Originally Posted by ThisRock 
The idea of Sola Scriptura is either God's idea or man's idea.
If it was God's idea, why wouldn't He make it plain in the bible what He was aiming for? Why is the idea of reliance strictly on the bible so frustratingly oblique in the passages cited by its proponents?
If it was God's plan that Christians use this method, why did He have them wait so long to put together a bible in the first place?
Why would He not make it clear and plain to anyone reading the bible that this is His plan?
I would ask for more of a logical or even philosophical debate about S.S. No matter which verse is cited in which the "obvious meaning" is Sola Scriptura, the person ALWAYS has to explain it to people, and inevitably starts off by saying "What he is saying here is..." or "What this passage really means is..."
If Sola Scriptura was God's idea, why did He make it so hard for Christians to figure out---even hard enough to figure out that it took Christians over 1500 years for the lightbulb to go on?
Isn't it logical that if this is what God wanted, then the very earliest Christians would have practiced it? Rather, isn't it obvious that in reality, it took over 1500 years for man to get far enough away time-wise from the origins of Christianity to have such a foreign concept not be universally found strange, even abhorent to orthodox Chistians? Historians will tell us that it indeed was found completely foreign and really only developed as a strict doctrine over time.
Wasn't the idea of Sola Scriptura more of a human reaction to circumstances rather than a lightbulb going on that said "This is God's will" ????
Can Sola Scriptura not be more accurately described as a "concept"? A concept of men? A well-meaning concept, but only a concept nonetheless?
Definition of a "Concept":
1-A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2-Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion.
why couldn't the same sorts of questions be asked of those who want to thrust the idea of a dual authority upon us.... ?
If it was God's idea, why wouldn't He make it plain in the bible what He was aiming for? Why is the idea of reliance on the bible AND tradition so frustratingly oblique in the passages cited by its proponents?
If it was God's plan that Christians use this method, why did He have them wait so long to put together a bible in the first place? After all, it wasn't until Trent that Rome officially denied sola scriptura, and it wasn't until the late 1800's that papal infallibility officially became a dogma..... if it was always the case, then why did Rome take 1800 years to formalize this doctrine?
Why would He not make it clear (through tradition and the scripture) and plain to anyone reading the bible that this is His plan?
I would ask for more of a logical or even philosophical debate about dual authority. No matter which verse or tradition is cited in which the "obvious meaning" is dual tradition, the person ALWAYS has to
explain it to people, and inevitably starts off by saying
"What this early church father is saying here is..." or
"What this passage really means is..."
If dual authority was God's idea, why did He make it so hard for Christians to figure it out---even hard enough to figure out that it took Christians over 1500 years for the light bulb to go on?
Isn't it logical that if this is what God wanted, then the very earliest Christians would have practiced it? Rather, isn't it obvious that in reality, it took over 1500 years for man to get far enough away time-wise from the origins of Christianity to have such a foreign concept not be universally found strange, even abhorent to orthodox Christians? Historians will tell us that it indeed was found completely foreign and really only developed as a strict doctrine over time. See especially Keith Mathison's excellent book on this subject, "The Shape of Sola Scriptura", where he documents the early church's opinion in the sole authority of Scripture, and the gradual emergence of a dual source for authority..
Wasn't the idea of dual authority more of a human reaction to circumstances rather than a light bulb going on that said "This is God's will" ????
Can dual authority not be more accurately described as a "concept"? A concept of men? A well-meaning concept, but only a concept nonetheless?
blessings,
Ken
Linear Mode
