Explain sola scriptura to me

Catherineanne · May 30, 2015

wilts43 said:
I really don't think you are facing the question. Let me try again...........

The writer of Romans was writing ABOUT scripture (& its insufficiency).
i.e. HE (Paul) was not actually "writing scripture" (to his awareness at least)

It is an inescapable historical fact that it was councils of Catholic bishops that raised this letter to "inspired status" by adding it to the canon of scripture that Paul knew & refers to. (Paul knew nothing of this)
The whole Church accepted this Canon of Scripture (now known as "The Bible") on the apostolic authority of these councils of bishops (which sent their conclusions to the pope for approval).
--------------------------------------
So,..
(1)Apart from the fact that SS is not in scripture (failing its own requirement),
(2)And it is contradicted in scripture. (Citations above)
(3)"Scripture" (as which scriptures?) is not defined within scripture.
It has to be defined by an external authority (so no SOLA scripture).
This external authority was the Catholic Bishops;
Over a millenium later Luther deselected some (on what authority I know not).
Some would like to add others (eg Gnostics or Mormons)

This is correct.

The Scripture that Paul refers to is the Torah; what we would regard as the Old Testament, although it may not have been exactly as we know it because the Torah was not quite fixed at that point either.

Paul would expect his letters to be read and valued. He would not expect them to eventually have equal status with Isaiah and the Psalms.

billover70 · May 30, 2015

After 13 pages of comments, the matter is settled... The Pharisees have spoken (with some dissent from the Sadducees)....

But then we might consider that one fellow who said, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel"...And another time he elucidated, "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me... my yoke is easy and my burden is light"... He must have been pretty arrogant to challenge the authority of the organization of those learned fellows....

Well, he did not really say that exactly, because he did not speak Elizabethan English... That would be another discussion for another 13 pages.

Albion · May 30, 2015

FireDragon76 said:
You know very well that's not what I believe.

No, actually I don't. But if you think it's inaccurate, I welcome your comment here about that.

mmksparbud · May 30, 2015

billover70 said:
After 13 pages of comments, the matter is settled... The Pharisees have spoken (with some dissent from the Sadducees)....

But then we might consider that one fellow who said, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel"...And another time he elucidated, "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me... my yoke is easy and my burden is light"... He must have been pretty arrogant to challenge the authority of the organization of those learned fellows....

Well, he did not really say that exactly, because he did not speak Elizabethan English... That would be another discussion for another 13 pages.

--He sometimes referred to those pillars as whited sepulchers!

MoreCoffee · May 30, 2015

billover70 said:
After 13 pages of comments, the matter is settled... The Pharisees have spoken (with some dissent from the Sadducees)....

But then we might consider that one fellow who said, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel"...And another time he elucidated, "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me... my yoke is easy and my burden is light"... He must have been pretty arrogant to challenge the authority of the organization of those learned fellows....

Well, he did not really say that exactly, because he did not speak Elizabethan English... That would be another discussion for another 13 pages.

One more post to add to the pages of other posts ... how exactly does the above post clarify any of the matters raised in the original post?

Albion · May 30, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. The church reveals the truth to the world and those who hear it, believe it, and obey it become part of the Church. The truth is mediated through the Church. Even the scriptures are mediated through the Church. Bibles, in the last few centuries (19th, 20th, and 21st so far), have been available from commercial publishers but they received the text from the Church even if it was received a long time ago from the perspective of one human life time. Thus the church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Ah so. We have a denomination here by that very title (cumbersome as it might be to use in ordinary conversation!), so by the logic of some contributors on CF, it must be the "one true church" and the only one God likes.

MoreCoffee · May 30, 2015

Albion said:
Ah so. We have a denomination here by that very title (cumbersome as it might be to use in ordinary conversation!), so by the logic of some contributors on CF, it must be the "one true church" and the only one God likes.

What does your post mean? It doesn't appear to be even vaguely related to the post to which it purported to be a reply.

Rick Otto · May 30, 2015

Catherineanne said:
This is correct.

The Scripture that Paul refers to is the Torah; what we would regard as the Old Testament, although it may not have been exactly as we know it because the Torah was not quite fixed at that point either.

Paul would expect his letters to be read and valued. He would not expect them to eventually have equal status with Isaiah and the Psalms.

Certainly not by the Jews, add to that his news was about fulfillment of Isaiah and Psalms.
Absolutely he knew what the status of his teaching was, regardless of the amount and nature of hypocritical esteem the religious establishment indulged.

