How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Twilight]

This site claims the principle existed before the Reformers (http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers.htm). Here are a couple of quotes from the site:

Quote:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1; emphasis mine)

Quote:

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." (Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9; emphasis mine)

I didn't look at all of these. This second one does seem to be quite close to the "sola scriptura" idea.

Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

-------------

I believe that the current canon is given by inspiration of God.

It is Gods Word.

That is self evidenct.

It is given for teaching etc.

Therefore Sola Scriptura is a biblical position.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

I believe that the current canon is given by inspiration of God.

It is Gods Word.

That is self evidenct.

It is given for teaching etc.

Therefore Sola Scriptura is a biblical position.

This isn't a valid argument.

1.You believe the current canon is given by inspiration of God.

Why? Not because the books of the canon are listed in Scripture, which was my point.

2.It is God's word. This is self evident.

It's not really self evident. It's evident to those of faith, who can hear the voice of the Holy spirit.

3.It is given for teaching etc.

OK.

4.Therefore Sola Scriptura is a biblical position.

Why? How does this conclusion follow from the fact that Scripture is given for teaching, etc.?

The "Sola Scriptura" idea is that the Bible *alone* is the rule of faith and practice. That it is *a* rule of faith and practice doesn't prove the position.

[pnattmbtc]

The people on the mountain road are struggling, whereas Jesus said, My yoke is easy and my burden is light. So why follow Moses and the prophets on that mountain road until it ends? Why not just start following Jesus instead, on His straight and narrow path, right now?

Very nice!

[Guest]

In upholding the sole authority of the teachings of Christ, we acknowledge that it is sufficient. (i.e., it contains all that the church needs to know for guidance in the way of salvation and for the work of ministry)

[oldsailor29]

Jesus said a lot about sabbath keeping. But it is okay to keep the sabbath according to exodus, because Paul said not to judge people for keeping it that way.

If the scriptures speak not according to Jesus, then there is no light in them. He tells us what we need to know and to do in order to be saved, and He performs the sanctuary service, for real.

There are several texts which say that people need to leave their old beliefs behind, and follow Jesus. And there are several texts where Jesus tells of His way and how it differs from Moses' way. I believe our interpretation of Moses and the prophets is just as flawed as the interpretation of the pharisees. However, I understand the difficulties we face when Jesus asks us to give Moses up and follow Him. All who are following Moses are righteously wealthy. The wealthy young ruler represents all who cannot give it up and follow Jesus. The Old Testament is the old wine, and we are the old bottles. We should discard all of the old wine and clean out the bottles, in order to drink the new wine of Jesus.

The more i read the quotations of Jesus, the more gems of truth i find. There is enough in His teachings for our salvation, and without His teachings, none will be saved. All must accept His teachings, for none who do not will have eternal life.

And yes, I do believe all will accept His teachings at some point and be saved. And this may happen well after the great controversy is over. I believe with God, there is never any "too late." Yes, this does mean we can live Godless lives, but I think that would be a horrible way to live, and not much of an excuse to believe in time limits.

There is no greater thrill than working for Jesus. His yoke is easy and His burden is light. And when we read His teachings and follow him, we are sure He is leading us to the holy city.

[skyblue888]

Oldsailor, you said: The Old Testament is the old wine...

__________________________________________________________

I don't think I can agree with that, oldsailor. The "old wine" refers to the teachings of men as opposed to the "new wine," the teachings of the Holy Spirit. The "new wine" is the correct understanding of the Old Testament as well as the New. Jesus did not refer to the Old Testament scriptures as "old wine". He often quoted from the prophets but His understanding as compared with that of the religious leaders of His day was "new wine" to them, something they had never heard of before and could not understand or appreciate. Hence Jesus said to them, "You understand neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." He had the Old Testament Scriptures in mind when He said that.

