Explain sola scriptura to me

FireDragon76 said:

I'm not sure I understand the doctrine of sola scriptura. How is it not a recipe for religious individualism that undermines the very concept of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"? It seems a great many conservative, confessional churches deny that Scripture needs any authoritative interpreter or context (tradition) to understand it. And yet, if this were so, why couldn't Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists, and the hundreds of other Protestant sects agree on the "plain meaning of Scripture"?

Click to expand...

I understand that "sola scriptura" simply means that God's word has all we need in order to know how to be saved.

And one thing is "we who first trusted in Christ" (in Ephesians 1:12). So, trusting Jesus is a basic of salvation. But believing, alone, is not enough (James 2:19-20) > we need believing which has us trusting in Him and obeying Him (Matthew 11:28-30). And the Bible is full of things which can help us obey God.

Hebrews 13:17 says for us to obey those who rule over us > "for they watch out for your souls", it says. So, God has provided rulers whom He trusts > 1 Peter 5:3 < example leaders; so He expects us to know who these example rulers are and to obey their example. This is in the scriptures, I would say, and therefore included in "sola scripture" interpretation with obedience. But it seems some number of people can not tell the difference between a pastor of Jesus and a predator or con artist. But Jesus makes us able to tell the difference > John 10:1-30; Hebrews 5:14, Philippians 1:9 > in God's love we have "senses" which are trustworthy > the Bible says this > Hebrews 5:14. So, we do not go only by someone's education and say-so and outward behavior, because that is "appearance", and Jesus says not to judge by "appearance", in John 7:24; or else, we are not obeying what sola the scriptura says.

The Bible has standards for who is qualified just to be considered for ordination to "take care of the church of God" > 1 Timothy 3:1-10, Titus 1:4-9. And Paul had men who could tell the difference, I understand, if they could tell if someone is "blameless".

So, it is clear there are groups and individuals who are not doing what the Bible says, while they claim to be "sola scriptura".

By the way, Isaiah 55:11 says >

"'So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
. It shall not return to Me void,
. But it shall accomplish what I please,
. And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.'"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Isaiah 55:11)

So, I see, God's word is guaranteed to accomplish all that God pleases, which to me would mean all that God Himself means by His word. So, then, this does not depend on wrong people "getting" what God means!! He will make sure that His saved people do all He means by His word, as is possible with Him in us >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

So, whatsoever you read, that the Bible says to do, trust God to succeed in having us do this

FireDragon76 said:

Do you really think the Church Fathers understood the Eucharist as a mere bringing to mind of the things of Jesus? That's what I mean by "foreign ideas". Some of the elements of the Reformation are renaissance humanism and science superimposed over what the Bible says on the matter.

Click to expand...

I'm always dismayed that Jesus saying to do it in memory of Him is described as "mere".
I am routinely horrified at the respect of metaphor is considered a "foreign idea", regardless how orthodox.

FireDragon76 said: ↑
"I already answered it. The Bible is authoritative because it tells us about God, specifically Jesus Christ, and his saving deeds in the world, not because it is authoritative in itself.

The Bible is not Truth with a capital "T", that's nearing idolatry. Jesus Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life". The Bible tells us about him, but it itself is not "Truth"."

Your Response

ThatTrueLight said:

So is that a yes or a no?

To me it seems you're dancing around the simple question.

Click to expand...

----------------------------------------------------
So you demand straight answers?

-----------------------------------------------------
But when .......MoreCoffee said: ↑
"Here is the passage you requested.
These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
(1 Timothy 3:14-16 KJV)"

Your Response

ThatTrueLight said:

The body of Christ has one voice.. the WORD OF GOD, otherwise it doesn't have a voice. Speaking the TRUTH (Who is a Person) doesn't necessitate that the voice has complete understanding and knowledge of everything that God has to say.. even the Prophets didn't understand what they were writing most of the time as His voice speaks of all things, past, present, and future, since the foundation of the world.

Click to expand...

------------------------------------------------------------
So how about giving a straight answer as well as demanding one........

Is, or is not, "The church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."?
Yes or No?

You seem to evade this issue because of what might follow its acceptance........corrollaries such as "One, true Church"....."Truth found in the mind of the Church rather than the individual"......."Scripture requires interpretation by the mind of the Church"
And you seem to think this is an either/or issue as though Catholics/Orthodox/Anglicans were not equally called to a personal relationship with Christ in prayer, meditation, personal truth, and charitable works.

Rick Otto said:

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
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.

Click to expand...

Responses

(1)I referred in an earlier post to 2 Councils of carthage and one Council of Rome settling the Canon of The Bible and sending the lists to the Pope for approval.
All this is historical fact.
If you reject "The Mind of the Catholic Church" on the matter, is it because you have better ideas or insights as to which scriptures to include and reject?
Or do you accept their idea of.... canonizing certain early christian writings and adding them to Jewish scriptures (as a "bible").....but now have no further need of their authority?

