How do you view Sola Fide view of Scripture, "rigid" or "Dynamic" ?

[Linet Kihonge]

I'm buffled and shocked that Sola Scripture is all about preaching the solid scripture and nothing else besides that, yet in my view Sola Scripture is a misrepresentation of what protestants actually believe. I think sola scripture is just being able to cross-check with the bible and ensuring that what I do is scriptural sound. Otherwise, scripture in itself is too dynamic, robust and too alluring to be confined to a particular mindset.

What does it mean to be saved? In my view, it means accepting Christ as Lord and Savior but the journey of Salvation is a continuous process meaning a Christian has to repent on a daily basis and cross-examine himself through the LORD's word.

Is it just about what's Written? IMHO what else can it be about. I mean if it's wrong to steal, it doesn't matter how many theological colleges a person has been through it's still wrong.

Is a person bound by Scripture? Yes, I mean if Revelation isn't over yet we are still subject to the Lord's decrees.

Is Sola-fide suffocating? No, because there's too much dynamism in scripture to assume a particular way of thinking.

Otherwise, we are not perfect, because as it is written, "You shall know them by their fruits?" Therefore, sola-scripture is about proving Christianity through actions, words and interpretation of the Word so that the LORD is manifest and a revelation to unbelieving world. We have to win souls through what we do, being mindful of others, being kind, and as Paul says,

1 Thessalonians 4:10-12, "And in fact, you do love all of God’s family throughout Macedonia. Yet we urge you, brothers and sisters, to do so more and more, 11and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, 12so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody."

So is sola-fide dynamic or rigid ...???

 

[Albion]

I'm buffled and shocked that Sola Scripture is all about preaching the solid scripture and nothing else besides that, yet in my view Sola Scripture is a misrepresentation of what protestants actually believe. I think sola scripture is just being able to cross-check with the bible and ensuring that what I do is scriptural sound. Otherwise, scripture in itself is too dynamic, robust and too alluring to be confined to a particular mindset.

Well, that isn't what the term itself means.

SS means that it is the Bible that is the highest and final authority, and that no doctrine can be imposed upon the people or considered necessary for one's salvation, UNLESS it's in the Bible, the Word of God.

What SS does is reject all other "answers" such as are employed in some denominations--the revelations of latter-day "prophets," the "infallible" decrees of Popes or the consensus of the clergy, the most common opinion held by ordinary churchgoers through the centuries--anything like this.

Actually, I'm confident that we agree on this and the whole thing is just a matter of a choice of words.

 

[John Luze]

Well, that isn't what the term itself means.

SS means that it is the Bible that is the highest and final authority, and that no doctrine can be imposed upon the people or considered necessary for one's salvation, UNLESS it's in the Bible, the Word of God.

What SS does is reject all other "answers" such as are employed in some denominations--the revelations of latter-day "prophets," the "infallible" decrees of Popes or the consensus of the clergy, the most common opinion held by ordinary churchgoers through the centuries--anything like this.

Actually, I'm confident that we agree on this and the whole thing is just a matter of a choice of words.

Who's interpretation of the Bible would be the highest authority? Lutherans? Baptists? Pentecostals? What did the early Christians do then, when speaking about what was necessary for salvation, when they did not possess a bible? Is the doctrine that Jesus IS God explicitly found in the Bible? It is easy for us today to answer that question because it is accepted among all Christians. Did you know, however, that that doctrine wasn't even explicitly defined until 325 A.D. at the First Council of Nicea? Especially being that there was no set Bible that people could use to defend this most important doctrine. The Bible is a primary source for Christian doctrine, but as anybody who simply takes a look at the many Protestant denominations can see, just how one interprets the Bible can result in a plethora of doctrine. So what we need is secondary sources, we need to see what Christians have always believed. That is only found in Tradition, not Scripture. Who is anyone today, being so far removed from that time, to say that their interpretation of the Bible is more sound than those Christians thousands of years ago? Read some secondary sources for a change. Read from Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, even as late as St. Thomas Aquinas. Upon reading what they have to say, these earliest of Christians, you will begin to see the truth of Catholic Doctrine, and that it is what has been believed everywhere and by all.

 

[Albion]

Who's interpretation of the Bible would be the highest authority? Lutherans? Baptists? Pentecostals?

Whichever of those is the most correct, of course. But if you're asking in reference to Sola Scriptura, I'll say it again...Sola Scriptura refers to which "authority," which guide to doctrine, is right to use--Scripture or something else that someone thinks is the equal of Scripture.

