Historicity of Mary vs significant inference -- ie not in the Bible?

[BobRyan]

from #42

Spare us the posturing, your chucrh embrces extra-biblical doctrines. Quote your "proof texts" and lets see how well they support your dogma; I can't do all the work. Show me where the Bible say your IJ will begin in 1844,. Show us where Jesus comes into your Heavenly Sanctuary. Show us the details, Bob. We'll wait.

That was Jipsah asking for details, asking to "READ" the case in scripture , in a thread, spelled out...

Here is ChevyonTheRiver asking for the same thing and then the response to his request -- #113

And that other thread also shows the full-blown answer -- it is a dedicated thread just for that requests... only to have those seemingly sincere requests dropped like a hot potato by the ones making the request..

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers.

 

[Jipsah]

Jipsah already tried that idea of "not found in scripture" and got debunked

Because sure enough, the words "judgement" and "books" both appear in Daniel 7. Dang, Bob, you ought to do standup! <ROFL>

- because I agreed to his request/test/challenge and dedicated an entire thread to his speculative accusation.

And then claimed, falsely, that I has asked for it. How's it going over there, BTW?

It shows that his entire speculation was totally without substance.

Whatever that "speculation" was supposed to be. My assertion was, and is, that Investigative Judgement is a creation of Ellen White, and that such gossamer scriptural links as there are to it were contrived after the. fact Bob has, as far as I know, offered nothing that shows otherwise.

Since you want to experience the same response - then thanks to Jipsah

I'm happy to have had a role in your imagined victory. But declaring a victiory and then changing the subject is a standard SDA technique, innit?

And this has been pointed out multiple times on this thread (that apparently you are not reading all that closely).

I.E., you're said repeatedly (and repeatedly, and repeatedly) "Is not!"

All the scripture you claim - does not exist - sitting right there for you to "not see" along with Jipsah.

Oh, I saw. Yep, it really does mention judgement, and the opening of books. Does it describe anything like the description of "Investigative Judgment" offered up in SDA pubications? In a word, no.

"sounds" impressive until we notice the "elephant in the living room" -- i.e. thread posted multiple times here, showing the very sola scriptura case you claim does not exist, the very one that is the only one we use , and that results in millions agreeing with it and joining the church.

Yeah, we're all impressed with your growth rates. Vox populi, vox Dei, right? Than again, how long before your 23,000,000 grow to challenge the 1.3 thousand million catholics. I don't think you've got 'em skeered yet.

So other than the facts do support that we are making a sola-scriptura case for the judgment

<ROFL>

we are doing the very same thing Raymond Brown says the Catholics are doing

Nope. Catholics are not, nor have they ever claimed to be, Sola Scriptura. Y'all claim to be, but aren't. Really, really simple. Father Brown simply observed that the dogma of the Assumption doesn't draw from Scripture or directly from history. It doesn't. So what? SDAs think it should have, but then SDas are better at talking about such rules than they are at following them

in the case of certain Marian doctrines - then it would make sense to watch us also say "yep it is true , this doctrine is not in scripture

Which is what pretty much everyone here has said. Earth to Bob..

- but it is our tradition to think of it as being true anyway"

No, based on Holy Traditon they firmly believe that it is true. Nice try though. Bob, even if a bit sleazy.

Then -- in that fictional scenario

And that's simply revoltingly nasty. Better spend your time trying to peddle you own dogmas invented by your staff "prophet".

I look forward to the same 'cricketts'... 'cricketts' that Jipsah

Oh yeah, I've really been silent, haven't I? You wish.

responds with after climbing out on that limb.

OK, for about the 40th time: Father Brown says,, essentially, that the dogma of the Assumption isn't drawn from Scripture or history.

My response, "he's right, but it doesn't have to be. It's based on Holy Tradition.

In addition I noted that while SDAs may not like that, the fact is that the SDAs aren't particularly good at being Sola Scriptura themselves, having taken as dogma pronouncements by Ellen White and then hunting up Scriptural "sources" for them after the fact.

