Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

[JoeP222w]

I find that those who reject Sola Scriptura most often do not even understand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or grossly mischaracterize it and are the one who are most enslaved by their traditions.

 

[Albion]

@Albion - It's hard to say what is a myth and what isn't from this far along in the timeline, the Gospel of John didn't even appear in the writings of the church fathers until the second century, which explains the way it was written. (as if not to the original audience, and insinuations John would be kept alive until the end)

What you say is true, but I've been trying to point out two or three particularly misleading arguments used by the #NeverSolaScriptura folks.

1. That if all of the Bible wasn't available in a certain year, the churches allegedly turned to something else altogether (custom, tradition, legend, etc.). They didn't. The 70% or whatever it amounted to that was available was quite sufficient for teaching and essentials of the faith.

2. That oral transmission of Christ's teachings by the Apostles is Tradition. It's not. It's Scriptural information in oral form.

3. "Holy Tradition" doesn't mean just a bunch of traditions. The term means the ones that the church leaders have chosen to consider to be a non-written revelation from God that's equal to the Bible; and although the claim is made that the ones which have been made into dogmas are what the Apostles taught, there is no way of knowing if that's so.

 

[Albion]

I find that those who reject Sola Scriptura most often do not even understand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or grossly mischaracterize it...

How true that is, Joe!

 

[W2L]

Ditto.
It's the (written) Word of God.
And we're supposed to test everything, and Scripture stands the test.

God sent the apostles to teach us, so it seems that their words are far more valuable than any other. I would like to know where the non SS folks get their doctrine. I know the Catholics believe in Church fathers, but where do posters like Michael Collum get their doctrine if not from scripture? Are they reading some new age theology written by some supposed prophet? I don't mean to pick on Michael, but he is the only poster off hand that I can refer to as an example.

 

[Albion]

God sent the apostles to teach us, so it seems that their words are far more valuable than any other. I would like to know where the non SS folks get their doctrine.

In short, how do the "against SS" folks know what the Apostles said and taught that is not in Scripture--and how could they know it?

 

[W2L]

In short, how do the "against SS" folks know what the Apostles said and taught that is not in Scripture--and how could they know it?

That's what I'm asking.

 

[Albion]

That's what I'm asking.

I know. It was unnecessary of me to paraphrase your post, but we now have gotten to the heart of the controversy and I guess I'm "seconding" your message so that we, hopefully, will get a straight answer from some of the folks on the other side.

 

[davidcrosby]

Like the ol' saying goes... If you don't know what God is saying, go back to what He has already said—the Bible.

 

[DennisTate]

Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

True.... I was into the now obviously false "soul sleep' theory back when I had a Sola Scriptura approach.

 

[W2L]

True.... I was into the now obviously false "soul sleep' theory back when I had a Sola Scriptura approach.

I'm sola scripture but I don't follow theology, and don't follow soul sleep either

 

[Albion]

True.... I was into the now obviously false "soul sleep' theory back when I had a Sola Scriptura approach.

That's hardly the fault of Sola Scriptura, though.

 

[Hieronymus]

To state my position clearly: I believe that the Bible is the 'inspired Word of God'. But just 'reading it' is not able to reveal God's 'truth'. It takes the guidance and conviction of the Holy Spirit to reveal 'the truth' contained within it's pages.

That's what Scripture says, isn't it?
I think you misunderstood what SS actually means, t.b.h.
It simply means that it has the doctrinal authority.

 

[Vicomte13]

For me it comes down to what you consider more authoritative, the inspired word of God, or Church traditions and teachings. For me the Bible will always be of higher authority.

There's one source of authority that is regularly left out, but to me it is the most authoritative of all: veridical miracles.

 

[samir]

Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

I agree. It's sad so many "believers" trust in themselves and their own personal interpretations instead of the ancient Christian faith once delivered to the saints.

 

[samir]

For me it comes down to what you consider more authoritative, the inspired word of God, or Church traditions and teachings.

The choice is between your own personal interpretations (relying on your own wisdom and human reasoning) or that of the Church founded by Jesus that has taught the same faith since the first century. Those who are humble and love God choose the Church. Those who are arrogant and swollen with pride choose themselves.

For me the Bible will always be of higher authority.

