How do ANY of these verses support Sola Scriptura??
Acts 17:11 - The Bereans searched the Old Testament to see if what Paul was saying about Jesus was true.
NOWHERE does it even imply that the Bereans were Sola Scripturists. They were skeptics who were trying to substantiate what Paul was teaching - probably FROM the Old Testament.
Acts 17:11 "
They searched THE SCRIPTUREs daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO"
How is that NOT - "Sola Scriptura"???
You appear to be inserting the idea that "sola scriptura cannot possibly include searching what we call today - the OT -- to test doctrine" ... am I getting that right?
Mark 7:6-13 - Jesus wasn't condemning Tradition here.
Let's see.
Mark 7
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But
in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the
precepts of men.’
8
Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the
tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You
are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to
keep your tradition. 10 For
Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11
but you say, ‘If a man says to
his father or
his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given
to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for
his father or
his mother; 13
thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
1. How is that NOT "sola scriptura" testing tradition.
2. How is that NOT calling the Word of God = Commandment of God = Moses said.
3. How is that NOT sola-scriptura hammering the tradition of the accepted magesterium of the nation-church that GOD started at Sinai - in the days of Christ
You seem to be inserting the idea that
He was condemning the Pharisees who placed their OWN traditions ABOVE the Traditions of the Law and God's Word.
Which is precisely the condemnation that the protesting Catholic Scholars like Wycliffe, Jerome of Prague, Huss, Luther etc were charging the RCC with.
Also - Paul tells the Thessalonians to . . .
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an ORAL STATEMENT - OR BY or by a LETTER from us."
He doesn't place one above the other - but places BOTH of the ON PAR with each other.
Not quite.
Gal 1:6-9 "
Though WE (apostles) or an ANGEL from HEAVEN preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed"
That can only happen "sola scriptura". It shows one above the other.
What is more the statement to the Thessalonians affirms that there is such a thing as good tradition -- but his Gal 1:6-9 places it under authority of scripture just as we see Christ doing in Mark 7. Paul himself was held to this strict standard in Act 17:11.
The New Testament is LITTERED with oral Traditions.
In Matt 23:2 - Jesus Himself relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging "Moses' seat" of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Not true. What Jesus said is that the church leaders of the one-true-nation-church started by God at Sinai - were sitting in the authority of Moses as he too lead the nation-church - and should be respected. He was not talking about a literal chair.
Matthew 23:2
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3
therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say
things and do not do
them.
This is the chapter where Christ condemns all of them even though they sit in Moses' chair.
32
Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers,
how will you escape the sentence of hell?
34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35
so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38
Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”
A more scathing condemnation of church magesterium can hardly be penned.
Isaiah 8:20 "
to the LAW and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this WORD they have no light"
Isaiah 8:20
AGAIN - this is referring to the Word of God. NOWHERE does it refer to Scripture alone - or even Scripture at ALL.
If you are suggesting that the OT reference to "LAW and Testimony" is not a reference to scripture - you will need to explain that suggestion.
The instructions of Moses were based on what He and Yaweh spoke about.
"
All scripture is given by inspiration from God" - 2 Tim 3:16.
Sola scriptura then - is using that scripture to test all doctrine and tradition.
Here are some more examples of
ORAL Tradition that we are bound by . . .
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament.
True Prophecy is not oral tradition - it is the Word of God.
Yet all claims to prophecy are also to be tested "sola scriptura" to distinguish truth from error.
Your entire argument seem to rely on the idea that "if ANY tradition is valid then NO tradition can be tested sola scriptura" AS IF the valid tradition that you are identifying would have failed sola scriptura testing and so refutes it.
IS that really what you are arguing???