My offense seems to be: A) I spoiled what seemed to you like a perfectly wonderful "them bad Catholics..." find, and B) that the SDA's dedication to "Sola Scriptura" is more a slogan than a principle that they follow.

(Kinda reminds me of your posts on this thread saying that the reference to Raymond's stateement does not exist in the OP)
Quote that one if you'd be so kind. I think your imagination may be getting the better of you.

(Here's where you hit the macro key to insert your original rubbish from the OP for the, what? 40th time?)

 

[concretecamper]

nope. State a fact... we can then both agree to it.

the problem is the text explicitly SAYS it is referring to scripture and the topic we are testing is "is sola-scriptura testing in the Bible"?

There is no way to escape the fact that Acts 17:11 "They searched the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO" -- hammers that sola-scriptura nail right on the heard.

When you "switch terms" to "Bible" (as we would all be confused at that point) you aren't really getting out of it the way you suppose. The fact that more scripture would be written in the future does not negate/dismiss Acts 17:11 rather it shows that AT EVERY STAGE the "sola scriptura" test was VALID.

As I just demonstrated - that conclusion lacks logical support.

Scripture (OT and NT) was written in time to an audience. Unless you want to claim Act 17:11 is some sort of prophecy, but that would make your argument even more ridiculous.

 

[Jipsah]

You have switched from "you are not making a case from scripture just like the Catholic church scholar in the OP says they are doing in certain cases"

Sorry, that was unintelligible.

to this new track "why would one denomination promote something in the Bible - and yet all denominations would not agree?", "Why would the Catholic church at least not agree, if it came from the Bible?"

Again, what?

The protesting-Catholics that created the protestant reformation were do that very thing. They were finding Bible based doctrine, exposing cases where - like Raymond Brown says - there is no Bible basis for certain Catholic doctrine , and then instead of ignoring the problem those protesting-Catholics dropped doctrine that had no foundation in scripture and that in fact was in violation of scripture in their POV just as we see Christ saying in Mark 7:7-13 of his own One True Nation Church started by God at Sinia.

Interesting take on history. Yep, a lot of the Protestant Churches were and are Sola Scriptura. And? This just in, the Catholics, aren't. Apparently everyone knew this but you.

And this feature prevailed

ERxcept when it didn't. Are you leading up to something?

EVEN THOUGH not every Protesting-Catholic-Reformer agreed on every single detail about all the fixes/corrections that would be needed to bring Church doctrine back inline with the Bible.

Well, no. Traditional Protestant Churches like the Anglicans still accept Holy Tradition.

The Catholic Church's "counter reformation" self-corrections ended up being a day-late dollar-short in some regards. But at the reformers pointed out - those small fixes did not go far enough so the counter-reformation did not put an end to Protestant groups.

So?

Couldn't that same argument have been made by non-Christian Jews against the Christian-Jews leading out in the first century church -- such as the Apostles.

Which argument was that?

Mark 7:5-13 Jesus said their traditions were in violation of the Word of God.

Which tradition were those?

But the Jews never claimed that about themselves ,, even though Christ's statement was true of them none-the-less.

OK.

Go to the thread ... read.
(BTW -- AD 27 is not "in the Bible" yet the 69th week points to it, Christ admits it in Mark 1:15 "The time is fulfilled" -- the very date predicted in Dan 9)

OK.

No -- this thread is pointing out that in the case of Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown - they admit it.

That the dogma of the Assumption is based on tradition? No one has said anything else, no matter how hard you've tried to ignore the fact.

I agree with Raymond - that this what they are doing.

Then so say we all. Was there ever a point to this idiotic thread?

take time to "read" the thread on the topic.

The topic was polished off on the first page, but you felt the need to keep posting it again and again, apparently in the hope that someone would be outraged that the Catholic Church hadn't embraced Protestant beliefs.

Those scriptures do NOT come from the 19th century.

And those Scriptures do nothing to support your doctrine except to mention "judgement" and the opening of books. Need me to report your lot's description of IJ? Sounds as though you may not have read it yourself.

I don't see how that point is even a little bit confusing.

