Is there a point where "sola scriptura" is too "sola scriptura"

[YosefHayim]

I was thinking about sola scriptura.

When 2 Timothy 3:16 was written, which scriptures was he referring to. Scripture also says "They wrest the words of paul, as do they with the rest of the scriptures".

Yet what scriptures were the rest when this verse was penned? Were there books penned afterward? The bible had not been formed yet.

It also seems that the apostles broke the rules of "sola scriptura" as well.

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Acts 17:28
​

There is also plenty of scriptures which have used extra biblical sources. For example, the book of Jasher is cited twice in the Old Testament, and quoted once in the New Testament. Jannes and Jambres are found nowhere else in scripture, but are found in the 70somethingth chapter. Jude is believed to have quoted either the book of Enoch or oral tradition when he said "And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied saying..." Some would argue that he didn't quote 1 Enoch because one said thousands, and the other tens of thousands. Both are still thousands however. There are some things said not in the OT scriptures, such as Jude 1:9 when Jude says Michael was disputing about the body of Moses (which perhaps may have been before the transfiguration, that Moses might appear in the body?). And then there are also other traditions, such as the martyrdom of OT saints alluded to in Hebrews 11.

So can Sola Scriptura ever be too Sola Scriptura?

 

[reba]

Cook books have their place...

 

[Sparkey]

Very good question. In another thread I had been tickled about the "here a little, here a little, line upon line, precept upon precept" instruction that bible teachers (so called) are so much in love with quoting.

I said that I had been tickled, right? That was tickling my funny bone -- because it sounded like a nursery rhyme. Now, I can copy-and-paste because nobody knew or understood when I first mentioned it and so we almost had a mini-debate over it. One second. Fetching... brb...

tzu l·tzu (order to order)
tzu l·tzu (order to order)

qu l·qu (principle to principle)
qu l·qu (principle to principle)

zoir shm (bit there)
zoir shm (bit there)

Just try to say the repetitious words without it sounding like a nursery rhyme.

But you don't have to take my word... Because the idea was not being well received, I kept looking for a source, any source. The Complete Jewish Bible came to my rescue: http://www.studylight.org/bible/cjb/isaiah/28-10.html

So now, you have your observation that the New Testament was not formally called "Scripture" when it was being written, how could it be? Add to that we could say, as you notice, that it fair to say that even apostles break rules too... and now my observation that our "tried and true" method of teaching methods is a nursery rhyme and God was talking in a very harsh way with a very stubborn people (He sounded vexed to me) -- and we might want to suggest that the rules of sola-scriptura were invented when two differing groups of Christians had their little fight over stuff.

They both formalized their positions. Neither are correct in the absolute sense. Protestants believe that only Scripture is exempt from the possibility of teaching error. Don't get me wrong, if the Pope run for president of the US, I would not so much as lift a finger to vote for him. I mean, why should I? He'd have to become a US Citizen first, now wouldn't he?

Some Protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc.) do not reject tradition or ecclesial authority absolutely like some other denominations do. So even the term "sola-scriptura" is not something that is readily defined.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Just try to say the repetitious words without it sounding like a nursery rhyme.

But you don't have to take my word... Because the idea was not being well received

That was not the issue. I don't think anyone was contending with the words being like a child's nursery rhyme. The point of contention was it being nonsensical in that the Israelites just didn't 'get' the word of God spoken to them.

 

[Sparkey]

I have heard your opinion about that other thread before, Jethro. "Thanks," *he says dismissively* I'm not going to talk to you here about it (much).

Oh, wait. Do you have access to my private conversations?
No? Oh, okay... I thought not.
Your seeming omniscience stumbles me, sir. I'm not used to being contradicted without cause.​

The topic here is Sola Scriptura, right?

The question that I raised there, in another thread, (in part unexpressed) was, "Have we plucked out-of-context a Scripture and made it a catch phrase for a Biblical teaching method (especially as it is used to instruct new Christians about Bible Study) when it was originally a mocking chide?" We may have. We may have.

If what YosefHayim questions is the case, and if we have made a mistake in our thinking, the mistake may only be compounded if we add error upon error, line upon line, sav lasav sav lasav, kav lakav kav lakav, magic to it.

