WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.

GodsGrace101 · Jul 9, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
Hi GG .

For me I see all of the many interpretations of the scriptures, or doctrines and all the different Churches as signs of the fulfillment of the prophecies of last days in as shown in the Words of Jesus in Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22 and the Apostles in Acts of the Apostles 20:29; 2 Peter 2:1-5 etc etc which state in the last days there will be many false Christs and false prophets and false teachers even showing great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

So of course the devil has a counterfeit of that which is true but it is a lie in order to deceive people and lead them away from God and his Word as he is the father of lies *John 8:44 (context John 8:31 onwards to the religious teachers of the day); 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Romans 3:4

This more than ever shows the importance of a prayerful understanding of the scriptures 1 John 4:1 and 2 Timothy 2:15 through the Spirit *John 14:26 in order for us to know God's truth and the teachings of error designed by the enemy of souls to lead us away from God and his Word.

The question I believe we must all ask ourselves is who do we believe and follow, and where have we been seeking our understanding of the truth of Gods' Word. Are we seeking God's truth which is defined in the scriptures as the Word of God from the teachings and traditions of men outside of his Word (the bible) or have we been prayerfully seeking God for His truth through his Spirit that we may know what His truth is through his Word?

According to the scriptures, no one can know the truth of God's Word without God's Spirit *John 14:26; John 16:13; 1 John 2:27; John 8:31-36; John 17:17; John 6:63; Hebrews 8:11; John 8:51; John 8:55; and God only gives his Spirit to those who believe and obey him *Acts of the Apostles 5:32; Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16; John 10:26-27.

God's promises are conditional however as our salvation is on believing and following what God says. If we are believing and following what God has taught us then it is not a hard thing to know the truth of Gods' Word if we turn away from the teachings of men and seek him for it through his Spirit *John 14:26; John 16:13; John 17:17; John 8:31-32. As long as we are living up to all the knowledge that God has revealed to us and following it, God promises that if any man wills to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God, or whether it is not of God *John 7:17.

The milk of the Word is given by God through men *1 Corinthians 3:1-2; Hebrews 5:12; Hebrews 6:1; 1 Peter 2:1-2. The meat of the Word and a knowledge of His truth is given by God *Isaiah 28:9-10; Hebrews 8:11; 1 John 2:27. This is God's new covenant promise to those who believe and follow his Word *Hebrews 8:11; John 14:26; John 16:13; John 7:17; John 17:17; John 6:63; 1 John 2:27.

God promises that you shall seek me (the Word) and find me (the truth) when you shall seach for me with all of your heart * Jeremiah 29:13. Knowing the truth of God's Word is conditional to believing and following God's Word and prayerfully seeking Jesus for an understanding of his truth through his Word.

We are told to turn away from men and cursed is every man that trusts in man and makes flesh his arm *Jeremiah 17:5. Gods' truth can only be revealed through his Spirit and through his Word.

I believe God's people are in all the Churches as long as they are individually living up to all the knowledge that God has revealed to them they are his people as it is written in times of ignorance God winks at until he gives us a knowledge of His truth and they reject it *Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31 at which time we are all held accountable for sin Hebrews 10:26-27 and will be judged for it *John 12:47-48.

Of course not all the Churches have the truth of God's Word *Matthew 24:24 but I believe that the hour is coming and now is that the true worshippers must worship God is Spirit and in truth. God is a Spirit and those who worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). God is calling his people out from following man made teachings and traditions back to the pure Word of God *Revelation 18:1-5. God's sheep hear his Voice (the Word) and follow him Those who do not here and follow are not God's sheep according to the scriptures *John 10:26-27

.............

God's true Church according to the scriptures are simply all those who believe and follow God's Word. God's Word tells us who they are here *1 John 2:3-4; 1 John 3:6-10; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:12; Revelation 22:14 etc etc..

Only God's Word is true and it is only to God's that we must look to know what God's truth is as we seek God to know it through his Spirit *John 14:26.

God bless.

Hey LGW
What a great post!
Have I ever told you how much I admire your knowledge of scripture?

Here is how I'VE learned:
When I became born again many years ago, I had never read the bible -- I was Catholic. Since I then came to have spiritual needs I did not have before and the CC could not supply them,,,,I changed denomination.

I began to read the bible and to study it with the second denomination...a very basic and good church. (Nazarene). As I studied the bible I did not want to be brainwashed and wanted to understand everything on my own,,,so I checked everything carefully, as the Bareans did.

You can take a verse from the bible and understand it in different way....even scholars do. So I do agree with you that we are responsible to God for our own understanding and the fact that we live what we believe.