It isn't. As I said, the definitive response to your OP was "Yeah, and?"

If you ignore all the scripture referenced there and all the statements showing the compelling case it makes

If you're already an SDA an accept it on face value. Otherwise, bleh.

, and then go to great degree of "low-information-reader" mode.

You mean like someone who complains the Catholics aren't "sola scriptura" and have never claimed to be? You still don't seem to have grasped that.

.. you might be able to get to your statement with some level of ability not to see the glaring problem with it.

A glaring problem to SDAs, anyway.

in the thread you used to claim could-not-exist)

Gimme the quote on that Bob. Not that I'd question your veracity; maybe you really believe that.

sadly for that tactic - the fact that we are the fastest growing Christian denomination in the world

Well dang! I see that your growth rate in 2022 was about 1.5 percent. Not too shabby, Let's say growth continues at that rate , and lets say you have 23,000,000 or so members (according to adventist.org). At that rate of growth, how long before you catch up with the 110,000,000 or so Anglicans, or even the 100,000,000 or so Baptists. Never mind the 1.3 billion Catholics. So if we're to be impressed by the growth rate of your lot, well, no. You're still a small school of fish on a very large pond.

Dunno how that helps your specious arguments anyway, though.

according to the non-SDA publication "ChristianityToday" -- puts that straw man to rest ... as well.

What strawman was that? I haven't seen anyone talking about church growth rates except you.

would you like to grasp for another one?

One what?

Summary: You complained, based on the writing of a Catholic priest, one of whose books you were reading (seriously?) that Catholics base dogmas on something other than Scripture. That is corrrect. The Catholics freely admit it, and pretty much anyone who cares about such things knows it. Apparently it came as a surprise to you (Seriously?) hence your complaint.

I noted that while Catholics make no pretence of being Scripture Alone, that that is the offical position of the SDA Church. I further found it curious that in spite of their official position, the SDas accept as dogma doctrines that do not derive from Scripture, notably a doctrine called "Investigative Judgement", which originated with a vision experienced by Ellen White, that seems to have been associated with a failed prediction of our Lord's return in 1844. There is little or no doubt as to the origin of the doctrine. The Church members of that time made haste to find Bible verses that could be pressed into service to create the illusion that the doctrine had originated in Scripture Unfortunately, the provided "proof texts seem to have little or no bearing on the doctrine itsself exept that they speak in general terms of judgement and the opnion of books.

The long and the short of it is that Mr. Ryan charges the Roman Catholics with not following a principal which they have never claimed to follow in the first place. Then he has been forced to respond to contention (notably from me) that while the SDAs claim to be "sola scriptura", in fact at least of of their central dogmas has little or no basis in Scripture. In short, Mr. Ryan was/is outraged that the Catholics with not following a principal that they have never embraced, or claimed to, while the SDAs claim to embrace tht principal, but do not in fact do so.

There it is, Bob. You can whack that macro key (you've surely programmed one by now) to post the quote from Father Brown yet again, and let us know how shocked you think we should be by it.

And in the words of the Prophet Mohammed, "See ya!"


(I can't wait to see what you do with that, <ROFL>

 

[Jipsah]

from #42


That was Jipsah asking for details

Yep. No request for a separate thread, you'll notice. Tsk tsk!

, asking to "READ" the case in scripture , in a thread, spelled out...

I notice the quote for that is conspicuous by its absence. <Laugh>

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers.

Good gried, are you gonna feign objectivity now? <ROFL>

 

[Jipsah]

from #42


That was Jipsah asking for details, asking to "READ"

Yep, which you for some reason went off and put in another thread.

the case in scripture , in a thread, spelled out..

The "in a thread" is your addition. T

.
Here is ChevyonTheRiver asking for the same thing and then the response to his request -- #113

And that other thread also shows the full-blown answer

That's nice. I haven't been over there.

-- it is a dedicated thread just for that requests..

How thoughty of you.

. only to have those seemingly sincere requests

Precisely nobody asked for a second thread.

dropped like a hot potato by the ones making the request..

