The Reformers and Sola Scriptura

[~Anastasia~]

Then how is that not sola scriptura testing of all doctrine, tradition, faith and practice?

How ELSE do you test it if not via the Mark 7 model that Jesus himself used.

A model that did not blindly hand off to the Jewish magesterium so they would simply tell him what to think?

in Christ,

Bob

Well, that's kind of my point, Bob. What is sola scriptura to you? And how do the various Churches interpret Scripture.

The Orthodox Church holds Scripture as the highest authority. Nothing may contradict it. The Church's interpretation of Scripture is formed within Tradition. (loosely stated) They do not consider themselves sola scriptura.

CL told me that the Lutheran Church holds Scripture as the highest authority. Nothing may contradict it. The Lutherans' (and early Reformers') interpretation of Scripture is informed by Tradition. They consider themselves sola scriptura.

But how much difference is there? I was actually surprised to learn that that was the intent of sola scriptura and how it was intended to function.

Today, we have churches that are (sometimes distant) descendants of the Lutherans and other early Reformers. The hold Scripture as the only authority. Nothing may contradict it. Their interpretation of Scripture is done within their own framework (even personal framework in the case of some). They consider themselves sola scriptura too.

But it is a different kind of sola scriptura. And it has produced results that, to my eyes, seem very different from the early Reformers who framed the very concept of sola scriptura in the first place.


That was why I brought up the fact that I was surprised how sola scriptura was defined and applied in the first case, and yet the result was that the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Orthodox, and those others who interpret Scripture at least informed by tradition ... largely agree.

Everyone else ... largely doesn't.

 

[Albion]

Believer's baptism and the annabaptist acceptance of this basic Bible doctrine is not the "Ellen White invented the doctrine" story you pretend it to be.

A great many Christians outside of the Seventh-day Adventist church know and accept the Bible doctrine on believer's baptism rather than infant sprinkling with holy water to avoid limbo.

"Sprinkling" is not the normal mode of baptism in churches that baptize infants, and Limbo is not a part of any church's teachings.
So-called "Believers Baptism" is not Biblical but was an invention of the Anabaptists (not "Annabaptists"). Otherwise, well no, there's no otherwise.

 

[Albion]

Well, that's kind of my point, Bob. What is sola scriptura to you? And how do the various Churches interpret Scripture.

The Orthodox Church holds Scripture as the highest authority. Nothing may contradict it. The Church's interpretation of Scripture is formed within Tradition. (loosely stated) They do not consider themselves sola scriptura.

CL told me that the Lutheran Church holds Scripture as the highest authority. Nothing may contradict it. The Lutherans' (and early Reformers') interpretation of Scripture is informed by Tradition. They consider themselves sola scriptura.

But how much difference is there?

Plenty. If we contemplate the differences in the churches' beliefs instead of contenting ourselves with the carefully-chosen wording each side uses--Protestants to make it seem that real tradition plays a part in understanding Scripture and Catholics/Orthodox to make it seem that "Tradition" is not considered Scripture's equal--we can see that the differences are real and important.

 

[MoreCoffee]

He does when it is defined as does 2Tim 3:16-27 as the rule to test all doctrine, faith, tradition and practice because the man-made tradition of the magesterium of the One true church started by God at Sinai and STILL operating at the time of Christ - is being questioned, is being condemned, is being judged by the Bible - alone in the Mark 7 example Christ gives us.

Okay, I'll deal with the above portion from post #138.

I think you made a typo because verse 17 is the end verse of 2 Timothy 3 but you've indicated verses up to and including 27. Allowing for the typo we can move on.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not teach sola scriptura. It teaches the usefulness of scripture when teaching morals and doctrine. And the scriptures it refers to are the old testament scriptures with which saint Timothy was familiar since his childhood. The passage reads as follows:

2 Timothy 3:10-17 NAB

(10) You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance,
(11) persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, persecutions that I endured. Yet from all these things the Lord delivered me.
(12) In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
(13) But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
(14) But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
(15) and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
(16) All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
(17) so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.​

