definition of sola scriptura

[Bastoune]

You missed the boat about my point of sin... what I meant is, if Church A says I am sinning (by doing X), yet Church B says that doing X is not a sin, then someone is not teaching the Scriptures and Faith correctly!!! Doing X is either a sin, or it isn't!

And apparently you ignored all the verses about the AUTHORITY Christ gave the Church... convenient. Keys to Heaven (Isaiah 22:20-22/Matt. 16:18) and what is bound or loosened on earth is also in Heaven.

Jesus, the “Good Shepherd” (John 10:11, 14) makes Peter a shepherd to feed His sheep (the Greek word, “poimainein” also has the double-meaning, “to govern.” ). Earlier on, Jesus who is “the Rock” (2 Samuel 22:32, 47; Psalm 18, 19; Isaiah 44; 1 Peter 2:16, 1 Cor. 10:4, etc.) names Simon “the Rock” (“Kepha” in Aramaic; it means “massive rock”; this is a tie-in to how Abraham was the “Rock” of the Old Testament in Isaiah 51:1-2) and gives him authority to bind and loosen anything in Heaven and on Earth (“binding and loosening” are rabbinical terms of authority). Peter is given the keys of Heaven (Matthew 16:18; Isaiah 22:20-25). In Scripture, the symbol of the “key” is only found in two places in the Old Testament, one being Isaiah 22. It symbolizes authority, power to rule, and permanence through intergenerational succession. The key given to Eliakim was to be passed on to his successor. It did not go to the grave with him. One can say that the key denotes a very specific office, or seat. The keys given to Peter would ultimately be given unto his successors.

Basically, until you can prove to me, and to other Christians that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is any more valid than any other Joe out there, then you cannot really expect me to believe anything you have to say about the Bible... for if I don't believe it or interpret it the way you do, who's to say you are right?

In fact, you cannot even say that the Catholics are wrong because, how do you know? They too appeal to Scripture. EVERYWHERE. Since 2,000 years!!! Read some of the Church fathers and the Catechism: choc full of Bible. Right there!

Who is right? The Lutherans? Pentecostals? Methodists? Presbyterians? Evangelical Free Church? Baptists? Luther? Knox? Zwigli? Calvin?

Welcome to Protestant Babel 101!

 

[eldermike]

The idea that "churches" are using the bible for simply decerning what is and what is not a sin,,,,,,,,,where did that come from?

Protestant Babel 101? What is that?

Let's keep this forum as peaceful as it's record shows it to be, this is one of the eaiser forums to moderate, hopefully it will remain so.

 

[CCWoody]

Basically, until you can prove to me, and to other Christians that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is any more valid than any other Joe out there, then you cannot really expect me to believe anything you have to say about the Bible... for if I don't believe it or interpret it the way you do, who's to say you are right?

Hey, no one is required to go into heaven as a Calvinist. You will, however, quickly change your mind once you get there.
.

Welcome to Protestant Babel 101!

When are you Catholics going to get over your silly notion that just because there is division among us that this is somehow a bad thing:

• 1 Corinthians 11:19
  For there must be also heresies among you, that those who are approved may be made manifest among you.

Things that make you go hmmm!

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

The church wasn't born at Pentecost. It was Bar Mitzvah'd. No small matter, this. The church had a long, albeit dotted, history by the time the Spirit in Christ's fullness fell, and a glorious, albeit difficult, future. By Pentecost, the church, because of its history, its providentially-ordained organization and the Holy Spirit's promised guidance, was well-prepared to fulfill its function in the world.

The Belgic Confession, in Article XXVII, states, "We believe and profess one catholic or universal Church...This Church has been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof..." It has not, however, always had the same form. In the Garden of Eden God identified and separated the church (then consisting of two) using the essential elements, Word and Sacrament, Promise and Token, which would be present throughout the church's history, in some form or another. Our first parents were created to understand themselves and all things else in terms of a word. They had received the defining Word of God; they had heard the anti-word of the serpent. Choosing the devil's definitions, they had broken covenant with their Creator and entered into league with the destroyer, becoming co-pretenders with him to the throne.

