Sola Scriptura - what does it mean?

[Philip_B]

Thank you for your reply.

"Wherefore, although the Church be a witness..." sorry I reject men's words to rule over scripture.

"Scripture is the Church's book..." sorry again, this is clearly not true! Scripture is God's book. All scripture is GOD breathed!

"God is not the prisoner of the book..." strange comment because you seemingly can accept God is a prisoner of tradition, church and scripture just not a prisoner of scripture. I reject all such notions and so does the bible! "For the word of God is alive and active" ALIVE AND ACTIVE! He's not a prisoner! More than that the word of God isn't a book, isn't even words on pages but Christ Himself! You cannot read His words and see the truth lest the Holy Spirit reveals them! Hallelujah!

"Means little without the church..." Ouch, that's so painfully wrong. God's word means little without the church? God's word does not need the church to have meaning or value.... it's "alive and active". It's life does not depend on the church or anyone! Moreover, what is the church? Ecclessia or church does not mean a building or even a denomination. It means ALL believers.. ie. a gathering! This is where it gets interesting and difficult for Catholics though. You see, the Catholic Church officially accepts that the church of Christ is comprised of all believers. Now this would be logical problem were it not for the fact that the Catholic Church also accepts that there are saved people following Christ outside of the Catholic Church... which means the church of Christ has to be more than the Catholic Church.

The people, ie. the church absolutely do need scripture but scripture certainly doesn't need the people!

Thank you for the engagement.

My initial quote was from Article 20 of the 39 Articles, and I should have attributed it.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.​

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation.​

​

I am not sure what you are rejecting, nor why. These words reflect this thinking of the English Reformers, most especially Cranmer and Parker. These men solidly embraced the notion of Sola Scriptura.

I say God is a prisoner of neither book, tabernacle, or institution. The meaning I would suggest reflects both the transcendence and the immanence of God, God is not to be nailed down. I have not argued, (ever that I can remember) that God is the prisoner of tradition.

Scripture is the Church's book, and we are the people of the book, but God is not the prisoner of the book. Scripture means little without the church, and the church is without a rule (guide) without scripture. It is not either or, you need both.​

Scripture, and more especially the New Testament, came to birth in the early Christian Church. In the New Testament, we have the Gospels, four accounts of the life, witness, death and resurrection of Jesus, each from a different perspective, each with its own nuances, and each of great worth and together forming the foundation of what we know about Jesus, captured from the early church, the oral traditions and eye witness accounts. The Acts of the Apostles is of course the first book of church history, and then we have letters to the churches, many from Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, and the apocalypse of St John the Divine, giving us great hope in times of struggle.

The word catholic comes from two Greek words, kata and 'holos which mean according to the whole. The Nicene Creed, which also forms the essence of the statement of belief in this forum, uses the word as one of the descriptors of the Church, normally called the 2nd note of the church. There is no sense in which this use of the word is denominational, and the idea that there are people walking in light outside the visible community of faith and that there are people inside the visible community who do not, is not a new idea, and Augustine spoke of sheep outside the gate and wolves within.

Part of our task as the church is to be both witness and keeper or this great treasure we call scripture. I hope this clarifies my position.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Jesus tells us that we must listen to the Church. Mat 18:15-20

This is in regard to a dispute the equivalent is talking it over with a pastor or leadership at your church. Nowhere in scripture does it say the RCC is the authority.

Paul tells us the Church is the Pillar of faith. 1Tim 3:15

The Church is the body of believers who does the will of God.

The Bible tells us Scripture is profitable.

Yes, all scripture comes from the Holy Spirit and why we are told not to deviate from God's Word Isaiah 8:20 and Jesus taught not to keep man's traditions over God's commandments. Matthew 15:3-9

 

[concretecamper]

This is in regard to a dispute the equivalent is talking it over with a pastor or leadership at your church

your Church? No, One Church, not many Churches

 

[SabbathBlessings]

your Church? No, One Church, not many Churches

God's Church are those who believe and follow God's Word.

 

[Margaret3110]

Well, according to scripture Baptism is needed for salvation. According to scripture, the Eucharist is needed for salvation. So, how is a protestant supposed to satisfy both these requirements?

You don't think Protestants have baptism and the Eucharist??

 

[concretecamper]

You don't think Protestants have baptism and the Eucharist??

I was answering a question about EENS. None of the protestant communities (as far as I know) administer both valid Baptism and The Holy Eucharist.

 

[Margaret3110]

I was answering a question about EENS. None of the protestant communities (as far as I know) administer both valid Baptism and The Holy Eucharist.

That is the Roman Catholic position, indeed.

 

[concretecamper]

That is the Roman Catholic position, indeed.

That should clear up the confusion on whether the Church still teaches EENS

 

[Philip_B]

That should clear up the confusion on whether the Church still teaches EENS

That, of course, is true, however, the real question becomes how to understand that position, for it can be understood in the exclusive and restrictive sense which is designed to exclude many or it can be understood in an inclusive and embracing sense. I have certainly heard some RCC theologs and indeed one RCC Bishop expound it in the open and inclusive sense. That is certainly how I would understand it.

 

[concretecamper]

That, of course, is true, however, the real question becomes how to understand that position, for it can be understood in the exclusive and restrictive sense which is designed to exclude many or it can be understood in an inclusive and embracing sense. I have certainly heard some RCC theologs and indeed one RCC Bishop expound it in the open and inclusive sense. That is certainly how I would understand it.

You are correct that the current post VII explanation is more eccumenical. However, if you read the explanation, it really doesn't revise what was always taught. I for one would rather back and white truth than gray eccumenical statements.

 

[Darren Court]

Really, tell a Jewish Rabbi that and I bet you'll get a very different answer.

