Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[heymikey80]

Unfortunately, the “historical” definition for Sola Scriptura given above is fallible since it was determined by “scholarly” or by “knowledgeable” sources. And since Sola Scriptura is fallible it should not be used in understanding Scripture.

Pointedly, the reasoning of the posting above itself is human and fallible, and so it invalidates itself. If human beings are fallible they should not be used in understanding Scripture.

Avoiding sinful actions through doing fewer things seems a parallel argument.

Every understanding is fallible because it involves human beings, and yes, we should still use our minds in understanding Scripture. The Spirit strikes straight blows with crooked people.

"Don't go beyond what's written." 1 cor 4:6

 

[Montalban]

If shes In Christ yes, or do you mean after the flesh?

If you know where in scripture it says to use only scripture, that would be great

 

[Yeznik]

Pointedly, the reasoning of the posting above itself is human and fallible, and so it invalidates itself. If human beings are fallible they should not be used in understanding Scripture.

Avoiding sinful actions through doing fewer things seems a parallel argument.

Every understanding is fallible because it involves human beings, and yes, we should still use our minds in understanding Scripture. The Spirit strikes straight blows with crooked people.

"Don't go beyond what's written." 1 cor 4:6

Actually you further the point, since "every understanding is fallible because it involves human beings" then by your standards no one can understand Scripture.

 

[martymonster]

If you know where in scripture it says to use only scripture, that would be great

Does Paul saying not to speak above what is written count?

 

[Montalban]

Does Paul saying not to speak above what is written count?

Where's he do that?

Here he says to keep to both...
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

 

[Montalban]

Actually you further the point, since "every understanding is fallible because it involves human beings" then by your standards no one can understand Scripture.

Exactly, but for some reason some Protestants believe that their own singular infallible self is better than a church

 

[martymonster]

Where's he do that?

Here he says to keep to both...
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

The traditions taught back then were probably a lot different than the ones taught today.

I can't remember exactly where it is, but it says be not high minded but fear.

It could be corinthians 1 or 2.

 

[Montalban]

The traditions taught back then were probably a lot different than the ones taught today.

Which ones?

I can't remember exactly where it is, but it says be not high minded but fear.

It could be corinthians 1 or 2.

That's not very convincing

 

[Rick Otto]

a few simple points...

Paul cites Scripture repeatedly as direct and primary support for his views. His quotations are numerous. Paul & Jesus also say "It is written", an authority which all Israel simply accepted.

Paul also says "Don't go beyond what is written.".

Paul also cites what Jesus says as an equal authority.

Paul also denies other Apostles some greater authority, as long as His ministry and teaching come from the Spirit of God (Gal 2).

The Bereans were remarkable, being noted in Acts 17, "These (Berea) were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so."

The conclusion's pretty straightforward. The Apostles put the teaching of the Spirit through Scripture on a higher level than even their own statements, and they also put Jesus' teachings on that high level as Scripture. "It is written" / "Don't go beyond what is written."

Sola Scriptura.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Montalban;Which ones?

The ones taught. I can see it on my screen.

That's not very convincing

That's not very skeptical.

 

[Rick Otto]

Exactly, but for some reason some Protestants believe that their own singular infallible self is better than a church

Buy one schizm, you buy 'em all.

 

[Montalban]

Buy one schizm, you buy 'em all.

Exactly why there's 100,000's of different Protestant churches - all based on the Bible

 

[Rick Otto]

And how many more than one true "orthodoxy"?

 

[heymikey80]

Actually you further the point, since "every understanding is fallible because it involves human beings" then by your standards no one can understand Scripture.

No, the conclusion doesn't come from the assumption. I mean, think about it practically. Because we don't know everything perfectly, we're not supposed to try to learn the first thing more accurately? Why send a kid to school? If we are fallible every day, why live?

No, my point is the reverse. It's the same response. Everybody's fallible, and everybody should strive for an accurate or at least practically redemptive view of the reality they only fallibly understand. That involves learning counsel from respected but fallible sources, I would think. One fallibility may not be another. One accurate insight may overcome another, depending on the hermeneutics.

The infallibility of the church or tradition or some seat under some conditions doesn't help the individual who is fallible. Plus I also don't see a theological reason to assert that any of these is infallible. So I don't hold to any of these being infallible.

 

[Rick Otto]

Just because we recognize the difference between the real & the ideal doesn't mean we are "anti-ideal" or "anti-real".
The impossible dream is truly impossible but it's necessary for growth to dream it.

 

[Montalban]

And how many more than one true "orthodoxy"?

Well if there's one true orthodoxy and 100,000 Protestant groups then that would be 99,999 more

 

[Montalban]

No, the conclusion doesn't come from the assumption. I mean, think about it practically. Because we don't know everything perfectly, we're not supposed to try to learn the first thing more accurately? Why send a kid to school? If we are fallible every day, why live?

The problem being is that the Protestant faith would be like the teacher giving you a text book and then you ignoring the teacher's authority to give you that text book and you saying "I have this book, that's all I need"

 

[Rick Otto]

Well if there's one true orthodoxy...~

That would be the question not to duck.
RCs claim it, EO, claim it, OOs, claim it,...
basic sectarianism.
Looks like your boundary is imaginary... & vainly so.

 

[Rick Otto]

The problem being is that the Protestant faith would be like the teacher giving you a text book and then you ignoring the teacher's authority to give you that text book and you saying "I have this book, that's all I need"

Some people need permission to think for themselves. Many others are too afraid to try. A few are simply ignorant of how to do so.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Some people need permission to think for themselves. Many others are too afraid to try. A few are simply ignorant of how to do so.

Or, as in my own case, both ignorant and "illiterate"

Acts 4:13 Observing yet the of the Peter boldness and John, and grasping that men illiterate/unlettered/agrammatoi <62> they are and ordinary, they marvelled. They knew part/both of them, that to the Jesus they were.

1 Corin 12:1 About yet the spiritual-things brethren! not I am willing ye to be being ignorant/agnoein <50> (5721).

Strong's Number G50 matches the Greek &#7936;&#947;&#957;&#959;&#8051;&#969; (agnoe&#333, which occurs 25 times in 21 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

50. agnoeo ag-no-eh'-o from 1 (as a negative particle) and 3539; not to know (through lack of information or intelligence); by implication, to ignore (through disinclination):--(be) ignorant(-ly), not know, not understand, unknown.