God was not about to forsake His purposes, or to quickly formulate a "Plan B." He graciously and forcefully took back Adam and Eve-He redeemed them-by placing hostility between them and their new master (the Antithesis), by promising in their hearing the incarnation of the conquering, suffering Messiah (the Protevangelium, first proclamation of the Gospel), and by clothing them with God-provided coverings (the "Sacrament"), indicating in the clearest terms that their fig leaves (their instinctive effort at self-atonement/covering) were wholly inadequate and unacceptable. It is God who saves. Calvinism did not originate in Geneva; it is found in Eden. God's people, the covenant line, would henceforth be the people redeemed by Him to live, once again, in terms of His Word. ~ by Steve Schlissel Messianic Jewish Prebster Messiah's Congregation, Brooklyn, New York.

• Calvinists are not the "church" founded by John Knox in Scotland. Knox founded no "church", but a Denomination.
• We are not the "church" founded by the Protestant Reformers. The Reformers founded no "church", but a Reformation.
• We are not the "church" founded by the Popes at Rome. No "pope" has founded any "church", just a (false) Administration.
• We are not the "church" founded by the Apostles at Pentecost. The Apostles founded no "church", but a Dispensation.
• We are not the "church" founded by Moses at Sinai. Moses founded no "church", but a covenanted Theonomic Congregation.

Calvinists are the Church founded by God in the very Garden of Eden.
We are the Covenant Line of God's People, redeemed by Him to live in terms of His Word.

We have stood the test of Time.
And the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against us.

 

[Reformationist]

You missed the boat about my point of sin... what I meant is, if Church A says I am sinning (by doing X), yet Church B says that doing X is not a sin, then someone is not teaching the Scriptures and Faith correctly!!! Doing X is either a sin, or it isn't!

I got that exactly and addressed it.

And apparently you ignored all the verses about the AUTHORITY Christ gave the Church... convenient.

I know that Christ gave authority to His church. The problem, as I see it, is that you "conveniently" want to apply that title to your church. Talk about "convenient."

Basically, until you can prove to me, and to other Christians that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is any more valid than any other Joe out there, then you cannot really expect me to believe anything you have to say about the Bible

Bastoune, I don't "expect" you to believe anything I say. I don't illuminate people's minds. God does that. I need not, nor could I, "prove" anything to you. If God, according to His sovereign design, has deemed not to reveal the fullness of the Truth of Scripture to you then so be it. That's certainly His perrogative and I'm sure He has a much greater plan for not doing so than I could.

for if I don't believe it or interpret it the way you do, who's to say you are right?

Bastoune, unlike you, I don't feel the need to be considered right by others. I believe that what I see as the Truth of the Gospel is the Truth, or I wouldn't believe it. I don't need a created beings affirmation that what I believe is true. Obviously I rely on the counsel of those more learned than I and do so regularly but they, like me, are fallible and can be wrong. I pray that God continues to reveal the Truth of His Word to my feeble mind and give me the grace to grow in knowledge, and thus humility, of His supreme counsel.

In fact, you cannot even say that the Catholics are wrong because, how do you know?

I don't "know" that they are wrong. I truly feel that they teach an unbiblical version of the Gospel but I am not God, and neither are they. My task is to defend the Truth of the Gospel and seek to share it with all whom God brings into my path. I am not the judge of your church.

They too appeal to Scripture. EVERYWHERE. Since 2,000 years!!!

And have done so inaccurately for about that long.

Read some of the Church fathers and the Catechism: choc full of Bible. Right there!

As I said, they have sought to understand the Word of God for 2000 years and, like all other disciples of God, are subject to error. Praise be to God that our fallible, feeble mind's ability to understand the Gospel aren't the measure that God uses to save us.

Who is right? The Lutherans? Pentecostals? Methodists? Presbyterians? Evangelical Free Church? Baptists? Luther? Knox? Zwigli? Calvin?

God is right, regardless of how we perceive His character.

Welcome to Protestant Babel 101!

Well, there's always the option of elevating man and his works to the level of God's infallible Truth, as your church does. Hmmm...let's see, what happened the last time man thought he could be as God? Oh that's right, he was punished and cast from the perfect presence of the communion with God Himself...

 

[Reformationist]

Let's keep this forum as peaceful as it's record shows it to be, this is one of the eaiser forums to moderate, hopefully it will remain so.

It will remain a lot more peaceful if Protestant Christians aren't faced with the drivel that comes from many non-Protestants.

 

[Bastoune]

So who holds the correct interpretation of Scripture?