Make your case here, if you have one.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers.

Lemme recap: The original topic was answered definitively on the first page. The RCC ain't sola scriptura, end discussion.But that wasn't the answer you wanted, so you kept complaining that the RCC wasnt being sola scriptura, which evoked the same answer as before, they ain't aola scriptura, and never claimed to be.

I noted that the SDAs find fault with the Catholics because they aren't sola scriptura (hereinafter, SS) while having dogmas of their own that were based on "prophetic" stuff from Ellen White and that had no actual provenance in Scripture, and specifically their dogma of Investigative Judgement" (hereinafter, IJ) I was then referred to Daniel 7, which among many other things mentions judgement and the opening of books. Unfortunately, Daniel 7 as a whole has nothing whatsoever to do with IJ as described on the SDAs own web site. No other evidence for a Biblical souirce for IJ has been offered in this thread, and I haven't bestirred myself to check the new thread, under the assumption that it's more of the same.

Bottom line, Mr. Ryan complains that the RCC isn't SS, which they have never claimed to be, and which virtually no one believes they are. The SDA, however, claims to be SS, while accepting doctrnes of extra biblical origin, notably those coming from their founding "prophet", Ellen White, thus belyng their claim to be SS.

Wanna repost your initial complaints against them bad Catholics for the umpteenth time, Bob, or are you just down to blowing and posturing now?

 

[The Liturgist]

Same song, 187th verse. You ought to put it on macro key just to save all that typing.

Macros can be a lifesaver. By the way, are you familiar with GNU emacs? The editor is a version of Emacs written atop a custom LISP interpreter, so the whole thing is actually built using Lisp macros, which are the most powerful macros, and can be customized. The joke is that Emacs is an operating system, not an editor. Because my Unix guru was a vim user, I myself mainly use vim, the improved version of vi, or on Windows, cream, which is a customized configuration of vim that makes it as easy to use as notetab or gedit or any other modern gui editor, since vim configuration files are amazing and an art form themselves, or ed, the standard editor, because it works even on some UNIX and Unix like OSes under degraded conditions when full screen text mode editing is not available (like when using a serial port to access the auxiliary remote management on some ancient midrange servers and also some routers running a custom BSS on custom hardware), and also is simple for a fast editing job. But emacs interests me. I do enjoy playing with emacs however. There are ways to get emacs to behave like vi, such as viper mode (an editing mode in emacs is essentially a computer program) but I don’t think anyone has implemented vim in emacs, although it is theoretically possible and would be slower and more bloated than vim, although on modern hardware we are reaching a point where the difference is irrelevant.

A growing number of younger Linux and BSD users use an editor called GNU Nano, inspired by an older editor called Pico, which is freely available but under terms the GNU project finds objectionable, because it is easier to learn than vim or emacs, but this trend worries me because Nano is less powerful, and working in it with its limitations will either slow programmers and sysadmins down or else drive programmers at least to use IDEs like Visual Studio, which I think are useful only for writing GUI interfaces and GUi apps on their specific platforms.

 

[The Liturgist]

Scripture (OT and NT) was written in time to an audience. Unless you want to claim Act 17:11 is some sort of prophecy, but that would make your argument even more ridiculous.

Indeed, what Acts 17:11 actually means is not an endorsement of Nuda Scriptura, because that would contradict the directive of St. Paul the Apostle to follow tradition in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, but rather is confirmation of what the author of Acts, St. Luke the Evangelist, recorded at the conclusion of His Gospel, that Christ our True God opened the books of the Law and the Prophets and showed the Apostles how they were all writing about Him, and those were the books searched by the Bereans, to see if the claim made by the Apostles that the Torah and the books of the Prophets and the rest of what we now call the Old Testament and what Jews call the Tanakh, specifically foretold the coming of God in the person of Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, and thus identified Him as the Annointed, the Messiah, by prophesying the circumstances of His birth and the actions of His life, and His passion, resurrection, ascension, and the Salvation He promised to humanity.

