Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[Montalban]

A parallel notion:
" ... atheism has too much to do with God." - Marcel Duchamp

It happens all the time, like peer groups that rebel against 'conformity' and then conform to the group.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That the RCC make one claim and we make another regarding Purgatory is a totally different argument.

Is the de fide dogma of the RCC called "purgatory" taught in the EO or not?

If not, then one (or both) of you is wrong - at least in part.

Does it matter?

IF so, then accountability matters - and you just embraced norming (the process of determining validity/correctness/truthfulness). And yes - you'll be seeking a norma normans for such.

What you're attempting to do is rather than look at whether scripture and tradition

While the RCC and EO MOSTLY (mostly!) agree on what Scripture is, you certianly do NOT agree on what Tradition is - in spite of your mutual claims (regarded by the other as valid) to Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition and to being inerrantly lead and to infallibly following. Purgatory (in the RCC sense) is NOT EO Tradition, it IS RC Tradition. Now, if the views of SELF determine the correct view of Scripture - that renders Scripture moot anyway, and all you have is your VARIANT views of self - which each of you calls "Apostolic Tradition"

While I DO think ECUMENICAL tradition in the understanding of the correct meaning of the words in Scripture has great value, and I certainly consider ECUMENICAL tradition as essential in hermeneutics, that's not the topic here. The issue is: there's a disagreement in what is regarded as binding, de fide DOGMA from the 13 Apostles - disagreement at the very highest level possible. You two each pointing to your OWN Tradition - noting that self alone agrees with self alone - just reveals that each of you agrees with self alone, it has no relevance to whether you are correct.





.

 

[Hentenza]

1 Timothy 3: 1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;

and

Titus 1:6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled

Neither verse contains the word "appoint". Try again.

 

[Hentenza]

You said you know what we believe. You've said it twice now!

And knowing what they are is different from knowing that they are true. But you're still stuck on the first point, as you keep demanding something yet saying you already know it

So do you have the list yet and/or do you even know what "T"raditions you believe in?

Yes, I noted already you don't have a point, other that to undermine yourself!

But I do and you can't answer it.

 

[Montalban]

Is the de fide dogma of the RCC called "purgatory" taught in the EO or not?

Go to TAW for that one.

If not, then one (or both) of you is wrong - at least in part.

That would be so. We don't teach purgatory.

While the RCC and EO MOSTLY (mostly!) agree on what Scripture is, you certianly do NOT agree on what Tradition is

That's not true either.

Some Orthodox don't include the book of Revelations and some books Catholics have we don't use.

- in spite of your mutual claims (regarded by the other as valid) to Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition and to being inerrantly lead and to infallibly following. Purgatory (in the RCC sense) is NOT EO Tradition, it IS RC Tradition. Now, if the views of SELF determine the correct view of Scripture - that renders Scripture moot anyway, and all you have is your VARIANT views of self - which each of you calls "Apostolic Tradition"

How would this invalidate all tradition?

While I DO think ECUMENICAL tradition in the understanding of the correct meaning of the words in Scripture has great value, and I certainly consider ECUMENICAL tradition as essential in hermeneutics, that's not the topic here. The issue is: there's a disagreement in what is regarded as binding, de fide DOGMA from the 13 Apostles - disagreement at the very highest level possible. You two each pointing to your OWN Tradition - noting that self alone agrees with self alone - just reveals that each of you agrees with self alone, it has no relevance to whether you are correct.

We have a reason for doing this, in that we can trace our 'ancestry' back to the Apostles, and we gave you the Bible.

However as noted you're arguing a totaly different topic here.

It's like "I'm not able to prove sola scriptura so I'll make EO prove the opposite"

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Neither verse contains the word "appoint". Try again.

I'm sure he has a reference to his own interpretations. He may 'plainly' see that it is so, so he believes it just is. What seems obvious to him isn't to everyone. So simply quoting those verses doesn't prove his point. But we have to accept that some people have an interpretation based on that they have it, based that they do, and therefore think it's obvious to everyone because it's a fact to them.

 

[Timothew]

I have an idea

Instead of using scripture to determine truth, I'll just tell you what the truth is! This will work great! Nobody has to take the time to read the bible, it's so time consuming. Just send your tithe to me as per God's Will. When I speak or type, I'm infallible! We don't have to worry about those who can't read, they can just ask me to tell them what God's Plan is. My Church is the one true church. Don't worry if Paul or some other apostle wrote otherwise. I'm telling you my own church is the true one. If you disagree with me I have the authority to send you to Detroit. Yeah, or Purgatory. Yeah, that's the ticket. If your relatives pay me, I'll let them out. Don't worry if what I say is not what the apostles taught. Sola Scriptura has to many problems to be workable.