“If the doctrines of the Reformation were sound, we would expect to see one Protestant Church, one Protestant doctrine based on Scripture alone, but that is absolutely impossible, as five hundred years of history proves… Using the same Scripture and having the same Holy Spirit, what we’ve ended up with is a theological Tower of Babel” (Our Mission to Convert Catholics Made Us Catholic, by Kristine L. Franklin).

As an example, listed below are just a few of the major doctrines and beliefs that divide Protestant Sola Scriptura, Churches:
Infant or Adult baptism?
Calvinist Predestination or Arminian Free Will?
Once Saved Always Saved?
Can You Lose Your Salvation?
Is there Assurance of Salvation?
Divorce
Abortion
Is prophecy still given?
Are there still Miracles?
Are miracles guaranteed if you have enough faith?
Will there be a pre-tribulation Rapture of Christians?
Premillenialism or Postmillenialism?
Will there even be a millennium?
Speaking in Tongues - is it valid or not?
Baptism in the Holy Spirit - is it real or a deception?
Are demons real?
Is Jesus physically present in Communion?
Are the Sacraments necessary to salvation?
What form of Authority should exist in the Church?
Need a Church have Bishops?
Can Women be Pastors?
Can homosexuals be admitted to Church?
Does God promise Christians material prosperity?
Should all Images be banned in Worship?
How do you become a Christian?
What musical instruments to use in Worship?
Euthanasia?
Contraception?

The list goes on and on........

The Bible is indeed the sacred, written Word of God, but it cannot interpret itself.

Who is right? If Christ said He'd lead the Church into "all truth" (John 16:13), then we should all be of one mind and heart with no divisions on the things that divide us. Either Christ lied or you aren't in the right church.

 

[Bastoune]

Well, there's always the option of elevating man and his works to the level of God's infallible Truth, as your church does. Hmmm...let's see, what happened the last time man thought he could be as God? Oh that's right, he was punished and cast from the perfect presence of the communion with God Himself...

That is not an option, nor is it the practice of the Catholic Church.

But for some reason your silly comment makes me think of the following verse:
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect"
(Matthew 5:48)

 

[Bastoune]

[*]1 Corinthians 11:19
For there must be also heresies among you, that those who are approved may be made manifest among you.[/list]
.

So heresies are OK to follow.... things that make ya go hmmm....

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves .
(2 Peter 2:1)

 

[Reformationist]

So heresies are OK to follow.... things that make ya go hmmm....

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves .
(2 Peter 2:1)

Hey Bastoune, seeing as how you and your church are so big on "rules" here's one for ya:

3) Non-Protestant members (eg. Catholic members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Protestant or Evangelical doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Protestant. Any debate posts by Non-Protestants will be deleted or moved to the Interdenominational Doctrine Debate forum. In other words, only Protestant members can debate here.

That can be found in the rules for this forum thread at the top of the thread listings in this forum.

 

[CCWoody]

Who is right? If Christ said He'd lead the Church into "all truth" (John 16:13), then we should all be of one mind and heart with no divisions on the things that divide us. Either Christ lied or you aren't in the right church.

Well, there you go. Were we lied to when these words were penned for us:

• 1 Corinthians 11:19
  For there must be also heresies among you, that those who are approved may be made manifest among you.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Bastoune]

I'm not debating. I'm quoting Scripture.

I'll let you guys have your fun. Write me an e-mail when you have the answer to my question, "Who is right?"

Thanks.

Grace and peace to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
TIM

 

[CCWoody]

So heresies are OK to follow.... things that make ya go hmmm....

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves .
(2 Peter 2:1)

Why don't you tell us, seeing that none of us Protestants have made that argument?

The point, which you seem stubbornly refusing to admit, is that God himself has ordained not only heresies, but also false prophets and false teachers. If you believe Peter then you will agree that these "spots and blemishes" in the visible body are ordained for the specific purpose of taking the pigs and dogs away from the saints.

And that is mighty nice of Him to do.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Reformationist]

I'm not debating. I'm quoting Scripture.

LOL! Yeah, okay.

Write me an e-mail when you have the answer to my question, "Who is right?"

I already answered that. God is right. I've got an answer to a different question, "Who isn't right?" Among others, the Catholic church.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Grace and peace to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
TIM

Oh, my mistake. Was this your attempt at pursuing peace in the name of Christ?

