Objections to Sola Scriptura?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You are setting Scripture against itself. . .1 Thessalonians 2:10 against 1 John 1:8, 1:10,
which is de facto misunderstanding of it, for God does not contradict himself in his word.

Holy, blameless and just as used of persons in Scripture, both OT and NT, do not mean sinless.

True. 1 John 1:8 clearly says that the person who says they don't have sin deceives themselves and the truth is not in them. 1 John 1:9 says that if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. What this means to me is that we have the presence of sin within us, and when we confess that we are sinners, then we are forgiven and cleansed.

Paul said, "When I sin, it is not I who sinned, but the sin within me." That is a very interesting statement, because Paul makes a distinction between the real him in his heart, and the sinfulness of his flesh. He says that there is nothing good in him, that is in his flesh. He describes his struggle with his sinfulness as the flesh warring against the Spirit. He comes to the conclusion that the spirit of life in Christ has set him free from the law of sin and death, and therefore there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ.

This shows that Paul was a grace-based believer and not a performance-based one. The latter is depending on their own righteousness to give them success and victory over sin, while the former depends on the grace of God through faith in Christ, along with the Holy Spirit who is working sanctification in them and producing the good works in them that God has ordained for them to walk. Self-righteous people produce their own good works, while those who have the righteousness of Christ allow the Holy Spirit to produce their good works.

 

[Clare73]

The problem in this thread will be how one defines Sola Scriptura.

The classical Protestant position is that only scripture is the only God Breathed source of doctrine and practice. That is not to say that there is no need for tradition or the church.
It means that those two are on a lower level that scripture.

And must not disagree with nor be contrary to Scripture.

 

[JAL]

Who made that rule?

That falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of your personal assertion.

If you had one, you would make it and let it be examined.

Please grant me the favor of not addressing me further on this issue. Thanks in advance.

 

[Athanasius377]

And must not disagree with nor be contrary to Scripture.

Correct.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

And must not disagree with nor be contrary to Scripture.

Some church tradition has arisen from the desire to ensure that church services are run decently and in order. I took a service in my church last Sunday, and had it all written out from the Anglican church liturgical service that was used to dedicate a newly repaired and refurbished local church. The liturgy was using words that were used for hundreds of years and spoke of Christ all the way through. It was a liturgy that was totally consistent with Scripture and therefore I had no problem using it for the service in my church.

So one has to examine a church tradition to see if it is consistent with what the Holy Spirit intended when He inspired the Scriptures. And this is another difference between Church Tradition and Holy Scripture. Tradition is inspired by men, while the Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is therefore a no-brainer which is more reliable to being in tune with the plans and purposes of God for us.

 

[friend of]

Going by Scripture, inspired as it is, the Bereans and the Ethiopian Eunuch still required the input of disciples, from Christ's "group", in order to have understanding

So then who and what gives modern day disciples their authority? Does it come from the Holy Spirit Himself? If so, how does one authenticate such?

 

[fhansen]

So then who and what gives modern day disciples their authority? Does it come from the Holy Spirit Himself? If so, how does one authenticate such?

It's been vested in the church since the beginning. If an Arian disagreed with those who decreed against Arianism at Nicaea, they had every right and freedom to believe that those bishops at Nicaea misrepresented God and the gospel and the church. And many believed that very thing. I believe the church spoke with the understanding and authority given it by Christ.

 

[concretecamper]

So one has to examine a church tradition to see if it is consistent with what the Holy Spirit intended when He inspired the Scriptures

quite the opposite. One had to see if each book being considered as worthy to be read at the Divine Liturgy ((aka The Bible) was consistent with Church Tradition (the teachings handed down from the Apostles)

 

[friend of]

Also, I don't quite understand the argument that, because difference of opinion on exegesis arises, therefore we shouldn't take the scriptures as the full authority.

Would it be preferred to go back to the dark ages where the laity didn't have access to the scriptures, since there exists the possibility for some adherents to fail to properly exegete?

