SOLA SCRIPTURA is not biblical...

sculleywr said:

Either DEFINE THE TERM OR STOP FALSELY ACCUSING ME OF USING A WRONG TERM. Get it?

Click to expand...

Well, you defined it yourself a few posts back, but the problem is that every time you swing into attack mode you fall back upon a false rendition of what it means. It's not about HOW to interpret Scripture. It's not about WHO does the interpreting. It's not even about the particular interpretation.

If you were to stick to the real meaning, there would probably not be this problem. On the other hand, I recognize that if you were to do that you'd be without any of the usual (but inaccurate) line of attack that you think help your cause in debate.

Be that as it may, I will not "play along" with a false charge just because I'm being taunted. Get it? If you do, we can continue.

Albion said:

Well, you defined it yourself a few posts back, but the problem is that every time you swing into attack mode you fall back upon a false rendition of what it means. It's not about HOW to interpret Scripture. It's not about WHO does the interpreting. It's not even about the particular interpretation.

If you were to stick to the real meaning, there would probably not be this problem. On the other hand, I recognize that if you were to do that you'd be without any of the usual (but inaccurate) line of attack that you think help your cause in debate.

Be that as it may, I will not "play along" with a false charge just because I'm being taunted. Get it? If you do, we can continue.

Click to expand...

Define or leave. The very definition had to do with the authority. And the attack is on that. You're dodging the attack. Either respond or don't. Sola Scriptura IS a method of interpreting the Scripture, whether you like it or not. It is a tradition created by men in the fifteenth century. It assumes the following falsities:

1. There was always an understood canon of Scripture. Historically, the canon of Scripture is 300 years younger than the Church at the earliest, and there was not widespread agreement on any of the letters in the first 100 years of the Church. That's 300 years where you couldn't just flip your Bibles open to Psalms because there wasn't even agreement on what should be IN the Bible. Like it or not, that is the most logical conclusion BASED ON EVIDENCE RATHER THAN THE FANCIFUL INVENTIONS YOU'VE GIVEN.

2. The Bible is clear, or the clear passages interpret the unclear passages. As there is no definite list on which passages are to be considered "clear", the second statement basically gives laissez faire clearance to make it up as you go. Roman Catholics can run into the same problem when it comes to Ex Cathedra definitions, because there is no list of which Papal statements are to be considered Ex Cathedra. As to the first, exhibit A against the idea that the Bible is clear would be the entire book of Revelations.

3. The Bible presents itself as the highest AUTHORITY. The Bible does not do this. It gives itself many high praises, but not a position of overarching authority over everything.

sculleywr said:

Define or leave. The very definition had to do with the authority. And the attack is on that. You're dodging the attack.

Either respond or don't. Sola Scriptura IS a method of interpreting the Scripture, whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

OK, your confirmation of not knowing what you're talking about does help. But it leaves nowhere for the discussion to go.

As the saying goes: "a mind persuaded against its' will is of the same opinion still"; so, we can leave the ceremonial and ritual people with hierarchy leaders on one hand, and the Bible-only believers on the other, and God will judge us all one day.

sculleywr said:

That's 300 years where you couldn't just flip your Bibles open to Psalms because there wasn't even agreement on what should be IN the Bible.

Click to expand...

Hmm.....
I guess the Bereans were in trouble then or the Bible is stating a falsehood. Which is it?

YLT
Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately, through the night, sent forth both Paul and Silas to Berea, who having come, went to the synagogue of the Jews;
Act 17:11 and these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, they received the word with all readiness of mind, every day examining the Writings whether those things were so;
Act 17:12 many, indeed, therefore, of them did believe, and of the honourable Greek women and men not a few.


The church has the authority to decide what the Hebrew OT included? I don't think so.

sculleywr said:

Ummm...Which Thesaurus are you reading again? No they do not, in any logical sense of the word. Just because something is pure and true does not make it COMPLETE. And COMPLETENESS is necessary for one to be the HIGHEST authority. Scripture isn't the highest authority just because you make an imaginary goalpost to kick through. Now get out there


Either DEFINE THE TERM OR STOP FALSELY ACCUSING ME OF USING A WRONG TERM. Get it? Got it? Good. I'm using Martin Luther's definition and the modern definition which is easily accessible and written in VERY CLEAR TERMS. Now either stop waffling and directly PROVE that I'm not attacking YOUR definition of Sola Scriptura by actually defining it, or drop it because you're going nowhere. As I said earlier, I will not engage you on the topic until you do that very freaking easy task.