ThatTrueLight · May 30, 2015

Catherineanne said:
Indeed so. Sorry about that, but it is indeed the case; what is part of the canon of Scripture and what is not was decided by the Church. And then re-decided at the Reformation.

In both cases this is a decision made about what is and what is not Scripture, made by something other than Scripture. The Bible does not define itself; it is defined in relation to decisions of the Church.

The holy scriptures themselves are self defining and without limit as to their ability to speak to the human heart and mind. They're living and powerful, not some product of men in an assembly. The Psalms themselves tell us plainly that the word of the LORD is for ever settled in HEAVEN, not on earth, and certainly not by men.

If a man or men needed to tell you that, rather than you knowing that in your heart and mind, that it is indeed the living and powerful word of God.. then as mentioned, I would question whether or not that is considered being born again by the incorruptible seed of the word of God, which does live and abide for ever.

wilts43 · May 30, 2015

ThatTrueLight said:
All that you're highlighting here is that you can't see the word of God for what it is.. you need a guy to tell you that it is.. which is imo missing the entire galaxy for the planet type thing.

(1)You wouldn't have "A Bible" at all;.... to read or talk about (or in which "to see the Word-of-God"), ....had it not been selected & compiled by the Catholic Councils I have mentioned.
Where is your acknowledgement and gratitude?

Rather you take all this "for granted"..... and then act as if "The Bible" (Luther's or catholic ??) were dropped from heaven into your hands........then moving swiftly on to assert "sola scriptura" ....which is really "sola me & my interpretation"!

(2)You seem to assert that "The Word of God", (in any & every scripture), is "obvious to all"!
Did you look at the incredible list of rejected "Gospels & Acts" I supplied above.......,let alone manifold other scriptures, rejected on the authority of the early Catholic Church.
Have you ploughed through all of these for yourself to decide which is "The Word of God" (Ie test each for yourself ....in order to "take no other man's word for it")
Have you read Indian, Islamic, Mormon & every other scripture ....to know that it is in someway "obviously" different & inferior?
Apostolic Christians don't need to do all this because they accept the Bible (as selected) on the authority of the catholic church.

(3)You say "All that you're highlighting here is that you (I) can't see the word of God for what it is"
What on earth does this mean?
Am I blind because I don't see only within the same circumscribed view (of "scripture") as yourself?

All "I have actually highlighted here" is the manifold & manifest unworkability & unsustainability of "Sola Scriptura".
You have given no answers, & even want "to shoot the questioner".... Your last resort is to fly away "to be above responding to such as me"
But this is a flight from truth.
Truth fears no question,.... from any source.

FireDragon76 · May 30, 2015

Albion said:
No, actually I don't. But if you think it's inaccurate, I welcome your comment here about that.

I don't consider the Church Fathers infallible. But I do think they teach the apostolic faith, especially when they speak with a consensus.

Rick Otto · May 30, 2015

wilts43 said:
(1)You wouldn't have "A Bible" at all, to read or talk about (or in which "to see the Word-of-God"), ....were it not selected & compiled by the Catholic Councils I have mentioned.
You take all this "for granted"..... and then act as if "The Bible" (Luther's or catholic ??) were dropped from heaven into your hands........then moving on to assert "sola scriptura" ....which is really "sola me & my interpretation"!

(2)You act as if "The Word of God", in every scripture, was "obvious to all"!
Did you look at the incredible list of rejected "Gospels & Acts" I supplied above.......let alone manifold other scriptures rejected on the authority of the early Catholic Church.
Have you ploughed through all of these to decide which is "The Word of God" (Ie test each for yourself ....in order to "take no other man's word for it")
Have you read Indian, Islamic, Mormon & every other scripture ....to know that it is in someway "obviously" different & inferior.

(3)You say "All that you're highlighting here is that you can't see the word of God for what it is"
What on earth does this mean?
Am I blind because I don't see only within the same circumscribed view (of "scripture") as yourself?

All "I have actually highlighted here" is the manifold & manifest unworkability & unsustainability of "Sola Scriptura".
You have given no answers, & even want "to shoot the questioner".... Your last resort is to fly away "to be above responding to such as me"
But this is a flight from truth.
Truth fears no question,.... from any source.

1. You act as if there was only one council and one Canon, and as if that was itself an inspired act.
2. You act as if Peter said we were not to be a nation of kings and priests, but a nation of servants and laymen.
You ask as if we don't measure what we plough through against scripture, and as if its truths are not linked in support, and as if we don't pray for Holy Spirit guidance.
Yes, I have much but not all of the Baghivad Gita, A Work and A Wonder, The Book of Mormon, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and a few more. Have you?
I read the bible cover to cover 7 times and have done many word and topic studies as well as casual browsing and prayerful seeking.
The early church may have been catholic, but it wasn't Catholic.

seekingsolace · May 30, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. (John 14:6-7 KJV)

Christians are content to know Jesus and him crucified.