I'm not sure this is enough however. I've heard some declare Faith Alone. This is a lie and cannot be true, yet some believe it fervently. I DO believe that they pick and choose which verse to believe because if the entire N.T. is read, it becomes apparent that Jesus wants us to DO something and not just "believe". In quotation marks because BELIEVE actually means also to OBEY.

Maybe we should just be adhering to Jesus' teachings only? Is this the Jesus Only movement, which I know nothing about?

I've always like what you say about God "winking" at us and I agree with this because God is a very big and Almighty God and sometimes we reduce HIM to OUR understanding.

Anyway, thanks for such a great reply!

GodsGrace101 · Jul 9, 2020

Albion said:
I don't see why anyone would say that. If it's known to be the truth, and it's right there in your hands, it cannot be said that you can't know the truth.

Because there cannot be two truths.
It is either NECESSARY to be baptized to be saved....
or it is NOT. Both cannot be right.
(and this is argued continually).

I do agree with @LoveGodsWord in the sense that God will not hold us responsible for what we do not know OR for what we believe to be correct even if it is not...but, alas, we still do not have the TRUTH.

That would also be true of the confessional Lutheran bodies and the Jehovah's Witnesses, just to name some others "off the top of my head." There probably are others as well.

JW are not Christian and deny Jesus as the Son of God. It's possible that God will forgive even them! Perhaps even more than some Protestants or Catholics that believe they are saved.

I'm not convinced that that is correct to say, but if you are going to compare one single denomination against hundreds of others simultaneously--and assume that the hundred others are all the same denomination even though they are not-- the one is probably going to look more united than the hundred others taken together.

We could also do it the opposite way by comparing one Protestant denomination against all the Catholic ones simultaneously (CC, EO, OC,OO, and others). Doing that would make the Protestant denomination appear to be more unified than the Catholic churches.

Herein is the problem....Why are there so many Protestant denominations? It's because they cannot agree and we have splintering. Some of this is due to pride...non-denominational churches. Also, I do believe the CC is different from the Orthodox Church..they also love to debate which one is the original church.

It sounds familiar, but offhand I don't know which churches those would be.

Maybe I'll look up the Jesus Only Movement online...but this is a terrible way to learn about any "religion".

It does seem to me that much debate comes from the words of Paul,,,maybe we need help in understanding him since he IS difficult to comprehend in certain verses. Maybe we should be listening and quoting only Jesus?? Maybe that's the ticket?

GodsGrace101 · Jul 9, 2020

JAL said:
Exactly. Sola Scriptura has consistently proven itself to be a norming-failure throughout history. The only doctrines exegetes agree on, as far as I can see, are the fundamentals taught to us by the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) during conversion. That's my opinion backed by observation, anyway. That's why I hold:
(1) Exegesis usually doesn't work.
(2) Direct Revelation succeeds.

But we're back to Direct Revelation.

Direct Revelation MUST be a personal matter.
God does speak to each of us individually, but He does not give to each of us different doctrine.

What is personal should be kept as personal.
Too many times I've heard that the Holy Spirit revealed something or other to a person. Well, why didn't the Holy Spirit reveal this to ME?

I do believe exegesis works but only when done by a scholar AND when we can agree to it in the face of God and accept it for ourselves. I would not accept anything I cannot agree with. IOW,,,if I believe I need to be baptized to be saved...then I would get baptized, no matter what the scholarly understanding would be.

Albion · Jul 9, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
Because there cannot be two truths.

I think we all agree to that.

It is either NECESSARY to be baptized to be saved....
or it is NOT. Both cannot be right.
(and this is argued continually).

You mean that the issue itself is argued continually, not that both can or cannot be right. Yes, I agree.

Herein is the problem....Why are there so many Protestant denominations?

Isn't the topic here Sola Scriptura? There are many Protestant denominations and more than a few Catholic denominations as well.

People in a free society are free to choose what to believe. That being so, they are naturally going to disagree on enough matters that they will create separate churches. It's unfortunate; we all say that it is, and not everyone can be right. But again, the topic of this thread is Sola Scriptura, which is about identifying the source of religious truth, not whether every reader is going to understand it in the same way. And I do feel confident about one thing: if we say that the Bible is not our guide, but that there may be all sorts of other sources of information that are equally authoritative, we will be having even more disagreements.

That's why Sola Scriptura became an issue when it did. The Reformers decried the fact that, at that point in our history, new doctrines were being created left and right by church leaders and imposing them on the people, saying that God meant for us to know something else of extreme importance that He had not gotten around to including in His word, Holy Scripture!

Some of this is due to pride...non-denominational churches. Also, I do believe the CC is different from the Orthodox Church..they also love to debate which one is the original church.