And to be frank, it is insulting to think you're so superior that you don't have to define the terms when you're constantly going on about the definition being wrong. Get off that high horse and get down here with us peasants

Click to expand...

You were accused of using a wrong term??? Don't think that is so...believe this is an attempt to communicate better, to get at the core of the issue between us, give us better understanding on both sides the issue as to just what is being misunderstood, misrepresented and sadly, rejected.

Albion said:

OK, your confirmation of not knowing what you're talking about does help. But it leaves nowhere for the discussion to go.

Click to expand...

Considering that I pretty much quoted the definition of Sola Scriptura given by seminaries in the largest denomination of Protestants in America, if you don't define YOUR VIEW OF SOLA SCRIPTURA AS HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH AUTHORITY, then you can't complain. It isn't YOUR view. You don't own it. If you want to debate your view, then post what it is. Otherwise, since I'm arguing against the popularly presented view and you're the ONLY Protestant making a claim that I'm not arguing against SS, you're contributing absolute zero to the discussion.

Like I said, either define and EXPLAIN how I'm not addressing your view of SS, or stop complaining about it. You're the worst type of critic. Nobody here knows what view you're advocating because you don't define it. Therefore, I'm addressing the POPULAR view. You don't hold to the POPULAR view OR the Classical view, therefore if you want your view addressed, you can either post it here, or else go elsewhere. Either way, you're not going to get your view addressed by playing this "hard to get" game. I've asked you several times to give an explicit definition and show that it doesn't have to do with authority and show COMPELLING evidence that it could be practiced prior to the canon of Scripture. You haven't done that at all. Don't like me addressing something other than what you believe? POST YOUR BELIEF.

Hank77 said:

Hmm.....
I guess the Bereans were in trouble then or the Bible is stating a falsehood. Which is it?

YLT
Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately, through the night, sent forth both Paul and Silas to Berea, who having come, went to the synagogue of the Jews;
Act 17:11 and these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, they received the word with all readiness of mind, every day examining the Writings whether those things were so;
Act 17:12 many, indeed, therefore, of them did believe, and of the honourable Greek women and men not a few.


The church has the authority to decide what the Hebrew OT included? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

The statement you quoted was stating that you couldn't pick up a book, look in the Table of Contents, and open the book to page 367 to the beginning of the book of Psalms. In order to read from the Psalms, you had to go into the chamber in the tabernacle wherein the scrolls were kept, and locate the specific scroll that contained the specific passages you needed. That is what they were doing. And the Bereans likely only had a few dozen scrolls. As far out as the Bereans were from Jerusalem, the likelihood that they had the entire Old Testament at hand was unlikely, especially considering that they were calling them the "writings", and not "the Law and the Prophets". This is further evidence that they didn't have the entire Old Testament with them.

Besides all this, there was a hot debate over the canonicity of the Greek texts at the time. And there were two end results, depending on whether you follow those debates in the Christian Church, where the Greek Septuagint became the first Canon of the Old Testament (yes, including the portions Protestants leave out), or in the post-temple-worship Jewish community, wherein the Masoretic canon became the norm about 200 years AFTER the Christians settled on the Greek.

The point is that if you don't know what books belong in the Bible precisely, you can't live by Sola Scriptura.

The second point against Sola Scriptura is that if you don't have ACCESS to the Scriptures, whether because of linguistic barriers, or because the texts simply aren't there, then you are unable to live by way of Sola Scriptura.

The third point is that because Scripture is a text requiring interpretation, and interpretation can radically alter how you understand Scripture, that interpretation method is a tradition that stands in authority over Scripture. The real choice, therefore, is which tradition you will choose, because nobody can live by the precepts of Sola Scriptura purely. There will always be a tradition over your Scripture. The canon is one, and your systematic theology, catechism, pope, or Church Tradition is another.