There is no assurance that every last reader is going to understand the Bible in every detail or correctly, just as there is no guarantee that every last person following "Tradition" or some other authority will agree with everyone else.

The issue is this: "Which one is our ultimate authority and guide to essential doctrine?"

What did the early Christians do then, when speaking about what was necessary for salvation, when they did not possess a bible?

They did possess most of the books that were collected into a single volume later on. And we do know from history that the first Christians didn't deal in all the smaller points of concern that all of us argue over daily on CF.

They knew that Christ was the Messiah and the Savior and they knew to evangelize and observe the sacraments. Indulgences, Popes, a church calendar, Lenten fasting, and Mariolatry, etc. came later and certainly are not essential to salvation, regardless of what one thinks of such beliefs or practices.

 

[Geralt]

people are not so dumb to not understand what they read. these are no longer the dark ages. its not really a big deal reading scripture like it is shrouded in passwords and only the religious professional can understand it. in its simplicity, scripture speaks a simple message.

and its not who's interpretation but the 'rules' of interpretation used that has many thinking differently inserting their own prejudices and fitting scripture to their own conceived ideas. but yet this is still a better option than to play dumb and simply accept what the system forces you to believe without trying to challenge, read and understand it yourself.​

Who's interpretation of the Bible would be the highest authority? Lutherans? Baptists? Pentecostals? What did the early Christians do then, when speaking about what was necessary for salvation, when they did not possess a bible? Is the doctrine that Jesus IS God explicitly found in the Bible? It is easy for us today to answer that question because it is accepted among all Christians. Did you know, however, that that doctrine wasn't even explicitly defined until 325 A.D. at the First Council of Nicea? Especially being that there was no set Bible that people could use to defend this most important doctrine. The Bible is a primary source for Christian doctrine, but as anybody who simply takes a look at the many Protestant denominations can see, just how one interprets the Bible can result in a plethora of doctrine. So what we need is secondary sources, we need to see what Christians have always believed. That is only found in Tradition, not Scripture. Who is anyone today, being so far removed from that time, to say that their interpretation of the Bible is more sound than those Christians thousands of years ago? Read some secondary sources for a change. Read from Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, even as late as St. Thomas Aquinas. Upon reading what they have to say, these earliest of Christians, you will begin to see the truth of Catholic Doctrine, and that it is what has been believed everywhere and by all.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Who's interpretation of the Bible would be the highest authority?

According to an historic definition of Sola Scriptura? Nobody's. Not Luther's, not Calvin's, not the Pope's, not yours, not mine. Sola Scriptura, by definition, means even our interpretations of Scripture are subject to Scripture. Even when our interpretations are good, correct, and right, they are still not the same as Scripture itself which stands above them.

Sola Scriptura is not "My interpretation of Scripture alone", which unfortunately is frequently how much of the modern [neo]Protestant traditions often operate. Because the point of Sola Scriptura isn't to assert that we can do Christianity however we feel, the point of Sola Scriptura is to assert the central location of Scripture within the Church's doctrine and praxis.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[John Luze]

Whichever of those is the most correct, of course. But if you're asking in reference to Sola Scriptura, I'll say it again...Sola Scriptura refers to which "authority," which guide to doctrine, is right to use--Scripture or something else that someone thinks is the equal of Scripture.

And just how do we ascertain whose interpretation is correct? Scripture? Well, that would be some pretty circular reasoning and bring us right back to where we started. Scripture is certainly a guide to doctrine, but as I pointed out earlier, Scripture cannot be an authority alone. The position of itself is contradictory. You say we cannot be forced to believe any doctrine that is not contained in Scripture, but where is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura contained in Scripture? If it's not in there, then it is defeated by its own principles. You have to become your own pope to assert the truth of Sola Scriptura, because it is not found anywhere in Scripture. You have to become your own pope when you determine whose interpretations of scripture are correct.

They did possess most of the books that were collected into a single volume later on. And we do know from history that the first Christians didn't deal in all the smaller points of concern that all of us argue over daily on CF.

They knew that Christ was the Messiah and the Savior and they knew to evangelize and observe the sacraments. Indulgences, Popes, a church calendar, Lenten fasting, and Mariolatry, etc. came later and certainly are not essential to salvation, regardless of what one thinks of such beliefs or practices.