(2) "Ministers" are (meant to be) "servants"

(3)The early church was catholic, and Catholic.
Detailed study of the Early Church has been the commonest trigger for numerous Protestant Theologians to become Catholic. They routinely discover that the Early Church was indeed much more Catholic, and much less Protestant, than they had imagined.
Of course it is not identical, no more than an acorn looks like an Oak. But it is the very oak that grew from that very acorn. That is its identity.
The only alternative, armed with this historical knowledge, is to propose a very early "great apostasy".
This has been done.
But a narrative where "Christ's Church fails; so it is re-kickstarted by a German monk 1200 years later" is implausible I think..... and unscriptural given Christ's guarantees to His Church.
God's intervention through His Son cannot fail....It is the new & everlasting covenant, for all peoples & nations, visibly one, as Christ prayed in John's Gospel.

wilts43 said:

Responses

(1)I referred in an earlier post to 2 Councils of carthage and one Council of Rome settling the Canon of The Bible and sending the lists to the Pope for approval.
All this is historical fact.
If you reject "The Mind of the Catholic Church" on the matter, is it because you have better ideas or insights as to which scriptures to include and reject?
Or do you accept their idea of.... canonizing certain early christian writings and adding them to Jewish scriptures (as a "bible").....but now have no further need of their authority?

(2) "Ministers" are (meant to be) "servants"

(3)The early church was catholic, and Catholic.
Detailed study of the Early Church has been the commonest trigger for numerous Protestant Theologians to become Catholic. They routinely discover that the Early Church was indeed much more Catholic, and much less Protestant, than they had imagined.
Of course it is not identical, no more than an acorn looks like an Oak. But it is the very oak that grew from that very acorn. That is its identity.
The only alternative, armed with this historical knowledge, is to propose a very early "great apostasy".
This has been done.
But a narrative where "Christ's Church fails; so it is re-kickstarted by a German monk 1200 years later" is implausible I think..... and unscriptural given Christ's guarantees to His Church.
God's intervention through His Son cannot fail....It is the new & everlasting covenant, for all peoples & nations, visibly one, as Christ prayed in John's Gospel.

Click to expand...

I don't care if there was a concuil every single day for the last ten thousand years telling me that the bible is the word of God.. that's not why it is the word of God to me. If that's the only reason it is the word of God to you then one more time, imo that's missing the forest for the trees.

The church of God is the pillar and ground of the truth as the scriptures plainly say, and that doesn't mean that your church knows all that there is to know about the truth. That's a lifetime worth of study and even then I highly doubt that any man is going to have God speed knowledge of everything that the bible says.

Here's what I consider a perfect scriptural example of the difference between what religious leaders of the day have to say as compared to those who have actually confronted the words of the Lord Jesus Christ..

{From JOHN 7}

Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.

Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?

Did you get that..

Then notice what the chief priests and Pharisees (the religious leaders of the day) say.. Are you also deceived?

They thought that they knew the truth, and were in fact the ones who were deceived.

IMO this is exactly how it remains today.. those who think that they're the pillar and ground of the truth are deceived, and those who have confronted Christ can only say in their heart and in their mind.. that No Man has ever spoken as THIS MAN speaks.

That's a perfect example of a sole Person speaking like nobody else.

His name is the Truth.

It's what He says, Period.

All else can be let go into the trash and considered lies.

NOW, watch the religious leaders of the Day say that His word alone (as contained in the holy scriptures, which are for ever settled in HEAVEN) , are not the only truth.

It MUST be what THEY say as well.

FireDragon76 said:

Except the Bible teaches that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. How, after all, do you know that the Church recognized the right books to put into your Bible? You think it simply fell from the sky?

If the Church is deceived, you have the wrong faith.

Click to expand...

I think that you just nailed it. You can't imagine the Church (which is actually the church of your imagination) being deceived.. that's exactly where the god of this world wants you to be.. without the slightest idea that you are.

All because men (who are not one bit different that any other man) told you so.

You'll come back with how your Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.. which is once again.. the one true church which the god of this world has erected in your mind

Even the Apostles were corrected by the LORD for thinking that they were doing what He wanted, and they were truly zealous to do it.. even ready to call down fire upon those who didn't receive Jesus as the Christ..

Think about it..

There are ALWAYS other forces in play that will have us all deceived before breakfast if we're not prayerful and careful in our daily walk with the Truth.

FireDragon76 said:

I don't believe any man is infallible (that's why I'm not Roman Catholic, I go to Lutheran and Episcopal churches). But the Church is not just a man or men, it is also the very life of the Spirit in the world as the Body of Christ. The Church cannot fail, because Jesus Christ gave his word to Peter that it would not. Even though the Church as an institution is made of sinful men and women who do make mistakes, it is not merely a human institution. Just as Christ has two natures, the Church also has the human and the divine. The humanity in it may be sinful and yet that doesn't mean that the Church can fail, anymore than Jesus taking upon himself fallen humanity made him sinful.