 

[Bastoune]

"But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. Do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame."
(1 Peter 3:14-16)

Sadly I do not always live up to all these. Pray for me.

In the meantime, I'll be awaiting your e-mail!

 

[Bastoune]

Now Reformationist, you call yourself Reformationist yet I see that you are "non-denominational" (and funny thing, I was on your New Hope Ministries site 2 days ago!)

Why aren't you a Lutheran or a Presbyterian?

 

[A. believer]

So who holds the correct interpretation of Scripture?

“If the doctrines of the Reformation were sound, we would expect to see one Protestant Church, one Protestant doctrine based on Scripture alone, but that is absolutely impossible, as five hundred years of history proves… Using the same Scripture and having the same Holy Spirit, what we’ve ended up with is a theological Tower of Babel” (Our Mission to Convert Catholics Made Us Catholic, by Kristine L. Franklin).

It's too bad Ms. Franklin had such a poor understanding of the issues surrounding the Reformation and the principles of the Reformers. It's too bad she chose to base her judgment of the legitimacy of the Reformation on wrong assumptions. And it's too bad she failed to see that the "divisions" among Protestants are not unlike the "divisions" among Roman Catholics and hence, in order to be consistent, she'd have to rule out Roman Catholicism as a legitimate church as well.

If Ms. Franklin had understood that one cannot define Protestant as "any professing Christian who's not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox," but that evangelical Protestantism is a movement that's defined by certain distinctives, she would have known that many of the so-called divisions she encountered are not the result of disagreements among true evangelical Protestants--heirs of the tradition of the Reformation. For example, anyone who rejects the ultimate authority of the revelation of Scripture (whether expressly or by imposing acontextual interpretations and refusing the correction of Scripture, etc.) is not a legitimate evangelical Protestant. If she'd understood that, she could have eliminated a fair number of her examples of "divisions among Protestants" right from the get-go.

As an example, listed below are just a few of the major doctrines and beliefs that divide Protestant Sola Scriptura, Churches:
Infant or Adult baptism?
Calvinist Predestination or Arminian Free Will?
Once Saved Always Saved?
Can You Lose Your Salvation?
Is there Assurance of Salvation?
Divorce
Abortion
Is prophecy still given?
Are there still Miracles?
Are miracles guaranteed if you have enough faith?
Will there be a pre-tribulation Rapture of Christians?
Premillenialism or Postmillenialism?
Will there even be a millennium?
Speaking in Tongues - is it valid or not?
Baptism in the Holy Spirit - is it real or a deception?
Are demons real?
Is Jesus physically present in Communion?
Are the Sacraments necessary to salvation?
What form of Authority should exist in the Church?
Need a Church have Bishops?
Can Women be Pastors?
Can homosexuals be admitted to Church?
Does God promise Christians material prosperity?
Should all Images be banned in Worship?
How do you become a Christian?
What musical instruments to use in Worship?
Euthanasia?
Contraception?

The list goes on and on........

Now what about the "divisions among Roman Catholics"? Are they substantially different from the "divisions among evangelical Protestants?"

Predestination, which view is correct? That of: Augustine, Scotus, Molina, Aquinas?

Is the Charismatic Catholic movement legitimate or not?

Can Natural Family Planning be used by all couples or only in cases of "extreme hardship?" If the latter, then what constitutes extreme hardship?

Did the Roman Catholic Church always teach transubstantiation (as Trent claims) or did the doctrine develop (in accordance with Newman's theory of development)?

Did macro-evolution occur, or is the Genesis account a literal account?

Which of the Marian apparitions are genuine?

Are those who reject the Novus Ordo mass as legitimate, schismatics?

Are the pronouncements of Vatican II binding doctrine?

How many times has a pope spoken ex cathedra and which times were they?

Did Mary die before she was assumed, or was she still alive?

(And if we're going to consider issues that only those who openly reject the ultimate rule of faith of their own stated community would espouse the way Ms. Franklin did, we can add)

Should homosexuals be ordained as priests?

Can women be ordained as priests?

Is "pro-choice" a viable opinion for a Catholic?

The list goes on and on. . .

The Bible is indeed the sacred, written Word of God, but it cannot interpret itself.