People are not being taught that the Holy Spirit is our Teacher. Think on the abundance of Scripture on that subject. We don't need a little here, a little there, faith. Not for the truth. The truth rings out to the children of the truth. For that, we need revelation from Him, plain and simple.

 

[Free]

I was thinking about sola scriptura.

When 2 Timothy 3:16 was written, which scriptures was he referring to. Scripture also says "They wrest the words of paul, as do they with the rest of the scriptures".

Yet what scriptures were the rest when this verse was penned? Were there books penned afterward? The bible had not been formed yet.

It's not "the rest of the scriptures," but "the other scriptures." In the NT, "scriptures" always refers to the OT, except in 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 3:16, where the writings of the Apostles (and other NT books) are included. 2 Pet 3:16 shows that the writings of the Apostles were already considered as authoritative as the OT.

It also seems that the apostles broke the rules of "sola scriptura" as well.

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Acts 17:28
​

There is also plenty of scriptures which have used extra biblical sources. For example, the book of Jasher is cited twice in the Old Testament, and quoted once in the New Testament. Jannes and Jambres are found nowhere else in scripture, but are found in the 70somethingth chapter. Jude is believed to have quoted either the book of Enoch or oral tradition when he said "And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied saying..." Some would argue that he didn't quote 1 Enoch because one said thousands, and the other tens of thousands. Both are still thousands however. There are some things said not in the OT scriptures, such as Jude 1:9 when Jude says Michael was disputing about the body of Moses (which perhaps may have been before the transfiguration, that Moses might appear in the body?). And then there are also other traditions, such as the martyrdom of OT saints alluded to in Hebrews 11.

So can Sola Scriptura ever be too Sola Scriptura?

Sola Scriptura simply means that the Bible is the highest authority for the believer. That it quotes extra-biblical sources does not mean that those sources are authoritative for the Christian.

 

[YosefHayim]

Very good question. In another thread I had been tickled about the "here a little, here a little, line upon line, precept upon precept" instruction that bible teachers (so called) are so much in love with quoting.

I said that I had been tickled, right? That was tickling my funny bone -- because it sounded like a nursery rhyme. Now, I can copy-and-paste because nobody knew or understood when I first mentioned it and so we almost had a mini-debate over it. One second. Fetching... brb...

tzu l·tzu (order to order)
tzu l·tzu (order to order)

qu l·qu (principle to principle)
qu l·qu (principle to principle)

zoir shm (bit there)
zoir shm (bit there)

Just try to say the repetitious words without it sounding like a nursery rhyme.

But you don't have to take my word... Because the idea was not being well received, I kept looking for a source, any source. The Complete Jewish Bible came to my rescue: http://www.studylight.org/bible/cjb/isaiah/28-10.html

So now, you have your observation that the New Testament was not formally called "Scripture" when it was being written, how could it be? Add to that we could say, as you notice, that it fair to say that even apostles break rules too... and now my observation that our "tried and true" method of teaching methods is a nursery rhyme and God was talking in a very harsh way with a very stubborn people (He sounded vexed to me) -- and we might want to suggest that the rules of sola-scriptura were invented when two differing groups of Christians had their little fight over stuff.

They both formalized their positions. Neither are correct in the absolute sense. Protestants believe that only Scripture is exempt from the possibility of teaching error. Don't get me wrong, if the Pope run for president of the US, I would not so much as lift a finger to vote for him. I mean, why should I? He'd have to become a US Citizen first, now wouldn't he?

Some Protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc.) do not reject tradition or ecclesial authority absolutely like some other denominations do. So even the term "sola-scriptura" is not something that is readily defined.

Not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that "line upon line" meaning is not taught correctly. I've heard as God teaches us bit upon bit to bring revelation, but are you saying that it actually means that it was mocking those who did not receive well the word?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I have heard your opinion about that other thread before, Jethro. "Thanks," *he says dismissively* I'm not going to talk to you here about it (much).

But all I wanna know is the connection between the child's nursery rhyme and it being a passage Paul uses to illustrate the futility of speaking in a language that has no meaning to the hearer.

 

[Brother Mike]

I was thinking about sola scriptura.

