• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Anti Sola Scriptura

pebble

pebble

Member
In the process of sifting for the truth, I usually compare the pros and cons of an idea. I am already convinced on Sola Scriptura but I just want to get some insights on the anti sola stance. This one is from an ex fundamental baptist.

=======================================================

Why Sola Scriptura doesn't work

1. The Bible dies not define which books are to be included.

Try as I might, I can't seem to find a divinely inspired table of contents. Truthfully, the contents of the Scriptures was discussed in four local synods in the 4th century, reiterated at the Council of Florence in the 15th century, then officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
The Bible never defines the Scriptures as the final authority in matters of discipline. For settling disputes between the brethren, Jesus instructs the Apostles to take the offending brother to the Church, and does not instruct them to search the Scriptures.

2. The Bible is at times unclear.

There are stories in the Bible that are difficult to understand at any level. There are others that on the surface seem easy to understand, but they contain much deeper typology that cannot be readily seen without instruction.

3. There are doctrines held by virtually all Christians that cannot be found explicitly in the Scriptures.

The Trinity, prohibition against abortion, Sunday worship, and other things are not found explicitly in the Scriptures. These doctrines and practices developed over time.

4. The Bible is never given exclusive authority.

Yes, the Scriptures are held in high regard, but there is nothing in the Bible that indicates it is to be held as an exclusive authority. Yes, it is useful, but it is never given sole authority.
When an authority is named, it isn't the Bible. There is a verse that gives ultimate authority as the "pillar and bulwark of truth," and this authority is the Church, and not the Bible.


======================================================

Full post here ==> http://debunking-the-myths.blogspot.com ... -work.html
 
As far as I know the Council of Trent is seen as authoritative only by Roman Catholics. As far as the other councils are concerned they merely "rubber stamped" what were already recognized as the Apostolic Writings (i.e. New Testament) and the Tanach (Old Testament) was given (listed as it were) by Christ Himself. To claim that it was the Church which determined the Canon is false

Sunday as the Sabath/day of worship is not found in Scripture because it is not taught by Scripture. That was implemented by the (apostasizing) Church. To use that to argue against Sola Scriptura is at best amusing.

Abortion is not specifically listed as sin? What about "Thou shalt not murder"? Perhaps the author needs all forms of murder listed?

Discipline: And upon what will the Church base any disciplinary measure or know if discipline is evrn necessary? Man's opinion or God's Word? "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" Based on our opinion?

The facy that we must search the Scriptures and seek God's help to understand does not negate the authority of His Word. Remember the Bereans. It was not a conpendium of official Church doctrine which they took as their authority.

The Bible never given sole authority? An interesting statement. Time and again God's Word is given ultimate authority. See as one example Isaiah 8:20 and remember again the Bereans.

"The pillar and ground of the truth" standing upon what if not upon God's "breathed-out" Word? When God speaks, we are to be silent and learn.

As Martin Luther so aptly put it: If you can show me from Scripture with plain reason - and not with councils or popes who have so often contradicted one another ...

Reading through this author's arguments, I could hear the hissing of the Snake. It is God's Word alone - Sola Scriptura - or we will find ourselves being led by our Enemy.

The Reformation did not complete its work.
 
"LIKE", JayJ. Very well said.

These sound like the arguments of someone laying the groundwork to excuse contradicting Scripture in some manner, or claiming validity for some other scripture, be it Quran, Book of Mormon, or Maharishi Hoohah.

THIS is a BIBLICAL Families' site, and I seriously doubt that his ideas or arguments will gain much traction here.

Our arguments tend to be over what the Scripture truly MEANS, rather than over whether it is our sole arbiter. For example, we have died-in-the-wool Sunday keepers and equally wool-died Sabbatarians amongst us. Despite our disagreement, we respect each other. We know and trust each others hearts in the matter, as desiring to render God our best service as we individually understand our duty -- and that it is to HIM that we ultimately stand or fall.