The Gospel is just as clearly taught in the Old Testament than it is in the New. They complete each other. For example, in the Old Testament, through the sanctuary service, the sinner was to be taught to trust in the merits of a Saviour to come. But for the most part this was lost sight of. In the New Testament the sinner is to be taught to trust in the merits of a Saviour who has already come. This is the "true light" in both the Old and the New. See G.C.73,74.

There were "old bottles" in Old Testament times just as there are "old bottles" now. The sad part is that the majority of those who profess to be Christians today are "old bottles" just as the majority of the Jews in Christ's day were "old bottles" into which the "new wine" could not be put in.

sky

[oldsailor29]

Oldsailor, you said: The Old Testament is the old wine...

__________________________________________________________

I don't think I can agree with that, oldsailor. The "old wine" refers to the teachings of men as opposed to the "new wine," the teachings of the Holy Spirit. The "new wine" is the correct understanding of the Old Testament as well as the New. Jesus did not refer to the Old Testament scriptures as "old wine". He often quoted from the prophets but His understanding as compared with that of the religious leaders of His day was "new wine" to them, something they had never heard of before and could not understand or appreciate. Hence Jesus said to them, "You understand neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." He had the Old Testament Scriptures in mind when He said that.

The Gospel is just as clearly taught in the Old Testament than it is in the New. They complete each other. For example, in the Old Testament, through the sanctuary service, the sinner was to be taught to trust in the merits of a Saviour to come. But for the most part this was lost sight of. In the New Testament the sinner is to be taught to trust in the merits of a Saviour who has already come. This is the "true light" in both the Old and the New. See G.C.73,74.

sky

Yes I agree. Jesus did reinterpret the Old Testament so all could have the correct interpretation, including us.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Oldsailor, you said: The Old Testament is the old wine...

__________________________________________________________

I don't think I can agree with that, oldsailor. The "old wine" refers to the teachings of men as opposed to the "new wine," the teachings of the Holy Spirit. The "new wine" is the correct understanding of the Old Testament as well as the New. Jesus did not refer to the Old Testament scriptures as "old wine". He often quoted from the prophets but His understanding as compared with that of the religious leaders of His day was "new wine" to them, something they had never heard of before and could not understand or appreciate. Hence Jesus said to them, "You understand neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." He had the Old Testament Scriptures in mind when He said that.

The Gospel is just as clearly taught in the Old Testament than it is in the New. They complete each other. For example, in the Old Testament, through the sanctuary service, the sinner was to be taught to trust in the merits of a Saviour to come. But for the most part this was lost sight of. In the New Testament the sinner is to be taught to trust in the merits of a Saviour who has already come. This is the "true light" in both the Old and the New. See G.C.73,74.

sky

Yes I agree. Jesus did reinterpret the Old Testament so all could have the correct interpretation, including us.

Amen! :)

[Guest]

Jesus did reinterpret the Old Testament so all could have the correct interpretation, including us.

If the pharisees had it wrong, it didn't need to be re-interpreted, just interpreted correctly. He didn't change any of it.

[Musicman1228]

Oldsailor said, And there are several texts where Jesus tells of His way and how it differs from Moses' way.

Please give me these texts, because I have not seen anywhere in the words of Jesus where He said that He did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. Remember, the Law Moses gave Israel was NOT his Law but the Law that God gave to Him; so in reality it is God's Law that Moses iterated to Israel.

Thanks.

[oldsailor29]

the ten commandments which were written in stone by the finger of God were ten human words. Moses expanded them into more laws, and Joshua and other prophets like Moses added more laws.

If Moses had been given the entire laws which he wrote, they would read exactly like the words spoken by Jesus. But they don't, and where they are different from the teachings of Jesus, there is no light in them.

I know it is hard to give up the Old Testament and follow Jesus. And Jesus allows us a lot of latitude there, for He knows that eventually the Old Testament will lead us to Him. The theology of the Bible is progressive, and I think we should let the Old Testament light our paths from behind. Leave it behind, and follow Jesus, who lights the path ahead, to the holy city.

A good way to find where Jesus differs from Moses is to read the red print of the NT. An honest comparison will answer the question.