And again it must be stressed that most Protestants accept Church Tradition, according to the versions of Sola Scriptura taught by Luther, Cranmer, Calvin and Wesley. The Anglican Tripod of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, in which Scripture is used to test all doctrines, interpreted according to Tradition using Reason, is a classic form of this, as are those forms articulated by Martin Luther, which @MarkRohfrietsch and @ViaCrucis have gotten involved in on several occasions.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Macros can be a lifesaver. By the way, are you familiar with GNU emacs? The editor is a version of Emacs written atop a custom LISP interpreter, so the whole thing is actually built using Lisp macros, which are the most powerful macros, and can be customized. The joke is that Emacs is an operating system, not an editor. Because my Unix guru was a vim user, I myself mainly use vim, the improved version of vi, or on Windows, cream, which is a customized configuration of vim that makes it as easy to use as notetab or gedit or any other modern gui editor, since vim configuration files are amazing and an art form themselves, or ed, the standard editor, because it works even on some UNIX and Unix like OSes under degraded conditions when full screen text mode editing is not available (like when using a serial port to access the auxiliary remote management on some ancient midrange servers and also some routers running a custom BSS on custom hardware), and also is simple for a fast editing job. But emacs interests me. I do enjoy playing with emacs however. There are ways to get emacs to behave like vi, such as viper mode (an editing mode in emacs is essentially a computer program) but I don’t think anyone has implemented vim in emacs, although it is theoretically possible and would be slower and more bloated than vim, although on modern hardware we are reaching a point where the difference is irrelevant.

A growing number of younger Linux and BSD users use an editor called GNU Nano, inspired by an older editor called Pico, which is freely available but under terms the GNU project finds objectionable, because it is easier to learn than vim or emacs, but this trend worries me because Nano is less powerful, and working in it with its limitations will either slow programmers and sysadmins down or else drive programmers at least to use IDEs like Visual Studio, which I think are useful only for writing GUI interfaces and GUi apps on their specific platforms.

I use vim a lot and Nedit. Nedit is a bit passé but works for me.

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed, what Acts 17:11 actually means is not an endorsement of Nuda Scriptura, because that would contradict the directive of St. Paul the Apostle to follow tradition in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15,

It is direct endorsement of the practice of testing the teaching of Paul against the content of scripture having zero access to Christian tradition since the people in Acts 17:11 were not Christians in the first place. They were non-Christian Jews and Gentiles hearing Paul and even though their "magisterium" had condemned the teaching of Paul they chose to go against established tradition and established magisterium declarations -- notice that his teaching was in harmony with scripture and choose Paul OVER The traditions and commands of their own magisterium.

I.E. "the details" to glibly skimmed over in some points of view.

Christ our True God opened the books of the Law and the Prophets and showed the Apostles how they were all writing about Him

In Luke 24 it says "27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."
The very thing some folks on this thread claim could not be possible. It means Luke's readers had defined the term "all of scriptures". It had meaning , context etc.

The very thing some folks suppose could not even exist at that point

, and those were the books searched by the Bereans, to see if the claim made by the Apostles that the Torah and the books of the Prophets and the rest of what we now call the Old Testament and what Jews call the Tanakh, specifically foretold the coming of God in the person of Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, and thus identified Him as the Annointed, the Messiah, by prophesying the circumstances of His birth and the actions of His life, and His passion, resurrection, ascension, and the Salvation He promised to humanity.

Indeed -- and this no matter what their own magisterium and tradition had dictated for them - to the contrary of Paul's teaching.

It just does not get any more obvious than that.

 

[BobRyan]

Spare us the posturing, your chucrh embrces extra-biblical doctrines. Quote your "proof texts" and lets see how well they support your dogma; I can't do all the work. Show me where the Bible say your IJ will begin in 1844,. Show us where Jesus comes into your Heavenly Sanctuary. Show us the details, Bob. We'll wait.

From #42

That was Jipsah asking for details, asking to "READ" the case in scripture , in a thread, spelled out...