(The above post was in jest and completely tongue-in-cheek.)

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

I have an idea

Instead of using scripture to determine truth, I'll just tell you what the truth is! This will work great! Nobody has to take the time to read the bible, it's so time consuming. Just send your tithe to me as per God's Will. When I speak or type, I'm infallible! We don't have to worry about those who can't read, they can just ask me to tell them what God's Plan is. My Church is the one true church. Don't worry if Paul or some other apostle wrote otherwise. I'm telling you my own church is the true one. If you disagree with me I have the authority to send you to Detroit. Yeah, or Purgatory. Yeah, that's the ticket. If your relatives pay me, I'll let them out. Don't worry if what I say is not what the apostles taught. Sola Scriptura has to many problems to be workable.

(The above post was in jest and completely tongue-in-cheek.)

OK. That was weird.

 

[GQ Chris]

I have an idea

Instead of using scripture to determine truth, I'll just tell you what the truth is! This will work great! Nobody has to take the time to read the bible, it's so time consuming. Just send your tithe to me as per God's Will. When I speak or type, I'm infallible! We don't have to worry about those who can't read, they can just ask me to tell them what God's Plan is. My Church is the one true church. Don't worry if Paul or some other apostle wrote otherwise. I'm telling you my own church is the true one. If you disagree with me I have the authority to send you to Detroit. Yeah, or Purgatory. Yeah, that's the ticket. If your relatives pay me, I'll let them out. Don't worry if what I say is not what the apostles taught. Sola Scriptura has to many problems to be workable.

(The above post was in jest and completely tongue-in-cheek.)

So long as you throw in some cool dark robes, stained glass windows, and all sorts of cool churchy stuff, I'm in


Oh and also emphasize cool man centered traditions while dismissing Protestants beliefs and you got yourself a deal.

 

[GQ Chris]

This thread is giving my flashbacks about my Roman Catholicism experiences which was not good.

It drove me to "Protest" those church people, by becoming a Protestant. I love the Reformed Protestant church, they do not give off none of the air of that uppity church arrogance.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Is the de fide dogma of the RCC called "purgatory" taught in the EO or not?


.

Go to TAW for that one.

Ah, the issue! We have a disputed dogma among us. Does it matter if it is true? IF you answer yes, then you embrace accountability for doctrines and you embrace norming (the process of determining correctness/validity/truthfulness) and we have the issue of what best serves as the rule for that. Looking to the views of self won't help - self usually agrees with self, it's entirely unrelated to whether self (the Tradition of self) is correct or not. Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition and being founded by Jesus doesn't help, two denominations with such DISAGREE to the highest level possible - de fide DOGMA. So, what rule can be brought to bear?

If not, then one (or both) of you is wrong - at least in part.

That would be so.

Ah, so maybe you think truth matters? That one of you could be wrong - in spite of self agreeing with the Tradition of self, self having valid Apostolic Succession, self having valid Apostolic Tradition, self being founded by Jesus, lead by the Holy Spirit?

- in spite of your mutual claims (regarded by the other as valid) to Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition and to being inerrantly lead and to infallibly following. Purgatory (in the RCC sense) is NOT EO Tradition, it IS RC Tradition. Now, if the views of SELF determine the correct view of Scripture - that renders Scripture moot anyway, and all you have is your VARIANT views of self - which each of you calls "Apostolic Tradition"

How would this invalidate all tradition?

It doesn't. It simply means that the views of self are not the most sound norma normans for the views of self. Nor is Apostolic Succession or Apostolic Tradition or the claims that the Holy Spirit only leads self.

While I DO think ECUMENICAL tradition in the understanding of the correct meaning of the words in Scripture has great value, and I certainly consider ECUMENICAL tradition as essential in hermeneutics, that's not the topic here. The issue is: there's a disagreement in what is regarded as binding, de fide DOGMA from the 13 Apostles - disagreement at the very highest level possible. You two each pointing to your OWN Tradition - noting that self alone agrees with self alone - just reveals that each of you agrees with self alone, it has no relevance to whether you are correct.

.

We have a reason for doing this, in that we can trace our 'ancestry' back to the Apostles, and we gave you the Bible.

Some Catholics claim that the RCC did, which is it?

The RCC actually claims that GOD gave us His Scripture, is that false?

The Bible says that GOD wrote the Ten Commandments, is that false?

Does truth matter to you? At all? Is the position of self correct if self alone insists that it is?






.