There's no sola scriptura in this passage. No command to remain faithful to scripture alone while ignoring what saint Timothy had learned from Paul's teaching because it would be "a tradition of men" as some in GT are apt to say. If what Paul taught was not included in the old testament scriptures when they are read in the (currently fashionable) grammatico-historical sense then was Timothy to dismiss it as Paul's eccentric spiritualising of passages to make Jesus appear in them when in fact a simple historical reading would not necessarily yield anything about Jesus. In fact saint Timothy would not have been preaching the gospel if he ignored what Paul taught him and what he'd learned from his mother and grandmother (see 1 Timothy 1:4,5). The right hermeneutic to apply here starts with paying attention to what is said rather than pretending that something else is said, something more conformed to the erroneous doctrine of sola scriptura. And the right hermeneutic goes on with accepting the example set by the apostles in interpreting the whole of the old testament Christocentrically. Of course, the reformers knew this to be true, so their teaching about sola scriptura was far more broad and far less literalistic than is that found in many a post in GT.

So it is best not to misuse scripture to prop up a doctrine that the scriptures do not teach. Better still just keep to what is said and let it lead you in the context of the believing community of Christians which is the Church. I much prefer the early church father's wisdom to the writings of Ellen White. The early church fathers had the advantage of knowing the apostles or of knowing those whom the apostles had taught, such as Timothy who was the recipient of Paul's letters addressed to him. Ellen White didn't know the apostles nor Timothy. That is not her fault because she was born so long after the time of Paul and Timothy. But her late date of birth does speak to the likelihood of her receiving new public revelation (or confirming old pubic revelation) given by God.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Plenty. If we contemplate the differences in the churches' beliefs instead of contenting ourselves with the carefully-chosen wording each side uses--Protestants to make it seem that real tradition plays a part in understanding Scripture and Catholics/Orthodox to make it seem that "Tradition" is not considered Scripture's equal--we can see that the differences are real and important.

But I am contemplating the differences in the Church's beliefs. Which admittedly, I have much more studying to do.

But frankly, from what I can see so far (and I admit I am still working on this) ... it seems to me that the Catholic and Lutheran standpoint differ from the Orthodox largely as a matter of more reliance on Augustinian teaching. (Forgive me, I hope this does not offend anyone - I have no idea why it should, but in case I'm not aware of something.)

There are other differences, but in terms of soteriology and interpretation of Scripture, that seems to be the biggest one.

Consider a few generations down among Protestants who hold to a different interpretation of sola scriptura, and you have largely anti-sacramentalism, everything from easy believism to extreme legalism, OSAS to dropping in and out of salvation with every sin, 10-commandments applicable to believers or not, cessationists to charismatics, pre-trib rapture to amillenialism ... those are just a few very broad categories. If you delve more deeply you can find a plethora of divisive issues and differences of belief/interpretation.

If I understand your question properly.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Believer's baptism and the annabaptist acceptance of this basic Bible doctrine is not the "Ellen White invented the doctrine" story you pretend it to be.

Please stop writing misrepresentations of what I've said. It would be less reprehensible if your error were merely a misreading of what I've said but it is not. It is self evident that the way you've responded either comes from not reading what I wrote or from not understanding it.

I will not repost my entire post, that would be tiresome for our readers, but I will repost the paragraph that you have misrepresented no less than three times now.

Since this thread is about the reformers and their teaching about sola scriptura we ought not to trouble ourselves too much about Ellen White's views on the Catholic Church. She was not one of the Protestant reformers. In fact, had she lived during the Reformation she would very likely have been condemned as a heretic by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly. Since re-baptism by immersion was a doctrine condemned by the main reformers and Ellen White taught it. No doubt the claims made about visions and the need to keep Saturday, avoid pork, and such things would also have been used to condemn her.​

Even a cursory reading of this could not lead anybody to think that Ellen White invented credobaptism by immersion. The absurdity of your complaint ough by itself to warn readers against accepting the reasoning present in your reply. Obviously your reply is not based on what I said.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But I am contemplating the differences in the Church's beliefs. Which admittedly, I have much more studying to do.

But frankly, from what I can see so far (and I admit I am still working on this) ... it seems to me that the Catholic and Lutheran standpoint differ from the Orthodox largely as a matter of more reliance on Augustinian teaching. (Forgive me, I hope this does not offend anyone - I have no idea why it should, but in case I'm not aware of something.)

There are other differences, but in terms of soteriology and interpretation of Scripture, that seems to be the biggest one.