In the end, Sola Scriptura is an unpracticeable doctrine in its pure form, meaning nobody reads simply the plain sense meaning of Scripture. There is no agreed upon idea what that plain sense IS.

throughfireytrial said:

You were accused of using a wrong term??? Don't think that is so...believe this is an attempt to communicate better, to get at the core of the issue between us, give us better understanding on both sides the issue as to just what is being misunderstood, misrepresented and sadly, rejected.

Click to expand...

The statement I'm rejecting is the doctrine that the Scripture is the highest authority in the Church. I'm stating that the Scripture doesn't give itself that position, and that such a position is impossible to live by CHURCH WIDE in a world where access to the Scriptures was as limited as it was in the early Church, meaning that one must believe God to be quite capricious and also deceptive, since He says "my burden is light". In reality, if His burden requires one to live by the tenets of Sola Scriptura in absence of written documents, then his burden isn't just heavy, but impossible.

1watchman said:

As the saying goes: "a mind persuaded against its' will is of the same opinion still"; so, we can leave the ceremonial and ritual people with hierarchy leaders on one hand, and the Bible-only believers on the other, and God will judge us all one day.

Click to expand...

The problem is that doing that is the opposite of what Christ called us to do. He wants us to strive for unity, which means we have to be real and honest with each other, and we have to be willing to tackle these issues.

In all honesty, it would be best if we threw the leaders of every denomination into one place and told them they weren't allowed to leave until they came out with a definition of Christianity, but in reality that would only create yet another denomination because this world loves its relativism too much.

sculleywr said:

The statement you quoted was stating that you couldn't pick up a book, look in the Table of Contents, and open the book to page 367 to the beginning of the book of Psalms. In order to read from the Psalms, you had to go into the chamber in the tabernacle wherein the scrolls were kept, and locate the specific scroll that contained the specific passages you needed. That is what they were doing. And the Bereans likely only had a few dozen scrolls. As far out as the Bereans were from Jerusalem, the likelihood that they had the entire Old Testament at hand was unlikely, especially considering that they were calling them the "writings", and not "the Law and the Prophets". This is further evidence that they didn't have the entire Old Testament with them.

Besides all this, there was a hot debate over the canonicity of the Greek texts at the time. And there were two end results, depending on whether you follow those debates in the Christian Church, where the Greek Septuagint became the first Canon of the Old Testament (yes, including the portions Protestants leave out), or in the post-temple-worship Jewish community, wherein the Masoretic canon became the norm about 200 years AFTER the Christians settled on the Greek.

The point is that if you don't know what books belong in the Bible precisely, you can't live by Sola Scriptura.

The second point against Sola Scriptura is that if you don't have ACCESS to the Scriptures, whether because of linguistic barriers, or because the texts simply aren't there, then you are unable to live by way of Sola Scriptura.

The third point is that because Scripture is a text requiring interpretation, and interpretation can radically alter how you understand Scripture, that interpretation method is a tradition that stands in authority over Scripture. The real choice, therefore, is which tradition you will choose, because nobody can live by the precepts of Sola Scriptura purely. There will always be a tradition over your Scripture. The canon is one, and your systematic theology, catechism, pope, or Church Tradition is another.

In the end, Sola Scriptura is an unpracticeable doctrine in its pure form, meaning nobody reads simply the plain sense meaning of Scripture. There is no agreed upon idea what that plain sense IS.

Click to expand...

You must not have read all of the Scriptures to have come up with that deduction. Churches everywhere are set up according to the system described in the N.T. and are governed by Scripture. What traditions are set up must be governed by Scripture, that is they must not be considered sin to abstain from their practice and they must not contradict Scripture.
To say that as John 17:17 states we are sanctified by the Word and yes, even brought to faith by the Word, made His by the Word and the Holy Spirit working with that Word is to say it governs us absolutely. It rules us. They Word is a light to my path.
People are judged Matthew says by what is given them...that's what of the knowledge of the Word they are given, not what of their traditions are bestowed upon them.
The church can become corrupt...I already cited the II Thessalonians passage of the ultimate corruption that will happen, but we can see from Timothy that leaders are subject to sin and need correction when sinning...it is the precious Word which tells us when and where they/we have strayed. I could go on, but I think you get the message.

