SOLA SCRIPTURA THE FINAL AUTHORITY AND SOLE RULE OF FAITH

[Albion]

Yes, I understand. By itself it's a totally useless doctrine...

As my later post asked, how can it be unimportant (or "useless") whether or not a church is basing its teachings on the correct source of information??

You've heard of "Garbage in, garbage out," I am sure. And we all know that if you start with a defective proposition, it is impossible to reach the correct answer no matter how well you reason things out.

In addition, the people who say that Scripture is not the ultimate guide but traditions, opinions, folklore, etc. etc. are what should be used instead seem never to realize that none of these is infallible or immune to misinterpretations.

Therefore, the Bible is demoted, but nothing is put in its place that is free of the same shortcomings that were alleged against the Bible!

 

[fhansen]

Why, we have to wonder, would that be unimportant--having the correct/true/reliable source of information to work from?

The source isn't the issue; how that source is applied for the purpose of discerning truth is the problem. Even if we all agree that Scripture can serve as the [sole] rule of faith, who will apply that rule? Because correct interpretation as often as not is a necessary precursor to the application.

 

[rturner76]

That seems to have become the next favorite line of the opponents of Sola Scriptura here on these forums. But it absolutely avoids the issue.

Yes, we know that the Bible wasn't complete on Pentecost Sunday. However, these writings, once completed and accepted by the Church as inspired, were considered by the Church to be...

--Complete

--Divinely Inspired, and

--Official.


Pardon the redundancy, but is that not so?
..........................................................................
Your own denomination, no less than the ones the rest of us belong to, affirms that the Bible is God's own word given to Mankind for the same purpose as all the Sola Scriptura advocates here believe.

And we all have access to it. Therefore, this argument is useless which says in effect, "No, it cannot be considered to be authoritative. Do not trust it. We must instead defer to some theoretical oral tradition that no one can produce and which cannot be shown to be different in content from the testimony of Sacred Scripture."

Yes it is so. I just feel that many people think of the Bible as a book written by God but it is actually a collection of books inspired by God

 

[Albion]

The source isn't the issue

Yes; it is.

That is what Sola Scriptura is all about. It's what the term means.

No amount of redefining the term in order to be able to denounce it will work. And it's certainly off-topic on a thread that, in its very title, states the issue as
SOLA SCRIPTURA THE FINAL AUTHORITY AND SOLE RULE OF FAITH

It would be difficult to be more explicit and clear than that!

 

[rturner76]

The only record we have today of JESUS is the written Word of God. He is revealed through the scriptures. The scriptures you have provided here only support what is being shared with you in the OP. According to the scriptures our works do not save us. They are the fruit of our faith and demonstrate that we have faith in God's Word. Once again faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *ROMANS 10:17. We are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves it is a gift of God not of works lest anyman should boast *Ephesians 2:8-9

It's not one or the other, they both go together. Works are the evidence of your faith. Faith without works is a dead faith. Yes we are saved by faith, I don't dispute that but how do we show God we have faith? By following his precepts. These are not works of the law but works of faith, inspired by our faith and sustained by faith also our works strengthen our faith so the two cannot be separated

There can be no faith without works and no works without faith. That's is why Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments." Not, if you love me, all you must do is say it and believe it.

 

[Albion]

Yes it is so. (That the Bible is accepted by both Catholics and Protestants as complete, inspired, and official).

I am happy to know that we agree on that.

I just feel that many people think of the Bible as a book written by God but it is actually a collection of books inspired by God

Oh well, there is almost nothing that some people somewhere won't get wrong. So I do agree with this point, although most of this thread has been devoted to people saying that the Bible isn't to be trusted as much as something else.

The Bible itself affirms, as you know, that holy men wrote as they were inspired by God to write, meaning that the transcript was not delivered to us directly from God, but the message was. And that--the message, the revelation--is what everyone is arguing about.

Thanks for your post and for the clarification.

 

[rturner76]

But is the Catholic church really any more united than the Protestant churches? Just anecdotally, I don't know one Roman Catholic who believes in transubstantiation, and I would say most do not believe that doing good works, while good in themselves and which can make you feel closer to God, do not in themselves make you right with God, it's that sincerely saying sorry and forgiveness does. So I just wonder what this claim to unity actually means.