Well, the CC is as different from the Orthodox Churches as the Methodists are from the Anglicans or the Pentecostals are from the Holiness churches, that's right.

Tradidi · Jul 9, 2020

Albion said:
There are many Protestant denominations and more than a few Catholic denominations as well.

This is false. Different Protestant denominations are different because they disagree on doctrine. Catholic "denominations", orders would the correct term, are not different in doctrine but different in their focus/mission. In the Catholic Church, if anyone rejects only one article of faith he is considered to have rejected them all, and he is no longer considered a Catholic. There are NO Catholic denominations. The Catholic Church is One.

Albion said:
That's why Sola Scriptura became an issue when it did. The Reformers decried the fact that, at that point in our history, new doctrines were being created left and right by church leaders and imposing them on the people, saying that God meant for us to know something else of extreme importance that He had not gotten around to including in His word, Holy Scripture!

No, Sola Scruptura IS the issue and CAUSED the division. What the "reformers" reacted against was sinners in the name of the Church acting against what the Church teaches. You cannot prove a law is wrong based upon the fact that some people break it. You have to judge the law on what it says, not on what people do to break it. Luther threw out the baby with the bathwater. He threw out the rule of faith that had united true Christians for 14/15 centuries, and created his own rule of faith. Instead of "reformers" they became "deformers".

redleghunter · Jul 9, 2020

Tradidi said:
Why not humbly admit that you do not know the truth. Oh yes, you know where to find it, so you can say that you have the truth by holding the Book in your hands. But you do not know what exactly is being said in the Book you are holding in your hands. Like a cave dweller that is given a smart phone. That is Sola Scriptura in practice.

Can you agree we could both agree this is Truth?

John 11: NASB

17So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days. 18Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off; 19and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother. 20Martha therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went to meet Him, but Mary stayed at the house. 21Martha then said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. 22“Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.” 23Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”

Tradidi · Jul 9, 2020

redleghunter said:
Can you agree we could both agree this is Truth?

John 11: NASB

17So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days. 18Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off; 19and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother. 20Martha therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went to meet Him, but Mary stayed at the house. 21Martha then said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. 22“Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.” 23Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”

Of course it is, Jesus said it.

redleghunter · Jul 9, 2020

Tradidi said:
And how does one learn Koine Greek? By picking up a Greek manuscript and studying if all by yourself? Or by being taught by one who knows Koine Greek? Why then do you throw common sense out the window when you pick up a Bible "in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction"? (2 Peter 3:16)

No, it takes humility to say with the Ethiopian Eunuch: "And how can I, unless some man shew me?" (Acts 8:31).

Good day. The above quote impresses upon me that you think Protestant churches refuse the 'teaching office' which is clearly Biblical. Are you basing this on your experience in some independent or non-denominational church which rejects church leadership, scholarship and the witness of the saints before us? If so, say so and be specific. Why? Because I too am scratching my head right now at your responses to @Albion and @Athanasius377. They have given you ample evidence there are Protestant historical churches which do not reject scholarship, the teaching office and the witness of the saints who came before us.

redleghunter · Jul 9, 2020

Tradidi said:
Of course it is, Jesus said it.

Good. This means we can actually read what Jesus said and know the truth. Where do we find all the words, edicts, commands and teachings which came directly from God. Answer, Sacred Scriptures.

Would you agree that the truth of Holy Scriptures do not change but that interpretations of man may be the problem you having with the subject? If so, this former born, raised, educated and practicing Roman Catholic would like to know how much of the Sacred Scriptures the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted for her sheep.

redleghunter · Jul 9, 2020

Tradidi said:
This is false. Different Protestant denominations are different because they disagree on doctrine. Catholic "denominations", orders would the correct term, are not different in doctrine but different in their focus/mission.

Is this why Eastern Orthodox churches refuse communion to Roman Catholics?

Tradidi · Jul 9, 2020

redleghunter said:
Good. This means we can actually read what Jesus said and know the truth.

St. Peter disagrees with you in 2 Peter 3:16.

Tradidi · Jul 9, 2020

redleghunter said:
Is this why Eastern Orthodox churches refuse communion to Roman Catholics?

If they refuse communion with Catholics, they are not Catholics. What makes you think otherwise?

Tradidi · Jul 9, 2020

redleghunter said:
Good day. The above quote impresses upon me that you think Protestant churches refuse the 'teaching office' which is clearly Biblical. Are you basing this on your experience in some independent or non-denominational church which rejects church leadership, scholarship and the witness of the saints before us? If so, say so and be specific. Why? Because I too am scratching my head right now at your responses to @Albion and @Athanasius377. They have given you ample evidence there are Protestant historical churches which do not reject scholarship, the teaching office and the witness of the saints who came before us.