Consider a few generations down among Protestants who hold to a different interpretation of sola scriptura, and you have largely anti-sacramentalism, everything from easy believism to extreme legalism, OSAS to dropping in and out of salvation with every sin, 10-commandments applicable to believers or not, cessationists to charismatics, pre-trib rapture to amillenialism ... those are just a few very broad categories. If you delve more deeply you can find a plethora of divisive issues and differences of belief/interpretation.

If I understand your question properly.

Saint Augustine is a saint in the Orthodox Church as much as he is in the Catholic Church. I am not persuaded that there is something in saint Augustine's writings that somehow characterises Catholic teaching but not Orthodox. Mind you, Augustine did write in Latin and perhaps that has made him seem remote from the Greek Orthodox?

 

[BobRyan]

MC you keep posting the same thing and claiming it is not you.

In fact, had she lived during the Reformation she would very likely have been condemned as a heretic by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly. Since re-baptism by immersion was a doctrine condemned by the main reformers and Ellen White taught it

What sort of game is that???

you are talking about the practice of having sprinkled babies re-baptized as adults when they leave the RCC and join some church like the Baptist or the Seventh-day Adventist church.

That is the case where Ellen White argues for re-baptism... so also do other annabaptist groups.

Why do you keep going down that road as if it helps your problem with Mark 7?

 

[BobRyan]

Consider a few generations down among Protestants who hold to a different interpretation of sola scriptura, and you have largely anti-sacramentalism, everything from easy believism to extreme legalism, OSAS to dropping in and out of salvation with every sin, 10-commandments applicable to believers or not, cessationists to charismatics, pre-trib rapture to amillenialism ... those are just a few very broad categories. If you delve more deeply you can find a plethora of divisive issues and differences of belief/interpretation.

If I understand your question properly.

The "Catholic" umbrella supposedly in communion with the Pope includes almost as many bizzar cases as you would ever wish to explore - among all the Catholic groups - EO and otherwise - including those gun men that claimed the EO loyalty makes them attack other Christian denominations in true islamic intolerance fashion.

What is more - ALL the Protesting Catholics - were Catholic!

How is the RCC then to blame all these Catholic splintering on "someone else" and why keep going to it as if the Bible was to blame?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Targaryen]

MC you keep posting the same thing and claiming it is not you.



What sort of game is that???

you are talking about the practice of having sprinkled babies re-baptized as adults when they leave the RCC and join some church like the Baptist or the Seventh-day Adventist church.

That is the case where Ellen White argues for re-baptism... so also do other annabaptist groups.

Why do you keep going down that road as if it helps your problem with Mark 7?

Baptists don't believe in the same principles in baptism as does the RCC, same as Anabaptists.

However, Baptists also hold this view of baptism:

"A divine ordinance, a symbolic ritual, a mechanism for publicly declaring one's faith, and a sign of having already been saved, but not necessary for salvation."

That means if someone is baptized Catholic and joins the Baptist church later on, they don't have to be baptized again.

Does the SDA hold to the same view of Baptism as do the Baptists?

 

[Targaryen]

The "Catholic" umbrella supposedly in communion with the Pope includes almost as many bizzar cases as you would ever wish to explore - among all the Catholic groups - EO and otherwise - including those gun men that claimed the EO loyalty makes them attack other Christian denominations in true islamic intolerance fashion.

What is more - ALL the Protesting Catholics - were Catholic!

How is the RCC then to blame all these Catholic splintering on "someone else" and why keep going to it as if the Bible was to blame?

in Christ,

Bob

Bash bash bash but use more illogic in doing so.

 

[BobRyan]

We have instances within the Church itself, witness various schisms and reformations.

And we have instances here in GT - open pretty much any thread at all.


You cut my point out, but then remade it somewhat, so I'll agree. It is this way, and has always been to some degree.

We have the Bible - yes, we do. And that is the final authority, as I think anyone in any kind of Church will agree.

Then how is that not sola scriptura testing of all doctrine, tradition, faith and practice?

How ELSE do you test it if not via the Mark 7 model that Jesus himself used.

A model that did not blindly hand off to the Jewish magesterium so they would simply tell him what to think?

Well, that's kind of my point, Bob. What is sola scriptura to you?

