Explain sola scriptura to me

[Standing Up]

I'm always surprised by those that pit the Bible against the Church. It just shows a fundamental problem in their theology. There is no reason the Bible should be inspired, and not the Church as well, since the canon of Scriptures was, for most of Church history, an open issue that was never defined.

No one is pitting bible against church by using SS. SS is the norm to determine doctrine and practice. If

 

[FireDragon76]

No one is pitting bible against church by using SS. SS is the norm to determine doctrine and practice. If

But the Bible says nothing of the sort. It just says that the Scriptures are "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16) A statement with which no Christian disagrees.

It doesn't follow from that statement, necessarily, that the Bible is the only norm. What you are talking about is a Protestant norm imposed on Scriptures, a norm that not even all Protestant agree with in definition or practice.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Sola Scripture can easily be defined as letting GOD be true and all men be liars..

Now men are not stupid, they get around this by pretending that there is more to God's word than the holy scriptures.. which is silly, and is their lame attempt at making whatever they say the word of God... and even Peter says that we have a more sure word of prophecy in the scripture, more sure than if a person claimed to hear the voice of God Himself.

 

[wilts43]

"Sola scriptura" is unheard of until The Protestant Reformation.
Christianity existed for 1500 years without this assertion.

Not only is it unscriptural itself it is a novel doctrine.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

"Sola scriptura" is unheard of until The Protestant Reformation.
Christianity existed for 1500 years without this assertion.

Not only is it unscriptural itself it is a novel doctrine.

Because Romans 3 wasn't written until the Protestant reformation.

 

[Root of Jesse]

SS is the idea that the bible is the norm for doctrine and practice. Here are examples:

Jn. 20:31
But these [signs] are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Rom. 9:33
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
2Peter 3:1-2
This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

IOW, all that is necessary for doctrine and practice is contained in scripture alone. To say otherwise, is to suggest the apostles left out some fact necessary for your salvation.

So it's a doctrine found nowhere in Scripture, which means it doesn't meet its own criteria.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Except in Romans 3, 1 Peter, Isaiah, you name it.. the word of God trumps all else.. even when men pretend that what their assembly says is the word of God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm always surprised by those that pit the Bible against the Church. It just shows a fundamental problem in their theology. There is no reason the Bible should be inspired, and not the Church as well, since the canon of Scriptures was, for most of Church history, an open issue that was never defined.

People try to pit lots of things against the Church...Science, morality, and so on. It's a false dichotomy, in each case though.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

While others pretend that what their assembly says is the word of God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Remember that I’m defending a fairly moderate view of sola scriptura, according to which it is a norm. It should be used to test what we believe and do. But Christ left the keys to the Church. As I understand it, for Jews this is the power to interpret Torah, so it leaves us with the responsibility for interpreting and applying Scripture.

At to justification, look at Jesus’ practice. He uses Scripture, which he often called the law and the prophets, quite regularly in conflict with the Pharisees. In particular he used it to judge their traditions.

But there’s another issue. We claim to be followers of Jesus. How can we not want to base our faith on what he taught and did? Scripture is our only primary source for that. For the first few decades of the Church, there were people living who remembered him. But today, Scripture is the only significant source.

That’s not to devalue Christian experience, and all the thinking that has gone on since. But still, we should give precedence to Jesus’ own message and actions.

To the bolded, I don't think he judged their traditions as much as their hearts. He said that the did things outwardly, but that their hearts didn't mean what they said they did. Jesus said do not desire the first place at table, but to allow the host to invite you to the first place. He said they widen their philacteries and shorten their tassels, as a show of holiness rather than doing so in their heart.
Catholic Tradition, which is nothing about how we practice our faith, and is everything about what we mean when we practice it, is from the Holy Spirit and is tested before ever becoming part of Tradition.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Listen carefully to what the Apostle to the circumcision (Some claim he is the first Pope) says concerning the holy scriptures, and God's own voice..

Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[hedrick]

To the bolded, I don't think he judged their traditions as much as their hearts. He said that the did things outwardly, but that their hearts didn't mean what they said they did. Jesus said do not desire the first place at table, but to allow the host to invite you to the first place. He said they widen their philacteries and shorten their tassels, as a show of holiness rather than doing so in their heart.
Catholic Tradition, which is nothing about how we practice our faith, and is everything about what we mean when we practice it, is from the Holy Spirit and is tested before ever becoming part of Tradition.

Jesus had several disagreements with the Pharisees, but a major one resulted from their oral law, which was a traditional development that added many requirements. E.g. see Mat 15:2. Many scholars point out that the many requirements would have been nearly impossible for many ordinary Jews to carry out, that resulting in their being regarded as "sinners," a term often used in the NT. In many cases these sinners may well not have been grossly immoral people, but rather people excluded by the Pharisees' understanding of Torah.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Jesus had several disagreements with the Pharisees, but a major one resulted from their oral law, which was a traditional development that added many requirements. E.g. see Mat 15:2. Many scholars point out that the many requirements would have been nearly impossible for many ordinary Jews to carry out, that resulting in their being regarded as "sinners," a term often used in the NT. In many cases these sinners may well not have been grossly immoral people, but rather people excluded by the Pharisees' understanding of Torah.

Matthew 15:2 is exactly what I'm talking about. A show of holiness without the needed heart in the matter.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sola Scripture can easily be defined as letting GOD be true and all men be liars..

A church of one doesn't seem like much of a church. It seems more like someone full of pride and without the fruits of the Spirit.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If all men are liars, how do we know we can trust those who wrote the books of the Bible???

 

[ThatTrueLight]

A church of one doesn't seem like much of a church. It seems more like someone full of pride and without the fruits of the Spirit.

The Apostle to the Gentiles writes this to the church of God in Rome.. not to a single person.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

If all men are liars, how do we know we can trust those who wrote the books of the Bible???

Because they didn't write it, they scripted it under the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Men can recognize this.. even men who might be sent to apprehend the LORD.. they might come back and tell you that "Never a Man spake like this Man"..

 

[FireDragon76]

While others pretend that what their assembly says is the word of God.

Doesn't every church do this? I've heard some Protestant pastors act like the stuff in their sermons comes straight out of God's mouth.

The Apostle to the Gentiles writes this to the church of God in Rome.. not to a single person.

You miss my point. We have faith that the Holy Spirit helps us in the Church to discern God's will and to understand the Bible. This is a communal activity. You imply that it is not, that the words of the Bible are just self-evidential without the Spirit and the Church. Up until very recently, no Christian believed this.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

And if a person is born again by the incorruptible seed of the word of God, they tend to know it.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Doesn't every church do this? I've heard some Protestant pastors act like the stuff in their sermons comes straight out of God's mouth.

I'd imagine they're speaking of the scriptures they present.. because if ANY MAN speaks, he should speak the ORACLES of GOD.

You miss my point. We have faith that the Holy Spirit helps us in the Church to discern God's will and to understand the Bible. This is a communal activity. You imply that it is not, that the words of the Bible are just self-evidential without the Spirit and the Church. Up until very recently, no Christian believed this.

Without the Spirit?

I don't know where that came from.. every true Christian has the Spirit of Christ in them, and if not, then they're not His.