For roughly the first 20 years of Christianity they did not possess a single letter of the New Testament. By the time the last one was finally written, 70 years had passed. What did they do that entire time? Wander about aimlessly wondering what to believe as Christians? They certainly did not adhere to Sola Scriptura. No, they listened to the authorities that Christ placed over them, people.

As if all that is necessary to believe is that Christ is the Messiah. You will not find that anywhere in the writings of the earliest Christians. They affirmed, as Christ Himself affirmed and commanded His Apostles to teach, that you must believe all that Christ commanded and taught. St. Augustine once said that if you pick and choose what to believe out of the Gospel, it is not Christ you believe in, but yourself. Such is the nature of the Faith that Christ left us, "either it is held in its entirety, or rejected completely". Truth and Falsehood do not get along so well. I encourage you once again to read the Church Fathers. They did argue and combat many things that we argue about today. The Eucharist being one of them, being that the early Gnostics denied its necessity (St. Irenaues's Against the Heresies).

 

[John Luze]

people are not so dumb to not understand what they read. these are no longer the dark ages. its not really a big deal reading scripture like it is shrouded in passwords and only the religious professional can understand it. in its simplicity, scripture speaks a simple message.

I wouldn't say people have to be dumb to get the wrong interoperation. Once again, look at Protestantism. You have thousands of different denominations all using the same Bible, but all coming up with their own interpretation. You cannot say that they are united, otherwise there would be no explanation for why the divisions occurred in the first place. You cannot say that it's just the little things they disagree on because 1) who decides what is a big and a little issue, and 2) to say that something that Christ, who is GOD, taught here on Earth is of little importance and can be done away with is to put yourself above Him. Who are we to tell Christ that some of His doctrine is not important and can be disagreed upon between people, while still all laying claim to the name "Christian".

Once we see that the "big issue, little issue" idea is simply un-Christian, the absurdity of Sola Scriptura is evident, it clearly does not work. As is seen by the thousands and thousands of different Protestant denominations all using the same Bible as their authority.

 

[John Luze]

According to an historic definition of Sola Scriptura? Nobody's. Not Luther's, not Calvin's, not the Pope's, not yours, not mine. Sola Scriptura, by definition, means even our interpretations of Scripture are subject to Scripture. Even when our interpretations are good, correct, and right, they are still not the same as Scripture itself which stands above them.

What would that even look like put into practice? Our interpretations of Scripture are subject to Scripture? You simply cannot have Scripture without an interpretation. Just reading something constitutes an interpretation of that thing. So to say that Scripture somehow comes alive and judges our interpretations of it, does not make any sense. How would we ever even come to a correct understanding of Scripture? If we cannot, then what is the point of having it? If we can, then that is to say that we rightly interpreted it.

I would like to point out to all readers here, that Christ never said anything to His Apostles about writing anything down, He never commanded them to write the Bible. How can Scripture then, be a thing of its own, or be the standard of doctrine or even of salvation, when Christ never mentioned it? He did not leave us with a Bible, He left us people who he gave His own authority to teach and proclaim His Gospel. Sola Scriptura is a contradiction of itself, it wouldn't have even been able to been practiced for the first 300 years of Christianity, it is never mentioned by any of the Church Fathers, and as we have seen today, it simply does not work.

 

[John Luze]

Sola Scriptura is not "My interpretation of Scripture alone", which unfortunately is frequently how much of the modern [neo]Protestant traditions often operate. Because the point of Sola Scriptura isn't to assert that we can do Christianity however we feel, the point of Sola Scriptura is to assert the central location of Scripture within the Church's doctrine and praxis.

Again, this idea is un-Christian. Where is it found in the Bible? Did Christ command it? How did the Church do this for it's first 300 years? Christ left us a Church, He promised His Apostles that He would send them the Spirit of Truth, so that they may always remember what He taught them. Christ promised them that He would be with them until the end of time, that they would never fall into error. The centrality of Church doctrine is the promise that Christ made to his Apostles and the authority He gave them to teach.

 

[Albion]

And just how do we ascertain whose interpretation is correct? Scripture?

Linguistics, history, context, consistency, knowledge of the Hebrew religion...many factors come into play with Bible experts.

For roughly the first 20 years of Christianity they did not possess a single letter of the New Testament. By the time the last one was finally written, 70 years had passed. What did they do that entire time? Wander about aimlessly wondering what to believe as Christians?