We cannot get away from the need to personally interpret the things we read or are being told if they are to make sense to us and if we are to believe them whether that is Scripture alone or Scriputure + Tradition + the Magisterium. No two Protestants think exactly alike and no two Catholics do either. The unity is that we all belong to the family of God.

Correct, individuals have different beliefs and opinions. However Church doctrine is the same in all Catholic churches. Whether an individual accepts that dogma 100% is a personal choice.

What I was saying about Protestants is that there is a huge range of beliefs in the different denominations like one church says it's ok to be gay, the teach it's not a sin. The next church teaches that all gays do straight to hell with no chance of salvation for any of them. Some play music, some don't believe in using instruments. That's what I mean about interpretation. Every church has a different one. People are taught different things in different churches

 

[Albion]

It's not one or the other, they both go together. Works are the evidence of your faith.

That's true.

Faith without works is a dead faith.

Quite right.

Yes we are saved by faith, I don't dispute that but how do we show God we have faith? By following his precepts. These are not works of the law but works of faith, inspired by our faith and sustained by faith also our works strengthen our faith so the two cannot be separated

Okay. Let's be sure to add, however, that nothing you have so carefully explained here amounts to saying that our salvation or loss of it depends both upon us 1) having faith and also 2) doing good deeds that earn God's favor.

 

[Albion]

Correct, individuals have different beliefs and opinions. However Church doctrine is the same in all Catholic churches.

Well, no. It isn't.

As a matter of fact, there are no two Catholic churches that teach the same thing.

The Eastern Orthodox do not have the same beliefs as the Roman Catholic Church does, and neither of them agrees with the Oriental Orthodox. The Old Catholic churches do not agree with Papal Infallibility, but then again, neither do any of the other Catholic churches. And there are many more specific disagreements that could be mentioned.

What I was saying about Protestants is that there is a huge range of beliefs in the different denominations....

That's true, but as I wrote above, it's also true of the Catholic churches.

 

[rturner76]

Okay. Let's be sure to add, however, that nothing you have so carefully explained here amounts to saying that our salvation or loss of it depends both upon us 1) having faith and also 2) doing good deeds that earn God's favor.

Exactly, we show we love him by doing what he says. It also shows that we trust him and the way of life he has prescribed for us is pretty fulfilling IMO. I mean don't you get a good feeling inside when you help someone? I certainly do. It's like the more we do for others and the better we behave (if our motivation is to please God by following his precepts) the more we want to help and the more we want to learn and study his word etc. It seems that way to me anyway.

 

[rturner76]

Well, no. It isn't.

As a matter of fact, there are no two Catholic churches that teach the same thing.

The Eastern Orthodox do not have the same beliefs as the Roman Catholic Church does, and neither of them agrees with the Oriental Orthodox. The Old Catholic churches do not agree with Papal Infallibility, but then again, neither do any of the other Catholic churches. And there are many more specific disagreements that could be mentioned.


That's true, but as I wrote above, it's also true of the Catholic churches.

Yes the different Catholic Churches fundamentally (Oriental, Eastern Orthodox and Roman) have differences that made the split off from each other.

What I should have said is there is only one catechism for all Roman churches like there is one for each of the others too. I meant that The RCC doctrine is supposed to be the same in Rome or Africa. I do concede that individual Priests do have different opinions on things like homosexuality, Mass attendance, Eucharist, marital issues and so on. Like one Priest may deny the Eucharist to a known homosexual and another will celebrate a homosexual couple's anniversary. I don't know why I keep using homosexuality as an example but it's a divisive issue for many. So there are surely differences between Roman Churches also even though it's not supposed to be.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Depending on which special little unicorn definition of "sola scriptura" one uses (which is yet another thing Protestants can't agree on), it completely ignores Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, etc.

The trend is becoming quite apparent. Armed with "sola scriptura" as their unofficial creed, every new generation of Protestant Christianity negotiates more of the faith away than the generation before. Luther, Zwingli and the rest would scarcely recognize most modern Protestant doctrines. I'm on the record questioning how much longer Protestantism will still be recognizable as Christianity.

Uh huh

Imagine if everyone kept telling the apostles they’re wrong because that isn’t written in the scriptures.

 

[Albion]

Yes the different Catholic Churches fundamentally (Oriental, Eastern Orthodox and Roman) have differences that made the split off from each other.