In reality, the highest authority for you is yourself since you just interpret whatever verses you like to say whatever you want to believe. If the Bible was the highest authority, you would submit to the Church that gave us the Bible and has understood it consistently since the first century.

Unfortunately there is just too much in church traditions and teachings that contradicts the word of God.

The Bible is the written tradition of the Church. There aren't any church traditions that contradict scripture even though modern erroneous interpretations may not agree with it.

 

[samir]

But the early Fathers cited Scripture for their teachings and knew nothing of the theory called
"Holy Tradition."

Scripture commands believers to follow Holy Tradition so saying the early Christians knew nothing of it is mocking God's word. I read the ECFs and they absolutely and unequivocally taught tradition and the necessity of following it. You shouldn't be making claims about what the ECFs taught if you haven't read them (secondary sources - sources that tell you what they wrote - don't count because they are often biased and many deliberately lie about what they taught to support their rejection of the catholic church)

 

[davidcrosby]

Actually 'Sola Scriptura' is a 'doctrine' itself. I don't think I'm confused as to the 'meaning' of the doctrine. It is basically a doctrine that means that the ultimate authority in 'understanding' of doctrine, dogma, faith, belief, 'God's Word', is 'scripture'. That the Bible itself is the ultimate authority when it comes to 'truth'.

But then comes 'personal interpretation'. Which we are forbidden to use in determining the 'truth' contained within 'scripture'.

So if we are 'not' to use personal interpretation, where does that leave us? It leaves us with the Holy Spirit to guide us in 'understanding' scripture. And how do we determine who is or who isn't being led by the Holy Spirit when interpreting the scriptures? Fruit. We can witness the 'fruit' produced by those that tell us what they 'believe' the scriptures to reveal. We can judge the 'fruit' of their very words used to divide God's Word.

In order to actually understand a single verse of the Bible, one must compare it to all others in order to 'see' if it conforms to or 'rejects' any other line of the Bible. And how often are those that 'read in' the Bible going to have such ability? Not many. Yet 'many' would try to 'tell' others what scripture reveals in 'truth'. With absolutely 'no authority', many 'pretend' to be 'experts' when they have nothing other than completely limited understanding if 'any'.

I am well aware of the 'term': Sola Scriptura. And I believe I have a pretty sound understanding of what it 'means' and how it came to be. The Catholic Church created it as a derogatory 'label' against those that placed their faith in 'scripture' rather than 'their church'. And to this day they still insist that their 'tradition' is more important then the Bible.

Blessings,

MEC

Amen. Their tradition begins with a small t and is defined as heresy.

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

Sola Scriptura does not discount personal interpretation. Here are some practical implications:

• Scripture must be somehow interpreted through using fallible minds in order to make sense
• There is indeed a spectrum of interpretation. Most of that interpretation, when done in its proper context and genre will lead a relatively uniform result, but there will of course be a spectrum. One only need look at James and Paul: Both are considered saints, though they both had significantly different approaches.
• Crying "Tradition!" does not serve as a justification to shoehorn difficult interpretations

The proper understanding of Sola Scriptura would normally be self evident: Jesus revealed himself as Messiah and God and he was crucified. His disciples recorded (either directly, or through their own students) his ministry and teachings, and further expounded upon them. These teachings were widely recorded and confirmed with a great degree of acceptance and further verification by miracles.

Based on the above paragraph, how do we know what Jesus taught? Through reading what his disciples recorded! Of course there may be some traditional interpretations, and that is in general how human societies work: a primary text alongside a commonly understood interpretation that flows with, not against the text.

Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit which interprets scriptures for us. There are some things that are clearer (such as the deity of Christ), and some that are less clear (...). To put anything, whether it be a personal interpretation of some specific passage, or the primacy of some church tradition, ahead of the following and submission to Christ is to pervert both scripture and tradition.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura was introduced in the context of a church which taught that the path to salvation was through sacerdotalism and legalism, using the concept of Tradition and directly undermining what was stated in scripture. Sola Scriptura must be understood in this context and in contrast with some magical tradition that can subvert a simple (but not simplistic) reading of Scripture.

 

[PapaZoom]

Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

Then we don't need the Bible either because the "first" Christians didn't have that either.

/thread

 

[davidcrosby]

The first Christians had the Old Testaments and circulating letters (that make up our Bible now) for their Scripture.