For one thing, 2/3 of the Bible was always available to them. For another, the teachings of the Apostles about Christ and on what Christ had told his people to do. But this is essentially the New Testament in oral form; it is not "Tradition," which is a collection of legends, folklore, opinion and speculation that is different from and in addition to revelation.

as if all that is necessary to believe is that Christ is the Messiah. You will not find that anywhere in the writings of the earliest Christians. They affirmed, as Christ Himself affirmed and commanded His Apostles to teach, that you must believe all that Christ commanded and taught. St. Augustine once said that if you pick and choose what to believe out of the Gospel, it is not Christ you believe in, but yourself.

St. Augustine is hardly one of the "earliest Christians!"

 

[Albion]

Where is it found in the Bible? Did Christ command it? How did the Church do this for it's first 300 years?

Let's be certain of what you are asking here. In order to show us that reliance upon Scripture is "unchristian," you are asking us to prove the truths of the faith -- from Scripture (!)

Would you like to re-think that?

Christ left us a Church, He promised His Apostles that He would send them the Spirit of Truth, so that they may always remember what He taught them.

All of which you got...from Scripture.

Christ promised them that He would be with them until the end of time, that they would never fall into error.

First, he did not promise them that they would not fall into error. He promised that the Holy Ghost would lead them into all truth. That's not the same thing. And again, you know all this (however misstated)...from Scripture, the authority you are attempting to cast doubt upon.

 

[John Luze]

Linguistics, history, context, consistency, knowledge of the Hebrew religion...many factors come into play with Bible experts.

Which Bible experts? Lutheran ones? Baptist ones? Methodist ones? etc. I agree, depending on how one reads the Bible, you could possibly arrive at many different conclusions on doctrine. Which "Bible expert" do you follow? I am sure there are many "Bible experts" who yet do not agree on certain doctrines, because it all depends on how you read it. Appealing to "Bible experts" still does not solve our problem, because these experts do not even agree and we still have thousands of different denominations all using the same Bible but all coming to different conclusions.

For one thing, 2/3 of the Bible was always available to them. For another, the teachings of the Apostles about Christ and on what Christ had told his people to do. But this is essentially the New Testament in oral form; it is not "Tradition," which is a collection of legends, folklore, opinion and speculation that is different from and in addition to revelation.

Is that 2/3 you're referring to the Old Testament? If the earliest Christians only had the Old Testament, well then that's all I want too, nice try adding 27 more books, must be that pesky old "Tradition". I better start ripping pages out. Tradition does contain Scripture in the oral form, but it also contains much more than that. Do you really think that everything Christ taught and everything the Apostles taught is contained in Scripture? This idea becomes absurd not only when the Bible itself refutes this claim, but, as you said, when you look at the context, linguistics, history, etc. The letters of the New Testament were all written with a specific intention in mind and to a specific people. So no, Tradition is not mere folklore or legend, it is the form of passing down by word of mouth, by people in authority to do so, all that Christ taught. You have to assert this, because otherwise, once again, you destroy Christianity's only means of passing down complete doctrine for it's first 300 years.

St. Augustine is hardly one of the "earliest Christians!"

Oh I'm sorry, 354-430 A.D. isn't early? As opposed to who else, Martin Luther, who lived over 1000 years after Augustine (1483-1546)? I suppose living 500 years ago is considered being an "early Christian", considering that your religion also happens to be 500 years old. How about St. Ignatius of Antioch (35 A.D. to 107 A.D.)? Is that early enough?

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the priest as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." — St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

 

[John Luze]

Let's be certain of what you are asking here. In order to show us that reliance upon Scripture is "unchristian," you are asking us to prove the truths of the faith -- from Scripture (!)

Would you like to re-think that?

Reliance upon Scripture alone, without Tradition or the proper authority to interpret it, is un-Christian. Scripture is an excellent source for Christian doctrine, but not the only source. As I said before, Sola Scriptura is itself contradictory because it is not found in the Bible. Sola Scirptura is defeated by it's own principles.

All of which you got...from Scripture.

Yes, Scripture is one of the sources I got it from, not the only one. The Tradition of the Church Fathers testifies to this as well.

First, he did not promise them that they would not fall into error. He promised that the Holy Ghost would lead them into all truth. That's not the same thing. And again, you know all this (however misstated)...from Scripture, the authority you are attempting to cast doubt upon.