Here is ChevyonTheRiver asking for the same thing and then the response to his request -- #113

And that other thread also shows the full-blown answer -- it is a dedicated thread just for that requests... only to have those seemingly sincere requests dropped like a hot potato by the ones making the request..

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers.

Precisely nobody asked for a second thread.

Make your case here, if you have one.

you offered to derail this thread that is on the historicity of certain Marian doctrines (which is against board rules) - with your selected topic "The Investigative judgment found in Daniel 7 and Romans 2".

I simply provided the CF-rules compliant form - by creating a thread ON your own topic for you to discuss. Rather than derailing this thread that is on the historicity and sola-scriptura basis (or lack of it) for certain marian doctrines. Check the title and OP if you are unfamiliar with the topic of this thread.

Lemme recap: The original topic was answered definitively on the first page.

Indeed - by me. I show that Catholic scholarship on the subject made a statement on in as quoted verbatim in the OP.

The RCC ain't sola scriptura,

no kidding.

I noted that the SDAs find fault with the Catholics because they aren't sola scriptura (hereinafter, SS) while having dogmas of their own that were based on "prophetic" stuff from Ellen White

which you could not prove even when given an entire thread as your request to make your case

and that had no actual provenance in Scripture

Flat out disproven by the thread created to test your case.

, and specifically their dogma of Investigative Judgement" (hereinafter, IJ)

Shown to be based on nothing but scripture in the thread created at your request. Good thing we did not derail this thread with that topic.

I was then referred to Daniel 7, which among many other things mentions judgement and the opening of books. Unfortunately, Daniel 7 as a whole has nothing whatsoever to do with IJ

speculation without substance so far but if you want to try and prove it - you have a thread for it.

 

[BobRyan]

does everything have to be an argument with you?

nope. State a fact... we can then both agree to it.

My only point is that Acts 17:11 can't be referring to the Bible.

the problem is the text explicitly SAYS it is referring to scripture and the topic we are testing is "is sola-scriptura testing in the Bible"?

There is no way to escape the fact that Acts 17:11 "They searched the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO" -- hammers that sola-scriptura nail right on the heard.

When you "switch terms" to "Bible" (as we would all be confused at that point) you aren't really getting out of it the way you suppose. The fact that more scripture would be written in the future does not negate/dismiss Acts 17:11 rather it shows that AT EVERY STAGE the "sola scriptura" test was VALID.

So to use it as a proof of SS is ridiculous.

As I just demonstrated - that conclusion lacks logical support.

Scripture (OT and NT) was written in time to an audience.

yep --

How nice then that we have Acts 17:11 "They searched the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO" -- hammers that sola-scriptura nail right on the heard

Unless you want to claim Act 17:11 is some sort of prophecy

It is a statement of fact and it says by way of inspiration that God approved them for that practice.

The same practice Christ used in Mark 7:7-13 with the magesterium of His day. Showing us how that tradition was slam-hammered "sola scriptura" in Mark 7.

, but that would make your argument even more ridiculous.

hardly

 

[Valletta]

It is direct endorsement of the practice of testing the teaching of Paul against the content of scripture having zero access to Christian tradition since the people in Acts 17:11 were not Christians in the first place.

Ephesians 4: 11-16 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

Here Paul makes no mention of Holy Scripture, he tells us to avoid being tossed about we obtain the Word of God from the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Does that passage mean we should exclusively look toward these men and never to Holy Scripture?

 

[BobRyan]

Ephesians 4: 11-16 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

Here Paul makes no mention of Holy Scripture, he tells us to avoid being tossed about we obtain the Word of God from the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Does that passage mean we should exclusively look toward these men and never to Holy Scripture?

Eph 6:1-2 - same book, same author - a direct appeal to the Ten Commandments in scripture
"honor your father and mother which is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2 - in the still-valid-unit-of-ten.

Eph 4 is not arguing that spiritual gifts delete scripture. 2 Tim 3:16 "all scripture is given by inspiration from God and is to be used for doctrine"

Acts 17:11 makes the case that even those with spiritual gifts like Paul - were to be tested "sola scriptura". "To SEE IF those things are so"