I would certainly hope so, this being the basis of faith and salvation.

seekingsolace · May 30, 2015

wilts43 said:
Have you ploughed through all of these for yourself to decide which is "The Word of God" (Ie test each for yourself ....in order to "take no other man's word for it")
Apostolic Christians don't need to do all this because they accept the Bible (as selected) on the authority of the catholic church.

Unfortunate that rather than studying in search of understanding and absolute truth, you are content to be led - blindly on your part. Every individual has the responsibility to work out their salvation, there is no excuse before God of 'I assumed it was right'. Do you consider the Holy Spirit as naught? After studying and prayer if your conscience testifies to truth, surely there is no condemnation. Faith stands not in the wisdom of men, but the power of God.

I find it shocking that regardless of a view to the validity of SS, Christ and the apostles teachings are regarded as trivial. This being apparent in many of the replies.

To what authority did the earliest writers base their works on? What do you refute, exhort and validate experiences and heresy from, other than Scriptures. Spiritual experiences mean nothing unless discerned, hence profound warnings against such deceptions. Gifts are bestowed freely to the Body, not to a select few.

Scriptures are what outline the necessary requirements for Godly living and salvation. The Church has it's place for edification and the building up of the Body of believers, not as the replacement for Christ.

Standing Up · May 30, 2015

wilts43 said:
But anyway, take your first example (Romans 3)
"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe".

The "Law (Torah) & the Prophets" = "Scripture" (as known to Paul at the time)

So the writer states........that God acts outside of "scripture's limits".
("Scripture" was insufficient!)
i.e. Scripture only bears witness to god's action; it does not limit it. (As Catholicism teaches)

Yet you treat Paul's comments, on the limitations (insufficiency) of what he understood as "scripture", ...... as not only additional "scripture"...... but as saying "scripture alone!"

Do you even know what Paul is talking about?

FireDragon76 · May 30, 2015

seekingsolace said:
The Church has it's place for edification and the building up of the Body of believers, not as the replacement for Christ.

I see that as a false dichotomy. Christ is where the Church is. No Christ, no Church.

seekingsolace · May 30, 2015

FireDragon76 said:
I see that as a false dichotomy. Christ is where the Church is. No Christ, no Church.

To which, universal or visible Church? Christ is Head of both, although certain individuals seem to think otherwise.

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Albion · May 30, 2015

FireDragon76 said:
I don't consider the Church Fathers infallible. But I do think they teach the apostolic faith, especially when they speak with a consensus.

But that's just the problem--or one of them. They almost always are not used in that way. Let one or two of them (often centuries after the close of the Apostolic age) say something that appears to be in agreement and, voila!, it is used by the church and also by commentators on such forums as this one as "proof" positive that "the Early Church Fathers" or the Apostolic Church believed this or that.

This not only doesn't represent any consensus, but it also violates the standards that are supposed to be used when determining anything by "Tradition."

FireDragon76 · May 30, 2015

That may be true. Sometimes the Fathers do not have one opinion. For instance, Augustine doesn't say the same thing about the Eucharist as many of the Eastern Fathers, who seem to suggest something more like Transubstantiation (that the bread ceases to be bread). And Cyprian and Augustine do not agree about whether sacraments, using the proper matter and form, are found outside the canonical bounds of the Church. But you can look at the Fathers and tell some ideas, ones that appeared after the Reformation, are not found in their thought and are quite foreign to their mindset. So they are useful for excluding some things.

Albion · May 30, 2015

FireDragon76 said:
That may be true. Sometimes the Fathers do not have one opinion. For instance, Augustine doesn't say the same thing about the Eucharist as many of the Eastern Fathers, who seem to suggest something more like Transubstantiation (that the bread ceases to be bread). Either way, you can look at the Fathers and tell some ideas, ones that appeared after the Reformation, are not found in their thought and are quite foreign to their mindset. So they are useful for excluding some things.

You have a point there, but the part I've bolded simply is not true.

Explain sola scriptura to me

Well-Known Member

New Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Repentance works.

Facilitator

Repentance works.

The Dude Abides

John 1:9

Newbie

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

Bah

Bah

On and on

Well-Known Member

Bah

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Similar threads