Works pretty well, most of the time. ;)
 
Jay J--Thank you for taking the time to write what I was thinking. Now I can just go clean my house. LOL
 
What are your thoughts on Oral Torah?
WikiPedia said:
According to traditional Judaism, the Oral Law must have been disseminated at the same time as the Written Torah because certain Torah commandments contained in the Pentateuch would be indecipherable without a separate explanatory codex and, presumably, God would not demand adherence to commandments that could not be understood. Many terms used in the Torah are left undefined, such as the word totafot, usually translated as "frontlets," which is used three times in the Pentateuch (in Exodus 13:9 and Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18) but only identified with tefillin in the Mishnah (see Menachot 3:7). Similarly, many procedures are mentioned without explanation or instructions, or assume familiarity on the part of the reader. For example, the discussion of shechita (kosher slaughter) in Deuteronomy 12 states "you shall kill of your herd and of your flock which God Lord has given you, as I have commanded you," without any clear indication of what had been "commanded"; only in the Oral Torah are the various requirements of ritual slaughter explicated. Similarly, Deuteronomy 24 discusses the laws of divorce in passing; these laws are set forth with great specificity in the Mishnah and Gemara. Also, the blue string of tekhelet on the tzitzit is to be dyed with a dye extracted from what some scholars believe to be a snail is a detail only spoken of in the oral Torah. For other examples and further discussion here see Kuzari 3:35.

Moreover, according to the traditional view, without an Oral Law, blind adherence to the plain text of certain Torah commandments would lead to unethical acts, or would cause the practitioner to violate a commandment elsewhere in the Torah. Neither of these results could have been intended by God; thus, a priori, a set of supplementary "instructions" must have been provided. A classic example involves the phrase "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" Ex 21:22–27 is held in the oral tradition to imply monetary compensation – as opposed to a literal Lex talionis. Further, this is the only interpretation consistent with Leviticus 19:18, where personal retribution is explicitly forbidden by the Torah, such reciprocal justice being strictly reserved for the magistrate.

Finally, the Oral Torah is needed to explain seemingly discordant actions of biblical actors. For example, the marriage of Boaz, a member of the tribe of Judah to Ruth, a Moabitess, as described in the Book of Ruth, appears on its face to contradict the prohibition of Deuteronomy 23:3–4 against marrying Moabites; however, the Oral Torah explains that this prohibition is limited to Moabite men. Similarly, the rabbinic practice for the Counting of the Omer (Leviticus 23:15-16) is at odds with the Karaite Practice, which appears to accord with a more literal reading of these verses, but is in fact borne out by Joshua 5:10-12. The Targum Onkelos - 1st century CE - is largely consistent with the oral tradition as recorded in the midrash, redacted into writing only in the 3rd or 4th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah
Click to expand...
 
JustAGuy---I don't know who you were asking, but, I like to read actual histories and archaeological information is very helpful at times. However much of Oral Torah goes against Torah or adds to it and I don't think it is of use, other than to understand other viewpoints. In fact the Rabbis put themselves above the Creator Himself at times. I think Oral Torah for Kosher slaughter are just extra traditions. We are told to pour the blood on the ground. So we are not to strangle the animal. Or the idea that the blue used for tzit-tziot is made with a snail....this is not universally accepted. Karaites debate what plant based dyes might have been used.

We like to have everything bullet listed, but Torah isn't that way. It can take a while to understand its wholeness but I think YHVH has made it that way for a reason. He wants us to get a bigger picture instead of just focusing on this verse or that verse. Like the prophet says
Isa 28:13 But the word of YHVH was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Getting stuck on soundbites can be dangerous, and adding to Torah can be dangerous too. Deut 4:2 If we add to or take away it will mean we are not able to keep the commands. (At least that is what I get out of that verse.)

So our family tries to take just the plain meaning of the text (perhaps influenced by historical and cultural context), and if there are different ways that you could do a command then, in our opinion, that means there is freedom for each family to decide how they will do it.
 
Good overview of the Oral Torah, Elisheba. Now I don't have to write it and go to bed. ;-)

I might add though that our Lord fought against the traditions of the elders (i.e. Oral Torah). Mark 7 and Matthew 15, for example.
 
LOL, I don't have to be tired to have typos. I told my daughter yesterday, that accuracy in my directions to her were overrated, if she actually understood what I meant! I understood, so you were fine. :)
 
Elisheba said:
I think Oral Torah for Kosher slaughter are just extra traditions.
Click to expand...
What makes you say the Oral Torah is just extra traditions? I'm asking because I really don't know - I'm not arguing (up until last week, I had no idea there was such a thing as the Mishnah)!

JayJ said:
... our Lord fought against the traditions of the elders (i.e. Oral Torah). Mark 7 and Matthew 15, for example.
Click to expand...
So would you say the Mishnah/Oral Torah is the "tradition" as described in Mark 7 below? And would you say the "commandment of God" described below is the Tanakh?

Mark 7:5-7 said:
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?” He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
Click to expand...
 
Yes, Justaguy, I think that pretty well sums it up. BTW there is a very good look at not only these traditions but also those of the Church Fathers to be found here: house-church.org/studies_traditions. htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top