 

[laconicstudent]

So long as you throw in some cool dark robes, stained glass windows, and all sorts of cool churchy stuff, I'm in


Oh and also emphasize cool man centered traditions while dismissing Protestants beliefs and you got yourself a deal.

I think he was pretending to be a Protestant. That is about what it sounded like when I was a one, anyways.

"Don't follow those filthy 'man-made traditions', the Holy Spirit has leads us into truth, so lets just trash historical Christianity and let me tell you how it should be."

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I don't know other people's definition of sola scripture, but I'll use scriture (ironic I know) when I think the author is twisting something that not many SS believe. So, I read all of it and here are my feelings on it:

A necessary corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone-or everyone-else says.......Each individual Christian is thus put in the position of being his own theologian.

1 Peter 1:20-21
knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.​

1 Corinthian 2:10-16
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?”But we have the mind of Christ.​

It is the Holy Spirit that is doing the interpreting.

Under Private Judgment

average Christian

I don't know what that mean. I was unaware that there were levels of Christianity. Yes, there are weak and strong Christians but "average"? What is considered an "average" Christian?

Not only is the average Christian totally disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, but if they try to do so, and if they arrive at conclusions different than those of the church they belong to—an easy task considering the number of different theological issues—then they will quickly discover that their right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation. Protestant pastors, even Luther and Calvin, have long realized that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment, to ensure their own right to preach, they must prohibit the exercise of this right in practice for others, lest the group be torn apart by strife and finally break up

What? This is with the assumption that the "average" Christian believes that they can interpret scripture for themselves, which doesn't include the Holy Spirit. That's a bad assumption when scripture teaches that that it is the Holy Spirit who does the interpreting. To say that only the Pastors can come up with the correct interpretation and that the average Christian will tear the church apart because they "might" interpret scripture incorrectly is to think that someone wouldn't step in and correct a Christian based on scripture itself. It is also a fear tactic to make someone not want to read scripture for themselves. If the Preacher is teaching scripture the correct way, then when someone read it with the help of the Holy Spirit, they too will come to the that conclusion.

2 Corinthians 11:4
For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!​

Galatians 1:5-7
I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.​

2 Peter 3:16-17
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;
​

Paul wrote to churches and they read them. Yes, there are things hard to understand but that doesn't mean that we should give up and only allow the few to know it.

However, there is a whole set of practical presuppositions that the doctrine of sola scriptura makes, every one of which provides not just an argument against the doctrine, but a fatal blow to it. Sola scriptura simply cannot be God’s plan for Christian theology.

Yes, there are thousands of denominations when people refuse to read the scripture in it's context and won't allow the Holy Spirit to do His job.

If God had intended the individual Christian to use sola scriptura as his operating principle then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement. We can therefore judge whether sola scriptura could have been God’s plan for the individual Christian by asking whether the average Christian in world history could have implemented it.

If you look at the 1st century church, they had the apostles with them and the Holy Spirit was doing His work. Once it was written down, we had the Word that tells us what we need to know. If God tells us the truth in His word and someone comes along and says something differently or contrary to the bible--how would one know IF THEY DO NOT READ the scripture. It's important to read and examine to see if what that person said is true because while we want to point the finger and say "hey look at all these denominations that are off shoots off each other because of doctrine" we can easily say "well look at all these cults that tell people things that are not in-line with scripture."

Not only that, but since God promised that the Church would never pass out of existence (Matt. 16:18, 28:20), the normal Christian of each age must be able to implement sola scriptura, including the crucial patristic era, when the early Church Fathers hammered out the most basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy. It is in this practical area that the doctrine comes crashing down, for it has a number of presuppositions which are in no way true of the average Christian of world history, and certainly not of the average Christian of early Church history.

1 Corinthians 13:19-10
For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.​

In the 1st century church, they were giving everything in parts, we have the word that is whole. That's a bit different.



PRESUPPOSITION #1 (too long to quote)
The church wrote letters and re-wrote those letters to other churchs and they were circulated, even without the printing press, we have the first idea of the scripture being circulated.

But we don't even have to go that far, we know that under the Jewish law, that they knew the word. We have a Eunuch reading from Isaiah (Acts 8:30), we also have Christ going into the synagogue and also reading from Isaiah, unless one want to assume that those were the same copy and that the Eunuch got his copy from the Synagogue that Jesus was reading from, we can conclude that copies of the Old Testament was floating around. So, you cannot say that it wasn't God's plan to not have scripture being read by individuals.