When 2 Timothy 3:16 was written, which scriptures was he referring to. Scripture also says "They wrest the words of paul, as do they with the rest of the scriptures".

Yet what scriptures were the rest when this verse was penned? Were there books penned afterward? The bible had not been formed yet.

It also seems that the apostles broke the rules of "sola scriptura" as well.

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Acts 17:28
​

There is also plenty of scriptures which have used extra biblical sources. For example, the book of Jasher is cited twice in the Old Testament, and quoted once in the New Testament. Jannes and Jambres are found nowhere else in scripture, but are found in the 70somethingth chapter. Jude is believed to have quoted either the book of Enoch or oral tradition when he said "And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied saying..." Some would argue that he didn't quote 1 Enoch because one said thousands, and the other tens of thousands. Both are still thousands however. There are some things said not in the OT scriptures, such as Jude 1:9 when Jude says Michael was disputing about the body of Moses (which perhaps may have been before the transfiguration, that Moses might appear in the body?). And then there are also other traditions, such as the martyrdom of OT saints alluded to in Hebrews 11.

So can Sola Scriptura ever be too Sola Scriptura?

Quoting what someone said, does not mean God said it, but that it makes a point. Acts does this saying that even one of your secular Poets whom you trust said We are God's offspring.

Faith starts, where the will of God is known, is also a quote from a more modern book. Though it may be true, it's not in scripture, but a ref to John saying if we pray according to the will of God, we have confidence He heard, and if He Heard, we have what we desired of Him.
Faith actually starts by just planting the Word in your heart, and letting it grow as a Mustard seed (Mark 4)

Also, these other books, like the book of Enoch, or Jasher are not included in the scriptures for a very good reason. The book of Jasher for example is a forgery and compilation of many forgeries. We have no idea where the real one is at as mentioned in scriptures, or the other books and references mentioned in scripture. We don't have the songs of David, the book of Wars, and a few other works Mentioned in scriptures.

As a believer, we should only be concerned with Scriptures, if you want to be a History teacher, then use whatever you want.

Mike.

 

[YosefHayim]

The book of Jasher for example is a forgery and compilation of many forgeries

There are three books of Jasher. Two of them are forgeries.

 

[YosefHayim]

Paul quoted a poem to zeus:

“From Zeus begin; never let us leave
His name unloved. With Him, with Zeus, are filled
All paths we tread, and all the marts of men;
Filled, too, the sea, and every creek and bay;
And all in all things need we help of Zeus,
For we too are his offspring.”

—Aratus, Phænom. 1–5.​

 

[Sparkey]

I just don't care much for hard and fast rules when we are talking about codifying behaviors. Jesus is our judge. Add another problem. Nobody I know is fluent in ancient Hebrew. It's not being spoken anymore.

If we are saying (I know that this is a repeat) - but if we are saying that the New Testament was not in existence when Paul told Timothy that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" and if we can understand that that particular writing was as yet not considered "Holy Writ" -- does that mean it was not yet Scripture?

There is a way of thinking that allows me to think that it was Scripture the very moment that it was penned. The Holy Spirit knew what He was doing. If we see too? Then our eyes (and ears) are open. Open to the Holy Spirit, but not open to everything. That's a whole 'nother thing. Not going there(!). But setting that aside and considering what Peter said about Paul, that some of the things that Paul wrote (under the unction and by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) are being wrestled and twisted around unto their destruction? Was that also "Scripture" as it was written? Indeed it was.

A new day is coming. And I know there is a great conundrum. If I say, "The Holy Spirit inspired me to write this," I may or may not be correct. But does that now mean that anything that I write is Scripture? It does not. There is no "teaching authority" even in prophecy which, for my purpose while writing this, just means the simple speaking of the Word of Truth. But and all Christians are told to seek to prophecy (to speak the word of God, trust me, there's more to it than that, but I'm not teaching that doctrine, and I've simplified it tremendously so we may speak intelligibly. My point is that I don't have any formal teaching authority. I do have the authority to teach my kids. All parents have that duty, so there's that.

