everything and that ain't gonna happen."

 

[MGAZ]

I like the NLT for ease of reading, but they take a lot of translation liberties with the word of God. For example, changing the word virgin in the parable of 10 virgins to bridesmaids.

Unfortunately for the NLT translators the Greek says "Parthenos." Which means virgin. Greek is not very ambiguous.

 

[OttoM]

Unfortunately for the NLT translators the Greek says "Parthenos." Which means virgin. Greek is not very ambiguous.

I’ve attacked the NLT on here as well. I have no favorite translation - they all have errors.

I try to read through the Bible in different translations. And also checking the Greek and Hebrew for deeper study. For example, the word “church” is used over and over in the Old Testament Greek - “ekklesia.” It wasn’t a new NT concept.

 

[MGAZ]

I’ve attacked the NLT on here as well. I have no favorite translation - they all have errors.

I try to read through the Bible in different translations. And also checking the Greek and Hebrew for deeper study. For example, the word “church” is used over and over in the Old Testament Greek - “ekklesia.” It wasn’t a new NT concept.

I agree. The church misstranslation happened centuries ago to separate believers in messiah Yeshua from Israel. I have seen preachers nearly frothing at the mouth pound the pulpit talking about how there was "no church in the old testament." When technically there is no church in any testament. Only the assembly. The issue with trying to change virgin to bridesmaids in modern times is there are dozens of translations that say virgin. So, it seems like it will get lost in the noise. Doing your own research as to what the original languages actually say is the best way of going about it.

 

[Mark C]

I’ve attacked the NLT on here as well. I have no favorite translation - they all have errors.

I try to read through the Bible in different translations. And also checking the Greek and Hebrew for deeper study. For example, the word “church” is used over and over in the Old Testament Greek - “ekklesia.” It wasn’t a new NT concept.

But the original Hebrew (Exodus, in particular, but it's ubiquitous) actually uses two words, 'kahal' for 'assembly,' or 'edat,' usually rendered 'congregation'. Even "kol edat" for the entire assembly of His people.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I had a minister at the local church we have been attending try to give push back on the bridesmaids, and I came back with the parthenos response, and he could not refute it.

 

[MGAZ]

I had a minister at the local church we have been attending try to give push back on the bridesmaids, and I came back with the parthenos response, and he could not refute it.

A little research go a long way.

 

[frederick]

A little research go a long way.

Yup, indeedy. And having a reasonable knowledge of the subject one is going into battle for puts him or her way ahead of most preachers.

 

[MGAZ]

But the original Hebrew (Exodus, in particular, but it's ubiquitous) actually uses two words, 'kahal' for 'assembly,' or 'edat,' usually rendered 'congregation'. Even "kol edat" for the entire assembly of His people.

Assembly and congregation are synonyms. The word Church was used to divide believers in messiah from Israel. When kahal or edat were being used it was always in context of Israel. Paul/Shaul even said that through messiah Yeshua that believers were grafted into the commonwealth of Israel. Using the word Church was obfuscation. Like saying bridesmaids instead of virgin when the scriptures say Parthenos in Greek.

 

[OttoM]

Assembly and congregation are synonyms. The word Church was used to divide believers in messiah from Israel. When kahal or edat were being used it was always in context of Israel. Paul/Shaul even said that through messiah Yeshua that believers were grafted into the commonwealth of Israel. Using the word Church was obfuscation. Like saying bridesmaids instead of virgin when the scriptures say Parthenos in Greek.

You’ll hear them say that we are living in the “church age.” It’s just another tool in their arsenal to separate their flock from Israel and some of the commandments found in the “Old Testament.” Which of course includes the biblical truth of marriage and divorce.

There has always been a church, and there will always be a church. Why? Because the Creator tells us there has always at least been a remnant, which includes future prophecy for the last days.