Tell me, if they fell into any doctrinal error, would that be considered 'all truth"? It seems that it would not. I am not attempting to cast doubt on the authority of Scripture, I am attempting to cast doubt on Protestants' attempts to interpret scripture by themselves without proper authority, while using scripture as their basis for doing so. That's some pretty circular reasoning in my eyes. Scripture is an excellent source for the Christian life, but nor you, nor I, have the authority to pick up Scripture, read it, and then formulate our own doctrine based off what we read that contradicts what the Church has always taught since its beginning.

 

[Albion]

Which Bible experts? Lutheran ones? Baptist ones? Methodist ones?

You asked how "we" determine the meaning of Scripture, John. I gave you some of factors that are used by Bible scholars regardless of denomination, yours included.

Appealing to "Bible experts" still does not solve our problem, because these experts do not even agree and we still have thousands of different denominations all using the same Bible but all coming to different conclusions.

I correctly answered your question. If you now want to point out that there are lots of denominations and they don't agree with each other, that's hardly news. But neither do the churches that are NOT Sola Scriptura agree with each other, either.

Is that 2/3 you're referring to the Old Testament?

Yes.

if the earliest Christians only had the Old Testament, well then that's all I want too, nice try adding 27 more books, must be that pesky old "Tradition".

Uh, no.

Tradition doesn't enter into it at all. It's incorrect to say that the earliest Christians didn't have anything of the Bible, and it's not the case that when the Apostles taught what they learned from Christ, that this is the same as
"Holy Tradition." It's not. But I've explained this all before.

 

[Albion]

Reliance upon Scripture alone, without Tradition or the proper authority to interpret it, is un-Christian.

Well, since that is NOT what Sola Scriptura means, maybe we can just put the sniping to rest and move onto something new.

As I said before, Sola Scriptura is itself contradictory because it is not found in the Bible. Sola Scirptura is defeated by it's own principles.

That's ridiculous. It's not "contradictory" to say that we should consider the Bible to be the ultimate authority on doctrine. There's no contradiction in that! And as for Scripture not being in Scripture, that's just silly. Not only is it puerile to argue that Scripture isn't in Scripture, but of course most of us know that Scripture does also make mention of itself and how God gave his word to mankind through that medium!

Yes, Scripture is one of the sources I got it from, not the only one.

Yes, it is. You paraphrased Bible verses in each of those instances.

 

[John Luze]

Tradition doesn't enter into it at all. It's incorrect to say that the earliest Christians didn't have anything of the Bible, and it's not the case that when the Apostles taught what they learned from Christ, that this is the same as

How is it not? Tradition refers to the deposit of Faith that was handed down from Christ to His Apostles. You can define it however you'd like, but who gives you the authority to do so? The Church contains everything found in Tradition, Scripture, however, does not.

 

[Albion]

How is it not?

Because Holy Tradition is thought by the Catholic churches to be a separate and second stream of revelation from God that is equal to his revelation in Scripture. All you're describing when citing the Apostles is them teaching the same information by word of mouth that later was put onto paper and incorporated into the Bible. IOW, different format, not a different set of beiefs.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Reliance upon Scripture alone, without Tradition

Is a problem, yes. Sola Scriptura is not anti-Tradition. Without Tradition we wouldn't have Scripture and we would also often be quite helpless in trying to approach it and understand it.

The problem, as I see it, is you are confusing Sola Scriptura with "Bibly-onlyism", the two aren't the same.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Geralt]

"all coming with your own interpretation" - sometimes i wonder where you get this generalizations. give us some examples and let us see if their is really some sense in what you are writing about. for the likes of you, i'll probably bet you defined everyone as protestant not like you. like jews and gentile, its catholic and everyone else protestant.

united in the gospel is what we aspire, not united in a system that is saturated in idolatry.

what labels a person a christian is the gospel, not membership in a system.
​

I wouldn't say people have to be dumb to get the wrong interoperation. Once again, look at Protestantism. You have thousands of different denominations all using the same Bible, but all coming up with their own interpretation. You cannot say that they are united, otherwise there would be no explanation for why the divisions occurred in the first place. You cannot say that it's just the little things they disagree on because 1) who decides what is a big and a little issue, and 2) to say that something that Christ, who is GOD, taught here on Earth is of little importance and can be done away with is to put yourself above Him. Who are we to tell Christ that some of His doctrine is not important and can be disagreed upon between people, while still all laying claim to the name "Christian".

Once we see that the "big issue, little issue" idea is simply un-Christian, the absurdity of Sola Scriptura is evident, it clearly does not work. As is seen by the thousands and thousands of different Protestant denominations all using the same Bible as their authority.