I have just narrowly escaped being stoned and driven out of the synagogue for answering questions that were deemed irrelevant to the OP. If you would like to talk about the teaching office, start a new thread and let me know if you would like my input.

Tradidi · Jul 9, 2020

redleghunter said:
If so, this former born, raised, educated and practicing Roman Catholic would like to know how much of the Sacred Scriptures the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted for her sheep.

The issue in this thread is Sola Scriptura, not the Catholic Church.

JAL · Jul 9, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
But we're back to Direct Revelation.

Direct Revelation MUST be a personal matter.

Um...Is there a point here?

God does speak to each of us individually, but He does not give to each of us different doctrine.

Right. And?

What is personal should be kept as personal.

You've just rejected the concept of prophethood. Prophets spoke to others. And regardless, not sure what your point is.

Too many times I've heard that the Holy Spirit revealed something or other to a person. Well, why didn't the Holy Spirit reveal this to ME?

Don't worry about the other person. The maxim applies to YOUR experience of certainty - you're not responsible for others.

"If I feel certain..." (emphasis on "I").

I do believe exegesis works but only when done by a scholar AND when we can agree to it...

You're not making sense. If it requires scholarship, then we ordinary believers can't participate. We are effectively locked out for lack of IQ, training, etc.

IOW,,,if I believe I need to be baptized to be saved...then I would get baptized, no matter what the scholarly understanding would be.

Very unclear. First you seem to suggest the need for scholarship, then you say that the most important issues (salvation issues) are to be decided independently of scholarship/exegesis.

redleghunter · Jul 9, 2020

Tradidi said:
If they refuse communion with Catholics, they are not Catholics. What makes you think otherwise?

I take it based on that statement the Eastern Orthodox are not Catholic?

GodsGrace101 · Jul 9, 2020

JAL said:
Um...Is there a point here?

Right. And?

You've just rejected the concept of prophethood. Prophets spoke to others. And regardless, not sure what your point is.

Don't worry about the other person. The maxim applies to YOUR experience of certainty - you're not responsible for others.

"If I feel certain..." (emphasis on "I").

You're not making sense. If it requires scholarship, then we ordinary believers can't participate. We are effectively locked out for lack of IQ, training, etc.

Very unclear. First you seem to suggest the need for scholarship, then you say that the most important issues (salvation issues) are to be decided independently of scholarship/exegesis.

Yes, well I see we're speaking passed each other so it's pointless to continue.

Tradidi · Jul 9, 2020

redleghunter said:
I take it based on that statement the Eastern Orthodox are not Catholic?

Correct, the Eastern Orthodox are Eastern Orthodox, not Catholic. But I will not discuss this any further with you in this thread. This thread is about Sola Scriptura.

redleghunter · Jul 9, 2020

Tradidi said:
I have just narrowly escaped being stoned and driven out of the synagogue for answering questions that were deemed irrelevant to the OP. If you would like to talk about the teaching office, start a new thread and let me know if you would like my input.

I believe you alluded to refusing the teaching office as in "Solo Meo" aka "just me and my Bible" as Protestant and somehow defined that as Sola Scriptura. There's quite a difference and not what the Reformers taught or employed.

For example, a good historic discussion of Sola Scriptura is at the link below in which I provide an excerpt:

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.

There are other extremes against which the doctrine of sola Scriptura protects us. While we certainly want to avoid the individualistic and ahistorical posture of many churches today, sola Scriptura also protects us from overcorrecting and raising creeds and confessions or other human documents (or ideas) to the level of Scripture. We must always be on guard against making the same mistake as Rome and embracing what we might call “traditionalism,” which attempts to bind the consciences of Christians in areas that the Bible does not. In this sense, sola Scriptura is a guardian of Christian liberty. But the biggest danger we face when it comes to sola Scriptura is not misunderstanding it. The biggest danger is forgetting it. We are prone to think of this doctrine purely in terms of sixteenth-century debates—just a vestige of the age-old Catholic-Protestant battles and irrelevant for the modern day. But the Protestant church in the modern day needs this doctrine now more than ever. The lessons of the Reformation have been largely forgotten, and the church, once again, has begun to rely on ultimate authorities outside of Scripture.

Understanding Sola Scriptura

Tradidi · Jul 9, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
Yes, well I see we're speaking passed each other so it's pointless to continue.

@GodsGrace101,

If I understand you correctly, the argument you have been making and others have been dodging is about the difference between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. We all agree that Scripture is materially sufficient, but you have noticed rightly that it is not formally sufficient.

WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Active Member

Thank You Jesus!

Active Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Thank You Jesus!

Active Member

Similar threads