I don't need that, they already know it.

 

[Darren Court]

Which Bible? The many different protestant ones? Ones with books taken out?

The ones that Christ Himself considered divinely inspired and told His disciples about!

There are two Catholic problems here...

1) Corrupt Apostolic Succession. There is no question that Jesus was familiar with the manuscripts that the various clerical sects argued about whether they were divine or not. It's inconceivable that He didn't have a view or teach His disciples which were and which were not considered divine... and yet NOT ONE OF THE CHURCH FATHERS knew, or documented and hundreds of years later the Catholic Church grappled with the problem, with great debate and argument before canonising the wrong OT books! If Apostolic Succession is real and it continued uncorrupted then how come it wasn't used as an argument to canonise the right books?

2) Jesus did concretely indicate which books belong in the OT! In the first century we can see documented the Jewish debates over their scriptures. Essene's, Sadducee's, Temple Priest's and Pharisee's all had a different view. Did Jesus ever endorse one of these sects teaching? YES!!
".. the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you." EVERYTHING THEY TELL YOU. Does this mean literally everything? No. The key is "sit in Moses Seat". This is a seat in the synagogues reserved for teaching of the scriptures. In other words, Jesus was saying they've got scriptures and scriptural teaching right, listen to them. How could this NOT include the manuscripts considered divinely inspired?

The Pharisees are the sect that eventually won out in the canonization fight of the OT scriptures which don't include all those "extra" books Catholics want to argue should be in there! So we can be sure Jesus too didn't consider these books part of His word!

 

[Lost4words]

The ones that Christ Himself considered divinely inspired and told His disciples about!

There are two Catholic problems here...

1) Corrupt Apostolic Succession. There is no question that Jesus was familiar with the manuscripts that the various clerical sects argued about whether they were divine or not. It's inconceivable that He didn't have a view or teach His disciples which were and which were not considered divine... and yet NOT ONE OF THE CHURCH FATHERS knew, or documented and hundreds of years later the Catholic Church grappled with the problem, with great debate and argument before canonising the wrong OT books! If Apostolic Succession is real and it continued uncorrupted then how come it wasn't used as an argument to canonise the right books?

2) Jesus did concretely indicate which books belong in the OT! In the first century we can see documented the Jewish debates over their scriptures. Essene's, Sadducee's, Temple Priest's and Pharisee's all had a different view. Did Jesus ever endorse one of these sects teaching? YES!!
".. the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you." EVERYTHING THEY TELL YOU. Does this mean literally everything? No. The key is "sit in Moses Seat". This is a seat in the synagogues reserved for teaching of the scriptures. In other words, Jesus was saying they've got scriptures and scriptural teaching right, listen to them. How could this NOT include the manuscripts considered divinely inspired?

The Pharisees are the sect that eventually won out in the canonization fight of the OT scriptures which don't include all those "extra" books Catholics want to argue should be in there! So we can be sure Jesus too didn't consider these books part of His word!

Its obvious you got your facts wrong my friend. God bless you.

 

[Darren Court]

Its obvious you got your facts wrong my friend. God bless you.

Well, I thank you for expressing your opinion but the fact you can neither use scripture nor logic with scripture to demonstrate how "obvious" my facts are, suggests you have just run out of solid argument.

Shalom aleichem

 

[Lost4words]

Well, I thank you for expressing your opinion but the fact you can neither use scripture nor logic with scripture to demonstrate how "obvious" my facts are, suggests you have just run out of solid argument.

Shalom aleichem

I rest my case!

 

[concretecamper]

It's inconceivable that He didn't have a view or teach His disciples which were and which were not considered divine

you're guessing.

 

[Darren Court]

you're guessing.

Guessing? ..."estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct."
NOPE!
I'm using a combination of things
1) "deductive reasoning" ... is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions.
2) Understanding of Jewish culture and teaching
3) Snippets of the bible


So let's check out if you can actually think! Please keep your answers concise and simple, we can look at reasoning where we diverge.

In your opinion did Jesus tell the disciples to read scripture or not?
In your opinion did Jesus read scripture with the disciples or not?
In your opinion did Jesus use scripture to teach the disciples or not?
In your opinion did Jesus teach the disciples things in scripture or not?

Let's see if you'll be brave enough to answer!

 

[Lost4words]

Guessing? ..."estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct."
NOPE!
I'm using a combination of things
1) "deductive reasoning" ... is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions.
2) Understanding of Jewish culture and teaching
3) Snippets of the bible


So let's check out if you can actually think! Please keep your answers concise and simple, we can look at reasoning where we diverge.

In your opinion did Jesus tell the disciples to read scripture or not?
In your opinion did Jesus read scripture with the disciples or not?
In your opinion did Jesus use scripture to teach the disciples or not?
In your opinion did Jesus teach the disciples things in scripture or not?

Let's see if you'll be brave enough to answer!

In your opinion did Our Lord Jesus Christ have the 'Bible' we have today?

In your opinion did Our Lord Jesus Christ instruct the Apostles 'Sola Scripture?'

 

[Darren Court]

In your opinion did Our Lord Jesus Christ have the 'Bible' we have today?

In your opinion did Our Lord Jesus Christ instruct the Apostles 'Sola Scripture?'

Since you have now decided to ignore my comments which here included questions in order to insert your own, I guess that means the dialogue is done.

Personally, I think it is rude to ignore other people's comments/questions and override with your own.

 

[Lost4words]

Since you have now decided to ignore my comments which here included questions in order to insert your own, I guess that means the dialogue is done.

Personally, I think it is rude to ignore other people's comments/questions and override with your own.

I rest my case!