On the Journey, Episode 162: Sola Scriptura and New Testament Practice - Sola Scriptura 2.0, Part IV

Former Protestant pastors Ken Hensley and Kenny Burchard continue their series looking at how they began to rethink their commitment to the Bible alone as the sole and sufficient rule for faith and practice.
In the previous episode, they discussed how "sola Scriptura" does not, and cannot work. But if "sola Scriptura" is indeed Biblical, then Christians are obliged to observe it.
This time around, Matt, Ken, and Kenny begin to reflect on whether or not "sola Scriptura" is the teaching of the Bible, starting with what we see recorded about how Christian authority functioned in the New Testament itself.
More episodes: chnetwork.org/...
Our Online Community: www.chnetwork....
Support our work: www.chnetwork....

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@SalPust]

Thank u

[@RejiThomas1]

Great Video

[@gezley100]

Sola Scriptura cannot be present in a book not yet finished. How can it?

[@markiangooley]

There are at least a few Protestant hymns in Catholic hymnals that imply or flatly state that sola scriptura is true: How firm a foundation Ye saints of the Lord Is laid for your faith In His excellent word! What more can He say Than to you he hath said? To you who for refuge To Jesus hath fled. God the Father having a need to vent His wrath on His Son is another popular theme…

[@StringofPearls55]

Sola Scriptura to be true would appear in Scripture not in a hymn.

[@markiangooley]

@@StringofPearls55exactly! I think that any hymn with a good tune can get into some Catholic hymnals despite dubious sentiments…

[@byonnoyb]

This is a bit of a stretch to state that those words imply or "flatly state" sola scriptura.

[@tonyl3762]

The Judaizers believed in sola Scriptura and were the first "Protestants." Scripture clearly said circumcision was an everlasting ordinance, and yet the Apostles interpreted its abrogation. And it comes full circle with modern Judaizers badgering us about the Sabbath.

[@Loc1453]

So where is the bible verse said "READ the bible with 66 books" if Sola Sciptura is True ? Which Sciptura are we talking about here

[@tonyl3762]

I better hear a lot from Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus in the next episode.

[@cominghomenetwork]

Two episodes from now we're spending almost a whole episode on that!

[@tonyl3762]

@@cominghomenetwork Now you're talking! I truly believe they are the most underrated and underutilized pieces of evidence, more weighty than even the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 because they are Scripture describing the post-apostolic authority of bishops Timothy and Titus. I've seen Catholics skip over them and go straight to Clement and Ignatius, and that's a tragedy. Yes, the Jerusalem Council had non-apostles and Paul's letters had non-apostolic co-authors, which count for something, but the letters to Timothy and Titus show us the level of authority of the post-apostolic episcopate and how it is passed down in succession.

[@dan_m7774]

There was no Bible Canon created in the Bible.

[@rubemartur8239]

🙂

[@DanielAluni-v2t]

It wasn't practiced, or even conceived of as theory in the Apostolic Age, and wouldn't be invented for another 1500 years. It is based upon the Islamic idea of divine "scripture from heaven" that evolved around their holy book the Quran.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

One of the problems with that theory is Scripture is divine from heaven...2nd Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God...we already agree about the divine nature of Holy Scripture and it's innerancy and inspiration from God. Psalm 119:89 Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. Secondly, the argument of Sola Scriptura is not so much that is was taught during the first century but rather what is the ultimate and infallible authority after the death of the apostles.

[@fantasia55]

​@Adam-ue2ig the Catholic Church is also God-breathed.

[@DanielAluni-v2t]

@@fantasia55 specifically Apostolic succession.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@fantasia55 huh? Where does Scripture or any source say the Roman Catholic church is breathed out by God. Never in my 40 years on earth have i ever heard a Catholic or literally anyone claim that.

[@DanielAluni-v2t]

@@Adam-ue2ig "and he breathed on his Apostles saying 'receive the Holy Spirit, whose sin you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained'."

[@caseycampbell1386]

11 hours! Talk about being in on the ground floor! 😂

[@E-pistol]

Protestants don't buy legos.

[@po18guy-s4s]

A lifetime of sola scriptura did not lead the Bereans to Christ. Even after Paul preached Christ, they had to run back to the same scriptures (which had not lead them to Christ) as they still doubted. And EVEN AFTER THAT, only some of them converted. Hmmm.

[@soteriology400]

It is riddled all throughout, that is what the Jewish people did. No one within the Jewish people, ever claimed to be an infallible interpreter nor did anyone point to another as such. In Acts, they looked to the scriptures and were guided by the Holy Sprit. The idea of a magisterium is totally based on fantasy.

[@DanielAluni-v2t]

Not Moses? Not the prophets? Not Nehemiah on the eve of returning from exile? Not the Sadducees or Pharisees or members of the Sanhedrin? 😮

[@soteriology400]

@@DanielAluni-v2tThey were prophets and interpreters. But the idea of infallible interpreter was totally foreign to them. You are doing what is called eisegesis.

[@juniper-ug3hs]

Really? Do you have an example of someone challenging a prophet or interpreter other than Christ and the pharisees? Did any well educated jew thumb their nose at Jeremiah and challenge his "exegesis"? When David was confronted by Nathan, did David tell Nathan he was wrong or say, "Well, your parable is a fallable and made up story and I reject it upon my interpretation of scripture."

[@soteriology400]

@@juniper-ug3hs 19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. Peter was assuring them, he did not privately interpret the prophecies given to him, that were being made. Why is that? It is because they knew they were fallible. No one ever claimed to be infallible.

[@DanielAluni-v2t]

​@@soteriology400Sounds like Peter is speaking against sola scriptura and all inclination toward private interpretation.