Explain sola scriptura to me

[Standing Up]

Sure, if you want to define salvation in the narrow terms some Protestants do.

Let's put it this way, "imputed righteousness" alone ,as a concept, is metaphysically incompatible with classical theism. Righteousness isn't some gas that can float across from God onto somebody else. And God, being eternal, cannot fail to see you in any other way other than what you are.

Okay, for grins, tell us the doctrines necessary for your salvation that the apostles left out of scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

Rick, actually a great many scholars think that Paul and Peter had no idea that their works would ever be collected into a canon of scriptures. It's important to keep in mind most of the epistles are pastoral in nature and half the conversations and the situations are entirely absent from the letters- we only know the situations from reading the Church Fathers and from historical and critical analysis.

Of course they knew. Anyone may know why Jesus changed the name of James and John to sons of thunder.

 

[Open Heart]

The idea of information apart from the bible as necessary to your salvation is the novelty.

The early Church believed that Baptism was salvific, yet the New Testament didn't exist yet. This belief was based entirely on the teachings of the apostles and their successors, the bishops.

 

[FireDragon76]

Okay, for grins, tell us the doctrines necessary for your salvation that the apostles left out of scripture.

It would be more accurate to say we are saved by the work of the Holy Spirit. That would be more biblical and more metaphysically coherent than saying that God covers us with his righteousness and sees us as something other than what we are, which doesn't even make sense metaphysically. And I'm not even sure how it's biblical.

I am not denying that Jesus died for our sins. I just don't see that entailing necessarily what Reformed Protestants say it means.

 

[Standing Up]

The early Church believed that Baptism was salvific, yet the New Testament didn't exist yet. This belief was based entirely on the teachings of the apostles and theisuccessors, the bishops.

Everyone agrees that the apostles spoke first and then wrote.

As to your "baptism is salvific", you can probably find different traditions.

 

[Standing Up]

It would be more accurate to say we are saved by the work of the Holy Spirit. That would be more biblical and more metaphysically coherent than saying that God covers us with his righteousness and sees us as something other than what we are, which doesn't even make sense metaphysically.

I am not denying that Jesus died for our sins. I just don't see that entailing necessarily what Reformed Protestants say it means.

Okay, so you're still SS, pending your identification of salvific things aposltes left out.

 

[FireDragon76]

As to your "baptism is salvific", you can probably find different traditions.

No, the early Church was unanimous on that point.

 

[billover70]

There's a whole lotta salvation talk goin on out there.... Looks kinda like a person seeking that salvation thing might wander by here and conclude that there's maybe too many hoops through which he has to jump to be worth the trouble.

 

[Catherineanne]

As an Anglican, you should understand the concept of apostolic succession, and know that the bishops when gathered together have an authority that no Christian has as an individual. Why are you pretending to be ignorant of this?

Which is true in law of any corporate body as well; it is a normal enough construct.

The Parochial Church Council of a CofE parish can make decisions jointly that none of the individuals are qualified to make on their own. The Board of Directors of any company,Governors of a school, MPs of a country ditto.

 

[Catherineanne]

Which is true in law of any corporate body as well; it is a normal enough construct.

The Parochial Church Council of a CofE parish can make decisions jointly that none of the individuals are qualified to make on their own. The Board of Directors of any company,Governors of a school, MPs of a country ditto.

It is not that any of these are infallible, exactly, but that they have authority. If any given body has authority to make particular decisions, then those decisions can never be said to be wrong. They would only be wrong if improperly decided. Time may change circumstances, and a new decision be called for, but that still does not mean that former ages were wrong; just that mores change.

Sadly the Catholic Church (inter alia) has got this normal corporate authority muddled with God's infallibility. Although they may look the same, they are really, really not.

Even more sadly, proponents of SS take this same infallibility, ascribe it NOT to the text of Scripture but to their own personal interpretation of any given passage, regardless of historicity, context, church tradition and a thousand other factors, and ascribe infallibility to their own opinion. All without a scrap of authority; not a bit of it. They then take that interpretation, which just happens to accord 100% with their own prejudices, and claim that it is the Word of God. This is not done as the Body of Christ (which the Synod can certainly claim to be) or as a corporate act of prayer and worship (ditto) but on an individual whim.

If that is not blasphemy I really do not know what is.

 

[wilts43]

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.

"The word of God trumps all else" does not equal "sola scriptura"
You can't show it (SS) from Scripture; And you can't show it from Christian history, until the Protestant Reformation.
It is a novel doctrine; a tradition of men,..... and one that was not agreed at an eucumenical council.

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!"

And ultimately, you only treat this letter as part of scripture because Councils of Catholic bishops "canonized" it in the 4th Century.
And although this letter refers to the limits of "scripture" you try to make it part of a "limiting scripture!"
I am at a loss!
---------------------------------------------
Furthermore, in the NT, "believing in Christ" & accepting his Church (with its apostolic authority) are always one and the same.
And yet you try to oppose these facets of faith. You try to embrace the one, whilst rejecting the other (which you wrongly see as "worshipping an assembly")
In the NT it is not possible to accept christ & reject the Apostolic Church.

 

[mmksparbud]

Ahh---yes--isn't it great that God basis our salvation on our own whims, instead of on the corporate whim!

 

[Catherineanne]

Ahh---yes--isn't it great that God basis our salvation on our own whims, instead of on the corporate whim!

I think you will find the issue is one of authority. Corporate bodies may have authority in relation to the church. Individuals do not.

The Reformation attempted to vest authority in the individual. The Church resisted because theology is complex and individuals cannot be expected to master every detail.

The Church has authority from Scripture as the Body of Christ. The individual apart from the Church has none. That same individual claiming authority through the Holy Spirit to speak for God himself on no other basis than personal interpretation is blasphemy, imo.

Your choice.

 

[mmksparbud]

The Church has authority from Scripture as the Body of Christ. The individual apart from the Church has none.

Your choice.[/QUOTE]


Please state that scripture.

 

[Catherineanne]

The Church has authority from Scripture as the Body of Christ. The individual apart from the Church has none.

Your choice.

Please state that scripture.

Google is your friend. Ephesians 2:19 is particularly beautiful, imo.

Kindly note I do not attempt to interpret these for you; I allow the plain words of Scripture to speak for themselves.

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Body-Of-Christ,-The-Church

 

[ThatTrueLight]

And ultimately, you only treat this letter as part of scripture because Councils of Catholic bishops "canonized" it in the 4th Century.

Yeah right, the word of God is what it is because some guys said so.

 

[wilts43]

Yeah right, the word of God is what it is because some guys said so.

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)

 

[ThatTrueLight]

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

I'm not interested in questions from the self proclaimed one true church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm not interested in questions from the self proclaimed one true church.

Excellent. I lost interest in answers from Rabbi true light.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Excellent. I lost interest in answers from Rabbi true light.

Truth definitely puts a damper on the one true church nonsense, so I can understand your loss of interest.