throughfireytrial said:

You must not have read all of the Scriptures to have come up with that deduction. Churches everywhere are set up according to the system described in the N.T. and are governed by Scripture. What traditions are set up must be governed by Scripture, that is they must not be considered sin to abstain from their practice and they must not contradict Scripture.
To say that as John 17:17 states we are sanctified by the Word and yes, even brought to faith by the Word, made His by the Word and the Holy Spirit working with that Word is to say it governs us absolutely. It rules us. They Word is a light to my path.
People are judged Matthew says by what is given them...that's what of the knowledge of the Word they are given, not what of their traditions are bestowed upon them.
The church can become corrupt...I already cited the II Thessalonians passage of the ultimate corruption that will happen, but we can see from Timothy that leaders are subject to sin and need correction when sinning...it is the precious Word which tells us when and where they/we have strayed. I could go on, but I think you get the message.

Click to expand...

No. I used common sense and read the writings of Christians that actually lived then instead of the assumptions made by Protestants. The New Testament never advocates a Sola Scriptura approach. That is a fact. The plain sense does not place Scripture as the highest authority. And IF IT DID, then the Apostles FAILED MISERABLY.

Not a SINGLE disciple of the Apostles advocated Sola Scriptura.

Did you happen to read literally three verses after the passage you quoted in II Thessalonians? Where Paul COMMANDS oral AND written Tradition be followed?

The message you gives assumes everyone had equal access to Scripture AND that the Church placed ultimate authority in the Scriptures.

They didn't even know what BELONGED in Scripture. They didn't have equal access to Scriptures (math problem, divide hundreds of incomplete copies of the Scriptures by hundreds of thousands of Christians). And they didn't place ultimate authority in Scripture, because the Scriptures we do have state that the CHURCH is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. It is quite telling that Paul tells Timothy about the authority of the Church BEFORE the Scripture. It's not until the second letter that he speaks about Scripture.

bigsurfer63 said:

typical prot attitude by refusing to watch a simple lil video that might make u think a lil……yikes

Click to expand...

Just a thought also in Scripture there are many references to following traditions and the words spoken to the deciples by Jesus, they did what he told them to do and how to do it. Before it was written down. That is oral tradition and followed until it was written down. I just don't see why Christians from all denominations have a problem with following traditions.

throughfireytrial said:

You must not have read all of the Scriptures to have come up with that deduction. Churches everywhere are set up according to the system described in the N.T. and are governed by Scripture. What traditions are set up must be governed by Scripture, that is they must not be considered sin to abstain from their practice and they must not contradict Scripture.
To say that as John 17:17 states we are sanctified by the Word and yes, even brought to faith by the Word, made His by the Word and the Holy Spirit working with that Word is to say it governs us absolutely. It rules us. They Word is a light to my path.
People are judged Matthew says by what is given them...that's what of the knowledge of the Word they are given, not what of their traditions are bestowed upon them.
The church can become corrupt...I already cited the II Thessalonians passage of the ultimate corruption that will happen, but we can see from Timothy that leaders are subject to sin and need correction when sinning...it is the precious Word which tells us when and where they/we have strayed. I could go on, but I think you get the message.

Click to expand...

Well said.
If there is a tradition that is not supported by the Scriptures then it is not necessarily.
Jesus pointed this out to the Jews that their hand washings were just a manmade tradition. These hand washings were not commanded anywhere in the OT scriptures. They were traditions of men.

Paul1963 said:

Just a thought also in Scripture there are many references to following traditions and the words spoken to the deciples by Jesus, they did what he told them to do and how to do it. Before it was written down. That is oral tradition and followed until it was written down. I just don't see why Christians from all denominations have a problem with following traditions.

Click to expand...

There are traditions that are supported by the writings of the Apostles and there are traditions that are not.
I think we see the Bible very differently. I believe that God has preserved His Word (the Word of God) in the form He chose to. That He has protected it and kept it for us. Therefore, we can trust what it says and live by what it says.