What I should have said is there is only one catechism for all Roman churches like there is one for each of the others too. I meant that The RCC doctrine is supposed to be the same in Rome or Africa. I do concede that individual Priests do have different opinions on things like homosexuality, Mass attendance, Eucharist, marital issues and so on. Like one Priest may deny the Eucharist to a known homosexual and another will celebrate a homosexual couple's anniversary. I don't know why I keep using homosexuality as an example but it's a divisive issue for many. So there are surely differences between Roman Churches also even though it's not supposed to be.

Yes, but I was not denying all of what you'd written before. I refer to your thinking that the Roman Catholic Church is pretty much united--not entirely but mainly so--on doctrine.

In other words, it's not about what individual members may believe. Often that is in conflict with their own church's teachings. Still, the church officially is of one mind on doctrines of importance or very close to it.

HOWEVER, there are many Protestant denominations which are as united as that, too.

This means that a comparison of one church, the Roman Catholic Church, with all Protestants of all denominations at once, is misleading. Doing that will naturally make the one seem united and the others disunited, even though the latter are separate church bodies and not any particular denomination.

 

[pescador]

Depending on which special little unicorn definition of "sola scriptura" one uses (which is yet another thing Protestants can't agree on), it completely ignores Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, etc.

The trend is becoming quite apparent. Armed with "sola scriptura" as their unofficial creed, every new generation of Protestant Christianity negotiates more of the faith away than the generation before. Luther, Zwingli and the rest would scarcely recognize most modern Protestant doctrines. I'm on the record questioning how much longer Protestantism will still be recognizable as Christianity.

Uh huh

You're right, Protestants don't accept such human constructs as "Sacred Tradition", "the Magesterium", etc. We worship God, not creeds, institutions, rituals, a separate class of priests, etc. that have no Scriptural basis.

Regarding Catholicism "every new generation negotiates more of the faith away than the generation before". The Bible is the infallible, perfect written Word of God. It doesn't need a hierarchy of Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Nuns, and others to be intermediaries between God and His children.

 

[BobRyan]

Of course it needn't be mentioned that you more than likely disagree on several points of Scriptural interpretation with the OP.

No doubt that doctrinal differences exist but the solution to it is "the Bible"... all the not-the-Bible solutions in the world have proven to fail miserably and the slaughter of millions of Christians during the 1260 years of dark ages as well as the Christians killed in the first century due to non-Christian Jews deciding that tradition was the best guide on who to torment and kill.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Imagine if everyone kept telling the apostles they’re wrong because that isn’t written in the scriptures.

Didn't the Pharisees try to tell the Apostles they were wrong and tried to stop them by punishing them, killing them and putting the Apostles in prison? Yet all the presented was the Word of God. All through time God's people and prophets have always been persecuted for their faith even by the so called religious church's of the day (Isreal in the old and new testament).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I can only surmise you didn't read my posts in their entirety. As I said before, I do not deny God's Word be it written or spoken. And just because you say it, does not make it true. Sorry. What I do deny is your fallible, non-authoritative, personal interpretation of Scripture. Even if you do consider yourself 'infallible' as you stated on post #125, which quite frankly,

I find this very odd coming from a Protestant. What I also find odd, is how the other non-Catholic posters are giving you a pass. I guarantee, if it were a Catholic claiming to be infallible as you did, they would be all over that in a New Yourk minute! What's up with that people. Double standard?

Very interesting coming from a person that cites many Scripture passages in their argument for SS. However, is this case you are incorrect. If you recall, my quest to you was."For the Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - is it the Bible?" Why are you incorrect? Because of 1 Tim. 3:15. "But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." The Church is the pillar and foundation of "truth". Oops! Looks like you have quite the dilemma here. Sooooo... are you going to claim that the Holy Spirit got it wrong, or did you?

Sure it is. It even say's in the Bible that everything Jesus did or said was recorded in Scripture. (Jn.21:25).

Again, I do not deny God's Word, just your fallible, non-authoritative, personal interpretation of it. Sorry.

Sure I did, you don't except my answer because it dosen't conform to your fallible, non-authoritative, personal interpretation and man made unbiblical belief of SS.

Don't need too, cause I already did. Sorry

Repetition post. And with it, I will keep repeating...I do not deny God's Word, just your fallible, non-authoritative, personal interpretation of it. Sorry.

Sola Scriptura is in error.

Again, SS may be your limitation, but please don't try to make it mine!

Ahhh... this coming from a person that didn't know for the Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth is?? Come on man!!