No, but its intended meaning can be discerned through normal and natural means of interpretation. Self-interpreting simply refers to the analogy of faith--interpreting the parts of Scripture in the context of the entirety of Scripture--a hermeneutical principle not at all novel to the Reformers.

In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Ch. 9)

All interpretations of Scripture are not equally plausible until and unless we receive an officially authoritative pronouncement on their meaning.

Who is right? If Christ said He'd lead the Church into "all truth" (John 16:13), then we should all be of one mind and heart with no divisions on the things that divide us. Either Christ lied or you aren't in the right church.

Neither of the above. Christ said (before his crucifixion) that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth. He didn't lie. We have the infallible record of that truth in Holy Scripture, and all other authorities instituted by God are subordinate to the ultimate authority of His infallible word.

 

[Reformationist]

Why aren't you a Lutheran or a Presbyterian?

Would it be clearer to you if I changed my "denomination" to read "Christian?"

If it helps you to box up my beliefs I'm probably closest in belief to Presbyterianism. Though I will say that there are Presbyterian churches that have some wierd beliefs.

 

[Reformationist]

It's too bad Ms. Franklin had such a poor understanding of the issues surrounding the Reformation and the principles of the Reformers. It's too bad she chose to base her judgment of the legitimacy of the Reformation on wrong assumptions. And it's too bad she failed to see that the "divisions" among Protestants are not unlike the "divisions" among Roman Catholics and hence, in order to be consistent, she'd have to rule out Roman Catholicism as a legitimate church as well.

If Ms. Franklin had understood that one cannot define Protestant as "any professing Christian who's not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox," but that evangelical Protestantism is a movement that's defined by certain distinctives, she would have known that many of the so-called divisions she encountered are not the result of disagreements among true evangelical Protestants--heirs of the tradition of the Reformation. For example, anyone who rejects the ultimate authority of the revelation of Scripture (whether expressly or by imposing acontextual interpretations and refusing the correction of Scripture, etc.) is not a legitimate evangelical Protestant. If she'd understood that, she could have eliminated a fair number of her examples of "divisions among Protestants" right from the get-go.



Now what about the "divisions among Roman Catholics"? Are they substantially different from the "divisions among evangelical Protestants?"

Predestination, which view is correct? That of: Augustine, Scotus, Molina, Aquinas?

Is the Charismatic Catholic movement legitimate or not?

Can Natural Family Planning be used by all couples or only in cases of "extreme hardship?" If the latter, then what constitutes extreme hardship?

Did the Roman Catholic Church always teach transubstantiation (as Trent claims) or did the doctrine develop (in accordance with Newman's theory of development)?

Did macro-evolution occur, or is the Genesis account a literal account?

Which of the Marian apparitions are genuine?

Are those who reject the Novus Ordo mass as legitimate, schismatics?

Are the pronouncements of Vatican II binding doctrine?

How many times has a pope spoken ex cathedra and which times were they?

Did Mary die before she was assumed, or was she still alive?

(And if we're going to consider issues that only those who openly reject the ultimate rule of faith of their own stated community would espouse the way Ms. Franklin did, we can add)

Should homosexuals be ordained as priests?

Can women be ordained as priests?

Is "pro-choice" a viable opinion for a Catholic?

The list goes on and on. . .



No, but its intended meaning can be discerned through normal and natural means of interpretation. Self-interpreting simply refers to the analogy of faith--interpreting the parts of Scripture in the context of the entirety of Scripture--a hermeneutical principle not at all novel to the Reformers.

In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Ch. 9)

All interpretations of Scripture are not equally plausible until and unless we receive an officially authoritative pronouncement on their meaning.



Neither of the above. Christ said (before his crucifixion) that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth. He didn't lie. We have the infallible record of that truth in Holy Scripture, and all other authorities instituted by God are subordinate to the ultimate authority of His infallible word.

W...O...W...

Nicely said.

 

[Preachers12]

Bastoune, Peace be with you.

Thanks for the fine articulations!

God Bless and stay safe.

 

[Bastoune]

Would it be clearer to you if I changed my "denomination" to read "Christian?"

If it helps you to box up my beliefs I'm probably closest in belief to Presbyterianism. Though I will say that there are Presbyterian churches that have some wierd beliefs.

So why haven't the Lutherans or the Methodists been led into all truth when they too have the Scriptures?