Rom_10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Eph_6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Heb_4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

For instance, where does it say in the NT that one must confess their sins to their pastor/priest. It doesn't, therefore this is something that certain Church leaders developed over time, for whatever reasons. I not saying that it is a bad thing to do just that it is not necessary for ones salvation or that if one does not do so they are disobeying God. Not one Apostle ever said you must confess your sins to me or to anyone else they put in charged and there isn't one example of that ever being done. If it were that important surely God would have seen that, that rule was preserved in His Word.

Hank77 said:

For instance, where does it say in the NT that one must confess their sins to their pastor/priest. It doesn't, therefore this is something that certain Church leaders developed over time, for whatever reasons.

Click to expand...

But it's not that simple. The New Testament certainly records Christ as giving the power to forgive sins to mortals, presumably to his church. He said this to the Apostles, do the issue could be over whether this is obligatory for anyone...or it could center upon how the church is to go about administering this authority...but it's much too simple just to say that it's something that the church developed over time as though it has no Biblical support (if that was the intention).

I not saying that it is a bad thing to do just that it is not necessary for ones salvation or that if one does not do so they are disobeying God. Not one Apostle ever said you must confess your sins to me or to anyone else they put in charged and there isn't one example of that ever being done. If it were that important surely God would have seen that, that rule was preserved in His Word.

Click to expand...

Well, as I noted above, it WAS preserved in His Word.

Where dose it sat anything in Scripture that it is Scripture alone for salvation.
Answer nowhere. But it dose talk about following traditions and the words of God

Paul1963 said:

Where dose it sat anything in Scripture that it is Scripture alone for salvation.

Click to expand...

Has someone said that to you? I don't know anyone who does say that Scripture brings salvation or anything like that. It's a strange kind of comment, actually.

Albion said:

But it's not that simple. The New Testament certainly records Christ as giving the power to forgive sins to mortals, presumably to his church. He said this to the Apostles, do the issue could be over whether this is obligatory for anyone...or it could center upon how the church is to go about administering this authority...but it's much too simple just to say that it's something that the church developed over time as though it has no Biblical support (if that was the intention).



Well, as I noted above, it WAS preserved in His Word.

Click to expand...

I presume you are talking about John 20:23. In context, what sin is Jesus referring to and how are they forgiven?
Joh 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Joh 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

What did He send them and us to do, preach the Gospel message of the Cross and forgiveness of sin by believing the Gospel. So yes we can say ones sins are forgiven when they believe. Not because we are the ones actually forgiving their sins, or determining if they should be forgiven. Only God can forgive sin. But we can pronounce with all confidence that their sins are forgiven when they believe. If they deny the Gospel we can say their sins are retained, not forgiven.
We can also say to someone that if they are truly repentant (that they have come into agreement with Christ), that their sins are forgiven, just like the man who repented of his affair with his father's wife.
Anyone of us can do that, it is not something that is reserved for pastors/priests. So that is why I say that the tradition of confessing to one particular person in an assembly developed over time, for whatever reason.
Jesus is the only Mediator between us and the Father.

Albion said:

But it's not that simple. The New Testament certainly records Christ as giving the power to forgive sins to mortals, presumably to his church. He said this to the Apostles, do the issue could be over whether this is obligatory for anyone...or it could center upon how the church is to go about administering this authority...but it's much too simple just to say that it's something that the church developed over time as though it has no Biblical support (if that was the intention).
Well, as I noted above, it WAS preserved in His Word.

Click to expand...

We have I Corinthians 5 to show us how the "keys" for forgiveness of sins by the church were used. Furthermore we have
James 5:15-16:
15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

James (above) shows us it is not necessary to confess to a church leader, any member is indicated. To further complicate matters we see that David (O.T., though) speaks of confessing his sin to the Lord and the Lord only...Psalm 51.


As for the N.T. (one time only I believe) indicating that followers observe what has been handed down to them from Paul either by word or deed or tradition. I do not see that that passage gives authority to open the door to all kinds of church practices not specified in Scripture. As was said, Jesus spoke against tradition and warns of their destructive nature...becoming burdensome to the followers and discouraging them in their faith and traditions were crowding out the practice of the real LAW. See Matthew 23. These words have meaning for the N.T. church.
Furthermore, it is my belief that all traditions were recorded in Scripture once the letters were circulated to all the churches.