# Question regarding Sola Scriptura



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 2, 2007)

Greetings:

The Bible alone is the infallible means of interpreting the Scriptures is a doctrine I am most committed to in my beliefs. I have been troubled recently in a private conversation concerning the nature of predictive prophecy.

I believe that Matthew 24 is describing, in part, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Also, in Daniel 7:19ff we understand that the Roman Empire is being discussed, but we have no direct Scriptural evidence that proves that such is the case. In other words: I cannot cross-reference a passage in Scrpture that "Matt. 24 is talking about 70 AD" or "Daniel 7:19 is referring to the Roman Empire."

We get these interpretations from outside of Scripture: i.e. Josephus, or a history book of some kind.

Is Sola Scriptura applied in a different way when it comes to predictive prophecy?

Grace,

-CH


----------



## beej6 (Jun 2, 2007)

Well, I suppose if you cross reference your knowledge of, say, the books of Daniel and Revelation you could quite reasonably infer that Daniel was referring to the Romans?


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Jun 2, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> The Bible alone is the infallible means of interpreting the Scriptures is a doctrine I am most committed to in my beliefs. I have been troubled recently in a private conversation concerning the nature of predictive prophecy.
> 
> ...


This is exactly a problem that I am thinking through at the moment. I believe the opposite to you for the very reasons you outline here. I believe that it defeats our argument with the New Perspective when we interpret scripture in that way in one area, and then tell them they are wrong to interpret Paul through their "second-temple-Judaism-was-a-grace-based-religion" glasses.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 2, 2007)

Hi:

Can both of you be more specific?

Thanks,

-CH


----------



## KMK (Jun 2, 2007)

I had virtually the same question a few weeks ago. See this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=21299


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Jun 2, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Can both of you be more specific?
> 
> ...


I was saying I want an answer to the question as well


----------



## KMK (Jun 2, 2007)

The conclusion I came to in that other thread was that it might be OK to use the works of Josephus et al to come to some personal conclusions, but that those conclusions should not be established as doctrine. I am certainly not married to this conclusion, however. I look forward to other responses.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Jun 2, 2007)

KMK said:


> The conclusion I came to in that other thread was that it might be OK to use the works of Josephus et al to come to some personal conclusions, but that those conclusions should not be established as doctrine. I am certainly not married to this conclusion, however. I look forward to other responses.


WCF 1:9 would agree with you:

1:9 The _infallible _rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 2, 2007)

Yes, agreeing heartlity with the Westminster Confession, exegesis will always lead us down a particular path. We go there first. Then we have to walk down the "comrehensive" avenue of the setting and context. (Are we dealing with Jesus feeding the five thousand, or a list of geneologies, or a poem in the Song of Solomon.) We really have to be sure we understand everything goin on behind the text. Then we have to travel down the road of Biblical theology (where that passage fits into the sscheme of progressive revelation) and then think through systematic theology on that subject. Lest we forget, we shoudl always set our "hypothesis" in the context of the church and historical theology. We don't believe things in a vaccuum, and there have been lots of people before us, much smart than us, who have already thought through these things.

We should be able to, if we are looking at Scripture hemeneutically, to figure out what it says and means. Extrabiblical sources help, but they are not the reason we conclude certain things about Scripture. Scripture, understood properly, will enable us to come to conclusions on thier own.


----------



## KMK (Jun 2, 2007)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Yes, agreeing heartlity with the Westminster Confession, exegesis will always lead us down a particular *path*. We go there first. Then we have to walk down the "comrehensive" *avenue* of the setting and context. (Are we dealing with Jesus feeding the five thousand, or a list of geneologies, or a poem in the Song of Solomon.) We really have to be sure we understand everything goin on behind the text. Then we have to travel down the *road* of Biblical theology (where that passage fits into the sscheme of progressive revelation) and then think through systematic theology on that subject. Lest we forget, we shoudl always set our "hypothesis" in the context of the church and historical theology. We don't believe things in a vaccuum, and there have been lots of people before us, much smart than us, who have already thought through these things.



 and beautifully written! Perhaps you could add to the imagery by ending, "Lest we forget, we should always set our 'hypothesis' in context as we cruise down the broadway of historical theology."

You are a born writer, Rev McMahon!



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> We should be able to, if we are looking at Scripture hemeneutically, to figure out what it says and means. Extrabiblical sources help, but they are not the reason we conclude certain things about Scripture. Scripture, understood properly, will enable us to come to conclusions on thier own.



Can we use Josephus to determine the fulfillment of Matt 24?


----------