The Reformation may not have been possible without the individual getting the scriptures themselves, but it also wouldn't have happened if those in leadership of the Catholic church was actually preaching correctly. Selling indulgencies when it wasn't actually in scritpure, REALLY? Did they think they would be able to get over on people forever? Yes, I understand that wasn't all that the Reformation was over but not properly teaching had a lot to do with it.


PRESUPPOSITION #2
I understand that there need to be people who go into all the world and preach the word but having the bible there doesn't stop the fact that it should be preached correctly. But the bible is written in such a way that if someone read it with an open heart and there is no one around, it can tell you all that you need to know for salvation. How do you think one preaches??? The word of God! And that is found in scripture.

PRESUPPOSITION #3
I have no problems with teaching people how to read. In fact God to the Israelites that they must teach their children, that they were to write the word of God on their door post! There is absolutely nothing wrong with literacy and this should not even be in question. God gave us the ability to read and write, yes I understand some people have a hard time with it, but it's the basics of it all. You do not need to know everything in the scripture to be able to be saved. You won't miss heaven if you can't quote a scripture in Deutoronomy.

And it's true, the bible tells us how beautiful the feet of those who preach. And one cannot have faith without first hearing, so definitely you need people to preach. But you must first know the scripture in order to preach and teach others.

PRESUPPOSITION #4
Why does this author keep using the word "average" to describe Christians? And I understand what the author mean, but we have more than enough evidence (and copies of copies of copies of the scripture) to know that many of the translations are correct. You can even compare them to each other. That shouldn't stop one from reading scripture.

PRESUPPOSITION #5
I'm not even sure why he included this presupposition. Anyone can make time to read scripture. God have given us time to know Him, it is up to us to manage it well. If the author wants to say that we have inadequate time to study the word, then how exactly can someone telling you what scripture being read to you for about 2 hours, 1 day a week become adequate time to understanding the word?

PRESUPPOSITION #6
I think the author is going off on a tangent. Sufficient nutrition? Seriously? This presupposition is just laughable now.

PRESUPPOSITION #7
I agree that someone need skills to evaluate arguments, but we're not the one interpreting for ourselves, it is the Holy Spirit's job. And it's true he must be able to recognize good and bad arguments but we hope with all the training he gets just living in this world would help one recognize that. But faith is also crucial and the Holy Spirit will help you in those endeavors. Let us pray that we are asking God for wisdom and understanding.

But this also doesn't mean that one should NOT study scripture themselves because they think they are do not have adequate reasoning skills. That's where God come in.


CHRISTIANITY FOR THE COMMON MAN?
Funny how he tries to destroy the "average Christian".

What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way.

But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God’s plan.

2 Peter 3:14-18

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.
​

James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.​

I'm sorry for all the misspelled words.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Is the position of self correct if self alone insists that it is?

This is why I can't follow your posts/threads... what kind of sentence is that?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Is the position of self correct if self alone insists that it is?

This is why I can't follow your posts/threads... what kind of sentence is that?

I see....

It's a question (thus ending with a question mark).

And the question is this: Self (whether self be a person, denomination, institution, whatever) says/claims/insists that self is correct. Understand? does THAT claim of self for self mean that self IS correct?

Do you understand the question now (I didn't think it TOO hard).





.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I see....

It's a question (thus ending with a question mark).

And the question is this: Self (whether self be a person, denomination, institution, whatever) says/claims/insists that self is correct. Understand? does THAT claim of self for self mean that self IS correct?

One's claim that one is correct neither makes one correct nor incorrect.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

One's claim that one is correct neither makes one correct nor incorrect.

I agree.

( A significant reason why I left the RCC, but that's another issue for another day and thread - if at all).

Glad you came to understand the question. And even more glad we agree on the answer. That makes that one still accountable, right?




.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-
Some Orthodox don't include the book of Revelations and some books Catholics have we don't use.-snip-

Yikes, that sounds like a doctrinal issue.

 

[Standing Up]

So long as you throw in some cool dark robes, stained glass windows, and all sorts of cool churchy stuff, I'm in


Oh and also emphasize cool man centered traditions while dismissing Protestants beliefs and you got yourself a deal.

What about the beards? Seriously. The beards. Where's the tongue-in-cheek smiley?

 

[Standing Up]

I see....

It's a question (thus ending with a question mark).

And the question is this: Self (whether self be a person, denomination, institution, whatever) says/claims/insists that self is correct. Understand? does THAT claim of self for self mean that self IS correct?

Do you understand the question now (I didn't think it TOO hard).
.

It is very hard . See, the deal is, some of us have 2000 year old Tradition that has said otherwise. So, you come along, who are you again , and try to say something that hasn't been said in 2000 years and voila, you think it not too hard Yikes