And don't worry about losing the Sabbath. Jesus said a lot about Sabbath keeping, and His teachings and His actions show us the proper perspective on Sabbath-keeping.

[Guest]

Jesus never said to give up the OT. In fact He said pretty much the opposite.

[doug yowell]

Jesus never said to give up the OT. In fact He said pretty much the opposite.

"The Scripture cannot be broken"(John 10:35) "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." (Luke 16:29) "Man does not live by bread alone,but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." (Matt 4:4) "O foolish ones,and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken...and beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Luke 24:25-27) "And He opened their understanding,that they might comprehend the Scriptures." (Luke 24:45)"So when you see the 'abomination of desolation',spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing where it ought not..." (Mark 13:14) ect...ect...

[Musicman1228]

Oldsailor said, "the ten commandments which were written in stone by the finger of God were ten human words. Moses expanded them into more laws, and Joshua and other prophets like Moses added more laws."

I would really like you to prove that this statement is true by showing texts. Where did you get the idea that there were only 'ten words' in the Ten Commandments that came down from Sinai with Moses. This is a Jewish tradition and not actual fact. Please show me where Scripture says that Moses expanded these 10 Laws into other laws on his own; and that Joshua did the same. It's not that I don't believe you, but I have studies extensively in the OT and I have not seen this.

[oldsailor29]

The Old Testament came partly from Jewish oral tradition. If you are going to discount that tradition, then you have to discount all of the mythopoeic and poetic scriptures. It is all from oral tradition. In order to correctly understand scriptures, all of the surrounding context of the scriptures has to be included in "sola scriptura."

[Musicman1228]

The Old Testament came partly from Jewish oral tradition. If you are going to discount that tradition, then you have to discount all of the mythopoeic and poetic scriptures. It is all from oral tradition. In order to correctly understand scriptures, all of the surrounding context of the scriptures has to be included in "sola scriptura."

More words. No texts?

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

The Old Testament came partly from Jewish oral tradition. If you are going to discount that tradition, then you have to discount all of the mythopoeic and poetic scriptures. It is all from oral tradition. In order to correctly understand scriptures, all of the surrounding context of the scriptures has to be included in "sola scriptura."

More words. No texts?

So you think all inspired thoughts have chapter and verse?

[Musicman1228]

That depends on who you are saying is inspired and what it is they have said. If their inspiration says something different that what God said in the OT and what Jesus said in the eyewitness gospels then whoever said whatever they said IS NOT inspired by God.

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

The Old Testament came partly from Jewish oral tradition. If you are going to discount that tradition, then you have to discount all of the mythopoeic and poetic scriptures. It is all from oral tradition. In order to correctly understand scriptures, all of the surrounding context of the scriptures has to be included in "sola scriptura."

More words. No texts?

So, are you saying that you disagree?

[skyblue888]

I don't get what you are saying oldsailor. What we read in the Old Testament is the Word of God or mostly the traditions of men?

sky

[oldsailor29]

I don't get what you are saying oldsailor. What we read in the Old Testament is the Word of God or mostly the traditions of men?

sky

Sky - It is both. Before writing was invented, God's messengers spoke in poems which contained the messages they received. The poems were memorized and passed down from generation to generation. This oral tradition was likely written very early in the beginning of written history. Until then, all Bible narrative was oral. In some Bibles, these poems are noted as such.

This is an example of context, which will not be found explained in scripture, but it is historical and true. History has to be taken into consideration when interpreting scripture. And history is not the only thing needed in order to correctly interpret scripture. Language of the original messenger, the thinking processes of the people at the time, their theological beliefs, and local geography are some of the things that need to be known in order to correctly interpret scripture. Some of these things can be discovered by careful reading of the scriptures, and are not obvious in a surface reading. Learning these things justifies the existence of theological seminaries. But they can be learned now much easier than before the advent of the www. In my opinion, the existence of a theology seminary which does not teach these things is not justified.