It is the model Christ uses in Mark 7 that results in outright condemnation of the traditions of the high holy magesterium of the One true church started by God at Sinai and still functioning as such in Christ's day.

And how do the various Churches interpret Scripture.

Two different questions.

The first has to do with the authority of scripture -- the second with the hermeneutic for accurately exegeting the text.

If the Protestant response is "until all Catholic groups have perfect unity on all doctrine nobody listen to anything they say" then we get close to the sort of objection Catholics are making.

or it could be like having Methodists argue that until all non-Methodist groups including Catholics come to complete doctrinal harmony - then Methodists should not listen to them or believe the Bible as the ultimate authority.

The argument of that form is flawed.

The right method for interpreting the Bible is important - just as important as getting the right role and authority of the Bible -- right.

The Orthodox Church holds Scripture as the highest authority. Nothing may contradict it.

Then how is that not sola scriptura?

The Church's interpretation of Scripture is formed within Tradition. (loosely stated)

That is what the Jews claimed in Mark 7 - and Christ still slammed them.

Which means the right use of Mark 7 style sola scriptura allows for that same form of condemnation as Christ applies in Mark 7.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bash bash bash but use more illogic in doing so.

You appear to do well in that regard. No doubt.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since this thread is about the reformers and their teaching about sola scriptura we ought not to trouble ourselves too much about Ellen White's views on the Catholic Church. She was not one of the Protestant reformers. In fact, had she lived during the Reformation she would very likely have been condemned as a heretic by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly. Since re-baptism by immersion was a doctrine condemned by the main reformers and Ellen White taught it. No doubt the claims made about visions and the need to keep Saturday, avoid pork, and such things would also have been used to condemn her.

MC you keep posting the same thing and claiming it is not you.

What sort of game is that???

you are talking about the practice of having sprinkled babies re-baptized as adults when they leave the RCC and join some church like the Baptist or the Seventh-day Adventist church.

That is the case where Ellen White argues for re-baptism... so also do other annabaptist groups.

Why do you keep going down that road as if it helps your problem with Mark 7?

Okay I shall spell this out for you. It is evident that something in your reply misses the obvious.

Ellen White was born November 26, 1827 the reformation got under way in 1521 AD after the excommunication of Martin Luther in that year. In 1517 AD Luther wrote and published the ninety-five theses. It ought to be obvious to all who read that since the reformers, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly condemned credo-re-baptism by immersion that their condemnation pre-dated Ellen White by more than three hundred years. It is also blindingly obvious that since they condemned it that Ellen White could not have invented it. Furthermore it is obvious that in saying that "had she lived during the Reformation" I am making reference to a hypothetical in which Ellen White would be a contemporary of the reformers. Since they condemned re-baptism upon profession of Anabaptist faith (or any faith for that matter) it follows that Ellen White would also be condemned by them for teaching the same error. This ought to be sufficient to answer your absurd claim about me saying that Ellen White invented credo baptism by immersion. But I am not confident that you will withdraw and apologise for your persistent misrepresentation, nevertheless I hope that such will occur.

May God be with his people always.

 

[BobRyan]

Baptists don't believe in the same principles in baptism as does the RCC, same as Anabaptists.

However, Baptists also hold this view of baptism:

"A divine ordinance, a symbolic ritual, a mechanism for publicly declaring one's faith, and a sign of having already been saved, but not necessary for salvation."

That means if someone is baptized Catholic and joins the Baptist church later on, they don't have to be baptized again.

Does the SDA hold to the same view of Baptism as do the Baptists?

Turns out -- they do. And Baptists do require believers baptism - for those baptized as infants. And they do not consider the infant saved by sprinkling because the act can only be public symbol of the heart commitment of the one being baptized - and the infant makes no such commitment.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Targaryen]

Turns out -- they do. And Baptists do require believers baptism - for those baptized as infants. And they do not consider the infant saved by sprinkling because the act can only be public symbol of the heart commitment of the one being baptized - and the infant makes no such commitment.

in Christ,

Bob

So credobaptism is not required in the SDA? You mean if you believe prior to joining the SDA the SDA considers your baptism valid? Somehow, considering SDA's view of credobaptism, I don't think that's the case.

Which plays into the point MC made and you continue to misrepresent.

So which is it?