Click to expand...

I haven't said anything about the church of God failing. It has perfect standing in Christ and IS His bride to be, in that Day when He shall present it to Himself as the glorious church that it is, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing..

His body is a habitation of God through the SPIRIT and isn't bound by any men in the assemblies you mention.

ThatTrueLight said:

I don't care if there was a concuil every single day for the last ten thousand years telling me that the bible is the word of God.. that's not why it is the word of God to me. If that's the only reason it is the word of God to you then one more time, imo that's missing the forest for the trees.



The church of God is the pillar and ground of the truth as the scriptures plainly say, and that doesn't mean that your church knows all that there is to know about the truth. That's a lifetime worth of study and even then I highly doubt that any man is going to have God speed knowledge of everything that the bible says.

Click to expand...

Before you ever first picked up a Bible, to read it, you must have been told (by someone) that it contained the word of God? I think no person in our culture could come to the Bible ignorant of this claim?

I gather that, in reading it, this assertion you had already been told (by someone) became true for you, & personally significant.

Do you imagine that this aspect is any different for Catholic/Orthodox readers? It is not;it is just the same. So do not worry that we miss any trees for the forest.


But the subject of this thread is sola scriptura.

And just one of the many proofs of the impossibility of SS is that …... The list of scriptures, that qualify “scripture”, is not in scripture.......so “scripture” requires a external authority to define & compile this collection.

This was The Catholic Church. (Much later Luther “trimmed” the list for his followers.)

Thus the “Canon of scripture” (And what Authority selected it), is an absolutely core question....... directly pertinent to the Thread Subject.

So, the ability to squarely address this issue, in no way implies a lesser (or less personally significant) relationship with God's word.
A greater understanding of how the Bible came to be, does not mean a lesser appreciation of it!

(And ignorance of its history does not bestow a closer relationship to it)

When a Catholic/Orthodox/Apostolic Christian reads the Bible they read it as The Word of God....personally significant, but also as “The Library of the formative writings of God's Church selected with Apostolic authority”. They read it for themselves, but as members of the Church, and humbly cognisant of the mind of the church, as well as their own individual feelings & thoughts.

I think this is not only more scriptural, it is more balanced.

--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Church as The pillar & ground of truth...........

How many Church's has God started?

wilts43 said:

Do you imagine that this aspect is any different for Catholic/Orthodox readers? It is not;it is just the same. So do not worry that we miss any trees for the forest.

Click to expand...

If it were the same, the last thing out of your mouth would be that your one true church produced it and decided that it was right.. It would be much more centered around something like.. Never a Man spake like THIS MAN.

And you're trying to tell me that your church made sure it was ok?

God told us already, long before the church existed, that His word IS for ever settled in HEAVEN, and those who are born of its incorruptible seed know that internally, not because His All Holiness or one of his councils said so.

And guess WHO preserved THAT for us Christians today?

The nation of ISRAEL.

ThatTrueLight said:

Here's what I consider a perfect scriptural example of the difference between what religious leaders of the day have to say as compared to those who have actually confronted the words of the Lord Jesus Christ..


{From JOHN 7}


Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.


Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?


Did you get that..


Then notice what the chief priests and Pharisees (the religious leaders of the day) say.. Are you also deceived?


They thought that they knew the truth, and were in fact the ones who were deceived.


IMO this is exactly how it remains today.. those who think that they're the pillar and ground of the truth are deceived, and those who have confronted Christ can only say in their heart and in their mind.. that No Man has ever spoken as THIS MAN speaks.

Click to expand...

And Catholics say, depending on their personal knowledge of God, "No Man has ever spoken as THIS MAN speaks". And they can also assert, just as easily, that a Protestant is in the position of falsely believing themselves to be the truth, as there is certainly no lack of strongly professed beliefs, sometimes at odds with each other incidentally, on this forum. Christ's words BTW, the way He spoke, are the reason I became Christian.

Anyway, any individual, whether a religious leader or not, can have “pharisaical” tendencies, pride/self-righteousness being a very human universal fault. But there’s absolutely no reason to presume that the Church, whether Catholic or otherwise, just because they’re in a position of religious leadership, cannot-and should not, in fact- hold correct understanding of the gospel and teach it as such. The following is a paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, referencing Matt 7:29, a passage related in meaning to John 7:46:

581 The Jewish people and their spiritual leaders viewed Jesus as a rabbi. He often argued within the framework of rabbinical interpretation of the Law. Yet Jesus could not help but offend the teachers of the Law, for he was not content to propose his interpretation alongside theirs but taught the people "as one who had authority, and not as their scribes". In Jesus, the same Word of God that had resounded on Mount Sinai to give the written Law to Moses, made itself heard anew on the Mount of the Beatitudes. Jesus did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it by giving its ultimate interpretation in a divine way: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old. . . But I say to you. . ." With this same divine authority, he disavowed certain human traditions of the Pharisees that were "making void the word of God".