What is in error, is not you quoting Scripture directly, but your fallible, non-authoritative, personal interpretation of it. And I am not about to risk my eternal soul on your fallible, non-authoritative, personal interpretation of it. I would also urge everyone else not to do so either!! Sorry.

No.... what you should actually say is...."Let me repeat my self again". And my responce would be.... again.....I do not deny God's Word, be it written or spoken, but your fallible, non-authoritative, personal interpretation of it. Sorry. No, your constant repetition is not helpful. SorryHave a Blessed day

Sorry dear friend this is only repitition of your words over scripture and is already addressed in detail with the scriptures already provided in post # 137 which although you responded to here you did not address any of the content and scripture provided then prove the claims you are making here are not true.

You are welcome to believe as you wish to. All you have provided though is your words over the scriptures that disagree with you, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do wish to ask you some serious questions. You do not have to answer them here if you do not want to but I pray they will give you something to seriously and prayerfully consider.

You claim you do not deny the scriptures yet it is the scriptures which are Gods' Word (not mine) that say God's Word is the final authority and the sole rule of faith and the standard of what truth is as shown in Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29; John 17:17; John 8:31-32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17 but you do not believe these scriptures.

You still did not answer the question asked of you which is simply based on the scriptures in Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:16; Romans 10:17; Romans 14:23 which are God's Words not mine. Please prayerfully consider this question.

If salvation is by God's grace THROUGH FAITH (Ephesians 2:8-9) how can you have God's salvation if you deny his Word when the faith we are saved from comes from the very Word of God (the scriptures) that you deny are the sole rule of faith?

Something to pray about.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

And yet the Bereans would've never arrived at the gospel on their own based on their understanding of Scripture without the input of the church, the church whose members later wrote the New Testament.

The "church" here meaning those who have the word of God and a purified by it and believe and follow what God's Word says. All in all it was the simply the Word of God that was shared with the Bareans. They simply checked the scriptures as their final authority to see if these things were true or not. All the above only support the OP.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yes it is so. I just feel that many people think of the Bible as a book written by God but it is actually a collection of books inspired by God

Holy men were moved by the Spirit of God to write the Words of God. All scripure it says is "God breathed", they are the living Word of God. They are not the words of men, they are indeed the Words of God written by men although some of these scriptures were indeed directly spoken and written with the finger of God. Either way the scriptures are the Word of God and the sole authority and rule of faith and God's salvation to fallen man. There is no other way into God's kingdom if we do not believe and follow what God Word says according to the scriptures..

 

[Albion]

Did you know they "The Word" of God is actually Jesus Christ?

The Bible does refer to Christ several times by that wording but it refers to the Scriptures more often by the term.

The "scriptures" they talk about in the Bible is the Talmud, not the New Testament.

You could say that since the most-often quoted verse that says it is divine revelation is in the OT.

But then, if you take that view, what do you say about the Catholic claim that the Roman Church made the Bible, that two Church councils canonized the Bible books and everything else in Christian history which has both Testaments being considered by your church to BE Scripture, the Word of God??

It would be necessary to backtrack on all of that which Catholic members post here every time the subject of the reliability of Scripture comes up for discussion.

The Church always taught that the Bible was divinely inspired. Here's the rub see. The Catholic Church wants people to read the Bible with guidance from a man of God who has studied the Bible and is an expert on it's interpretation. Protestants read the Bible as laymen and each one has their own different interpretation.

Wrong. Protestant churches are more emphatic about Bible study for their parishioners but the current Pope has himself urged Catholic laypersons to be more active in doing the exact same thing.

Besides that, the idea that "Protestants read the Bible as laymen" is patently false. Check with almost every Protestant denomination and you will find a carefully written statement of belief. That's the church/denomination itself standing on a set of doctrines. It's not that everyone is supposed to decide for himself.

Then too, a leading issue during the Reformation was that the sermons should be more thorough and teach the Bible!

Today, as then, Protestant worship services generally feature the Sermon, while Catholic ones make it of secondary importance to the liturgy. And it is not for nothing that preaching by Catholic priests is even yet considered by most people to be of lesser quality than what you'd find in the average Protestant church.

Just look at how many denominations and nondenominational there are. There is no continuity with Protestants. How can all the 1000's of different "Sola Scriptura" churches have different doctrines if they are 100% from the Bible with the correct interpretation?

How many times does this have to be said--Sola Scriptura is concerned with what IS the authority to follow when it comes to setting doctrine, NOT how to interpret it?