 

[BobRyan]

MC you keep posting the same thing and claiming it is not you.

In fact, had she lived during the Reformation she would very likely have been condemned as a heretic by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly. Since re-baptism by immersion was a doctrine condemned by the main reformers and Ellen White taught it

What sort of game is that???

you are talking about the practice of having sprinkled babies re-baptized as adults when they leave the RCC and join some church like the Baptist or the Seventh-day Adventist church.

That is the case where Ellen White argues for re-baptism... so also do other annabaptist groups.

Why do you keep going down that road as if it helps your problem with Mark 7?

Okay I shall spell this out for you.

many thanks.

I can't wait to see how this helps your problem with Mark 7 or Ellen White or ...

It is evident that something in your reply misses the obvious.

Ellen White was born November 26, 1827 the reformation got under way in 1521 AD after the excommunication of Martin Luther in that year. In 1517 AD Luther wrote and published the ninety-five theses. It ought to be obvious to all who read that since the reformers, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly condemned credo-re-baptism by immersion that their condemnation pre-dated Ellen White by more than three hundred years.

Indeed they were slow to drop that particular part of man-made-tradition that had been handed to them in their heritage.

I fully agree with you at that point.

It is also blindingly obvious that since they condemned it that Ellen White could not have invented it. Furthermore it is obvious that in saying that "had she lived during the Reformation" I am making reference to a hypothetical in which Ellen White would be a contemporary of the reformers. Since they condemned re-baptism upon profession of Anabaptist faith (or any faith for that matter) it follows that Ellen White would also be condemned by them for teaching the same error.

I agree with that as well.

Sorry for missing the point.

I felt led to miss the point by your constant reference to Ellen White as if she had anything at all to do with the difference here in Mark 7 when in fact you are claiming that she and almost every other evangelical -- credobaptist group are all in agreement on a point that many of the early reformers had not yet cut off from the man-made-traditions they had inherited as Catholics.

That said - your problem with Mark 7 remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So credobaptism is not required in the SDA? You mean if you believe prior to joining the SDA the SDA considers your baptism valid? Somehow, considering SDA's view of credobaptism, I don't think that's the case.

Which plays into the point MC made and you continue to misrepresent.

So which is it?

If one is sprinkled as an infant neither Baptist nor SDA church would recognize it as valid and would require that they be baptized as a believer.

If they are a believer that is baptized by immersion in some other denomination they do not need to be re-baptized to join the SDA church - or the Baptist church (in many cases I believe that is correct for Baptists) - but can join on "profession of faith" their prior participation in believers baptism by immersion in the other group is recognized.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[~Anastasia~]

Bob, I don't even know how to respond to this. You're not making sense to me.

The "Catholic" umbrella supposedly in communion with the Pope includes almost as many bizzar cases as you would ever wish to explore - among all the Catholic groups - EO and otherwise -

The EO is not in communion with the Pope ... and I'm not sure what else you're trying to say.

including those gun men that claimed the EO loyalty makes them attack other Christian denominations in true islamic intolerance fashion.

Please don't bring that thread into mine. My objections to your points are posted there.

What is more - ALL the Protesting Catholics - were Catholic!

If you're saying that they held many teachings in common, then I agree. If you're stating the self-evident, then ... ok.

How is the RCC then to blame all these Catholic splintering on "someone else" and

I really don't know what you mean by this.

why keep going to it as if the Bible was to blame?

I don't think the Bible is to blame. I think it's the wide variety of interpretations that don't have much in common with each other are to blame.

 

[Targaryen]

If one is sprinkled as an infant neither Baptist nor SDA church would recognize it as valid and would require that they be baptized as a believer.


If they are a believer that is baptized by immersion in some other denomination they do not need to be re-baptized to join the SDA church - or the Baptist church (in many cases I believe that is correct for Baptists) - but can join on "profession of faith" their prior participation in believers baptism by immersion in the other group is recognized.

in Christ,

Bob

And that's why in the age of the Reformation, if Ellen White was a reformer in that era she'd be branded as a heretic by other reformers. And it's also inconsistent with what you said about SDA's baptism lining up with the Baptist view.

I've not heard of cases of re-baptisms of new members from other traditions in the Baptist system.

Perhaps ChristsSoldier115 or any other Baptist could clear this up for me.