Don't let my meandering around bother you. I don't typically write with the sav lasav sav lasav, kav lakav method. The way I do it is to try to hold a three-way conversation in my heart. I'm taking a big breath (you didn't hear it) but I'll try to explain.
______________________________________________________

Ever hear of a dysfunctional family? To know what that is means you know what the function of a family is. Let's say the function of a healthy family is to "raise healthy kids," (it's more than that but there are character limits - I can't give a treatise on family here). But where did I get that idea? A couple thousand years ago (it's an exaggeration, I'm not that old) I heard a Psychologist give a lecture. He was defining relationships and in that process he also suggested the definition for family. The thing he said (as a suggestion) about what a relationship was was how we might hear something another person said and how we might relate to it, forming the basis of a relationship. So somebody says something about fishing, another hears it, and lets that message into them. When we store the old fishing story, we put it next to (or link it to) other similar things. We might even have some remote thing, like if we recalled the smell of frying fish and the loving care that our mothers took and how she also baked potatoes in foil -- so let's pick that one.

Now we have related something. We can say, "your story about fish, reminds me of baked potatoes and my mom's cooking."

So this then is how I relate Scripture. You say something (because your friend and Teacher, the Holy Spirit gave it to you) and then I say something in reply about similar (to me) Scripture (because your friend who is my Teacher also gave it to me) and THIS is all done because it is His job to join Jesus' body (us) together and to cause us to relate because we are relative and we are a functional (almost) family.

We used to be a dry-bones family in a state of dry-valley homelessness. Then what? Somebody spoke the word of God to us. My conclusion is that we need to take the sticks out and to know that God is not inclined to nit-pic. We don't have to be perfect (like modern perfectionists, meaning anal) to be perfected (meaning matured). We can be us. We don't need to become scholars (necessarily) like Paul. Peter was a fisherman. And he warned about twisting stuff. That's a bad habit, that.

 

[Sparkey]

But if your purpose is to try to say the Word of God is equal to the Book of Jasher or poetry written to zeus as far as teaching authority? You've lost me.

That is not about sola-scriptura and I, for one, would cry foul. You have no basis for saying that those writings were written under the unction of the Holy Spirit, and they are not what is called "Our more sure word of prophecy," and that comes from a knowledge whore who doesn't care one whit where we, collectively, get our knowledge from. Trying to say that every book that was written and mentioned in the bible is the Bible?!? We know better. Notice that John concluded his gospel saying there "should" and "could" be so many books that they would fill the earth (or something like that). But that does not mean we are to make a jumbled mess about it.

Heck, I'm fine with quoting Aristotle and even okay with thinking about English Literature. They are inspired too. But it's not the Holy Spirit carrying them along like as if they were a log on a river. The writers of the Holy Writ are totally partnered with the Holy Spirit. And they are partnered in a very special and rare manner. Others aren't. But that's not to say that God could not, if He chose, cause somebody to write more of His Holy Writ (in the future sometime). That too is possible, but I just don't see it as likely. And He doesn't do things except He first reveal it. He has not revealed that.

 

[Sparkey]

But all I wanna know is the connection between the child's nursery rhyme and it being a passage Paul uses to illustrate the futility of speaking in a language that has no meaning to the hearer.

Oh. Oh, now I see. You want the revelation that it sounded like I had. All I have (at the moment) is the hint that there is much more there than anybody else has ever seen. I get things in tantalizing seed form and have to wait for them to grow before they are revealed. Is it a black cumin seed? I dunno. Could it be a grain? Not sure. Maybe it's a full-fledged tree? Something where birds can come? Yeah. Maybe. I get the sense that this is something big. But I'm not ready maybe?

I'm never certain how these things work. And yes, it is very intriguing. You put your finger right on it. It's about what Paul was thinking and how the HS worked in him. Isn't it? Prayers and partners are both appreciated. I like chasing things down and prayer tag-team works. You gotta love the truth more than you love what others think about you. Jethro Bodine From all I see, you qualify. I'll be praying that the Lord reveal more and more to you, to us, to His Body, to anybody. What? Should I be picky?

Now there's two. and that came from your heart. You understand. There is two of us wanting. That means the "where ever two or more of you," promise applies. Sometimes I think that I've been given more faith than I know what to do with. But that's not possible, is it? Not unless I'm a total idiot, right?

"Who is blind like My servant?"

Answer: Me