 

[friend of]

It's been vested in the church since the beginning. If an Arian disagreed with those who decreed against Arianism at Nicaea, they had every right and freedom to believe that those bishops at Nicaea misrepresented God and the gospel and the church. And many believed that very thing. I believe the church spoke with the understanding and authority given it by Christ.

The problem I see with the claim of apostolic succession (by Catholicism or Orthodoxy, for example) is that it is, essentially, a telephone game being played for centuries.

 

[HTacianas]

Why does it matter. . .it doesn't change the error of the teaching in regard to justification, which is our topic.

Jas 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The problem in this thread will be how one defines Sola Scriptura.

The classical Protestant position is that scripture is the only God Breathed source of doctrine and practice. That is not to say that there is no need for tradition or the church. It means that those two are on a lower level that scripture.

Yes, that is pretty much the definition that I gave some time ago. "scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine and practice" implies that scripture is either

• perspicuous and therefore capable of accurate interpretation by any who read it

or

• obscure and difficult to interpret and only a few can hope to arrive at a partial understanding of it

or

• neither perspicuous nor obscure but wholly spiritual and only the Spirit led can hope to understand

The abundance of differing theologies and practises among the dozens of denominations and thousands of independent churches suggests that the holy scriptures are not perspicuous. And the claims of several participants in this thread suggests that the scriptures are wholly spiritual and only a Spirit led person can hope to understand it. Of course this view raises the question "Who are these Spirit led persons?" And what is their Spirit led interpretation on the matter of Sola Scriptura?

 

[fhansen]

The problem I see with the claim of apostolic succession (by Catholicism or Orthodoxy, for example) is that it is, essentially, a telephone game being played for centuries.

But is it? The basic teachings on justification and other teachings have remained essentially the same between east and west, and consistent with the early fathers, even after centuries of isolation. I'd submit that you'll find more consistency there then you will among Sola Scriptura supporters. Apostolic succession just points to a continuous shared faith traceable to the beginnings, as we should expect. Somewhere?

 

[Clare73]

Jas 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Justified also means "proven," which is its meaning in James 2:24.

Abraham's faith was proven by his works.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

quite the opposite. One had to see if each book being considered as worthy to be read at the Divine Liturgy ((aka The Bible) was consistent with Church Tradition (the teachings handed down from the Apostles)

The teaching of the Apostles is found in the New Testament Epistles. What other teaching has been handed down that isn't contained in those New Testament letters?

 

[HTacianas]

Justified also means "proven," which is its meaning in James 2:24.

Abraham's faith was proven by his works.

So a man is "proven" by works and not by faith only? Or are we "proven" by faith apart from the works of the law?

 

[fhansen]

The teaching of the Apostles is found in the New Testament Epistles. What other teaching has been handed down that isn't contained in those New Testament letters?

For one thing it was the church that not only handed them down, but determined which were fit (inspired) to be in the canon of Scripture and which were not. But that's not game-over either. Because Scripture must be understood and interpreted correctly. And there are many different opinions, understandings, and interpretations of Scripture based on merely reading it whereas the church always understood it also in light of the teachings and practices that were handed down and preached before any of the New Testament was even written.

 

[JAL]

I don't go with any of these options.

Your response sounds like a copout, since it doesn't indicate an additional option to your liking.

 

[bmjackson]

You are setting Scripture against itself. . .1 Thessalonians 2:10 against 1 John 1:8, 1:10,
which is de facto misunderstanding of it, for God does not contradict himself in his word.

Holy, blameless and just as used of persons in Scripture, both OT and NT, do not mean sinless.

Yes and your interpretation is the wrong one and goes against the early church teaching and the plain dictionary meaning of the words.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

For one thing it was the church that not only handed them down, but determined which were fit (inspired) to be in the canon of Scripture and which were not. But that's not game-over either. Because Scripture must be understood and interpreted correctly. And there are many different opinions, understandings, and interpretations of Scripture based on merely reading it whereas the church always understood it also in light of the teachings and practices that were handed down and preached before any of the New Testament was even written.

A reasonable general statement. Got any specific examples?