[Musicman1228]

Moses spent 40 days on Mt. Sinai. What information did God give Moses on Sinai? Only the Ten Commandments?

[Guest]

Importance of Wording.

Also, the way a text is worded--the arrangement and positions of words in sentences--may communicate important ideas such as emphasis or connection. For example, beginning a sentence with "therefore," "because," "nevertheless," or "wherefore" may suggest a link with the previous sentence. As in English we tend to use italics and punctuation marks (e.g. the exclamation sign [!]) for emphasis, we need to watch for other signs of emphasis in the Bible writings.

To illustrate the importance of wording and punctuation, consider the difference a little comma made at a wedding. Just after the pastor had pronounced the couple husband and wife, a special delivery person rushed in with a telegram from the bride's closest friend, who had been unable to arrive on time because of a flight delay. From the airport she sought to send a telegram that read: "PASTOR, AFTER PRONOUNCING MARY AND JOHN HUSBAND AND WIFE, READ FIRST JOHN 4:18 AS MY SPECIAL MESSAGE TO MARY."

Now 1 John 4:18 reads: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear." But in her haste, the bride's girl-friend made a little mistake (just a comma), and instead sent this telegram: "PASTOR, AFTER PRONOUNCING MARY AND JOHN HUSBAND AND WIFE, READ FIRST, JOHN 4:18 AS MY SPECIAL MESSAGE TO MARY."

Delighted by this timely message, the pastor opened to John 4:18 and read aloud: "For thou has had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband. . . ."

Are the rules of grammar important? Ask Mary. The point of this story is that we must pay close attention to such things as the Bible writers' words, wordings, idioms, and the style they employed in quoting sources in the Old Testament. In the Bible, the position of a word in a sentence sometimes indicates emphasis. Thus, Bible students, especially those using the Hebrew and Greek, need to respect how the Bible writers worded their messages. In putting into practice the grammatical principle of interpretation, Bible students may use helpful tools like dictionaries in English, Greek, and Hebrew, and Bible concordances, which list every word in the Bible and where that word appears.

[Guest]

Importance of context.

Interpreters must give careful consideration to a text's immediate

context--the verses before and after a given passage, making up its logical unit or paragraph. For as we mentioned in Chapter One in discussing the proof-text method, a text taken out of its context (whether historical, literary or grammatical) is a pretext.

In determining context, one must remember that today's chapter and verse divisions in our Bibles, while useful in assisting readers to locate particular passages, were not part of the original. Neither Moses nor Paul, for example, divided their books into chapters and verses.

The chapters in our current Bibles originated with Stephen Langton, who introduced them into the Latin Bible at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Verse divisions in the Old Testament come from Rabbi Isaac Nathan around A.D. 1440, and New Testament verse divisions from Robert Stephanus in A.D. 1551.9 So, one must not necessarily be restricted by

chapter and verse divisions in deciding the context of a text.

[Guest]

3. Historical Principle.

Interpreting the Bible historically calls for a grasp of the cultural,

political, and religious setting in which a passage was written. It involves an understanding of the political situation (slavery, exile, persecution, etc.), the religious developments (e.g., the spiritual condition of Old Testament Israel in the days of the judges was different from the condition in the days of King Josiah), and the cultural backgrounds. With the aid of Bible concordances, one can come to a reasonable understanding of the historical and cultural background from the Bible itself.

Bible dictionaries, handbooks, and commentaries may be useful, although one must be extremely careful in selecting these scholarly tools. Many academic resources are based on speculative reconstructions.

Understanding the historical background enables today's interpreters to put themselves "in the shoes" of those who received the Bible messages originally. For example, when reading the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), "Let us in imagination go back to that scene, and, as we sit with the disciples on the mountainside, enter into the thoughts and feelings that filled their hearts. Understanding what the words of Jesus meant to those who heard them, we may discern in them a new vividness and beauty, and may also gather for ourselves their deeper lessons" (Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, p. 1).