Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

chevyontheriver said:

Wonderful. BUT if this were true as simply as you stated it there would be far far less disagreement on what Scripture means. Unless you can claim the Holy Spirit is enough to help you alone to understand Scripture but the Holy Spirit is insufficient to help all of those other people who disagree with you.

This 'wrong path' seems very easy to get onto by people who follow Sola Scriptura. Just sayin'.

If only we all did this. So many Protestant traditions remain unexamined by people who think they follow no traditions. So by all means take responsibility to ensure that what is taught by your group reconciles with God's Word. Be absolutely sure of it. It IS a responsibility after all.

I think you are saying here that you are infallible, that you have been taught all things, that you are more complete in your understanding than maybe your own pastor.

I would be leery of exactly the same thing. But who says you cannot receive the Holy Spirit? Not the Catholics. Not the Orthodox. Nobody I know of. And yet we do need some office of the Church who can step in and say that you or I have the wrong interpretation. Because you and I, at least I, am not infallible. I can make mistakes. I may need to be corrected. I have people for that. You claim the Holy Spirit will show you. But then that other guy will also claim the Holy Spirit will show them. And yet you disagree with each other on serious matters of faith and morals. SO who can step in and decide between the two of you? I have an authoritative Church to take care of that.

Click to expand...

That’s why the Word of God is so important, the Spirit and God’s Word are in harmony and the Spirit will never lead you away from God’s Word. That’s the real problem, people want to do their own thing over God’s will so try to justify it outside of God’s Word- which is why we have warning of this very thing. Isaiah 8:20, Proverbs 30:5-6, Proverbs 3:5-6 Deut 4:2

SabbathBlessings said:

That’s why the Word of God is so important, the Spirit and God’s Word are in harmony and the Spirit will never lead you away from God’s Word. That’s the real problem, people want to do their own thing over God’s will so try to justify it outside of God’s Word- which is why we have warning of this very thing. Isaiah 8:20, Proverbs 30:5-6, Proverbs 3:5-6 Deut 4:2

Click to expand...

I think I would agree with you in principle. The Holy Spirit and God's word are in harmony. The Spirit, for those attuned to hear, is not going to lead in any wrong direction. The real problem is people who want to do their own thing. On that maybe we actually agree.

What you failed to address though is what happens when you and a brother really are not in harmony with each other. Is he wrong and you are right just because the Holy Spirit has clued you in and the other guy is doing his own thing? Or is it that you are doing your own thing? Who speaks to that? Both of you claim the Holy Spirit is leading you. Both of you pull out your Bibles with all of the tabs and all of the underlining. I have people to pull me aside and tell me if I'm wrong. How do you and your brother decide between you? I think you can only form a different denomination. That way you can maintain you have been true to the pillar and ground of truth and your former brother can maintain he has likewise been true to the pillar and ground of the truth.

chevyontheriver said:

I think I would agree with you in principle. The Holy Spirit and God's word are in harmony. The Spirit, for those attuned to hear, is not going to lead in any wrong direction. The real problem is people who want to do their own thing. On that maybe we actually agree.

What you failed to address though is what happens when you and a brother really are not in harmony with each other. Is he wrong and you are right just because the Holy Spirit has clued you in and the other guy is doing his own thing? Or is it that you are doing your own thing? Who speaks to that? Both of you claim the Holy Spirit is leading you. Both of you pull out your Bibles with all of the tabs and all of the underlining. I have people to pull me aside and tell me if I'm wrong. How do you and your brother decide between you? I think you can only form a different denomination. That way you can maintain you have been true to the pillar and ground of truth and your former brother can maintain he has likewise been true to the pillar and ground of the truth.

Click to expand...

Everything must be tested by scripture and there is only one Truth in scripture which I believe you can find absolute Truth with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, its a promise of Jesus. Most major disagreements there is overwhelming scripture evidence and at the end we will have have to stand in front of Jesus on why we either accepted or rejected God’s Truth. The confusion of God’s Word is not coming from God.

SabbathBlessings said:

Everything must be tested by scripture and there is only one Truth in scripture which I believe you can find absolute Truth with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, its a promise of Jesus. Most major disagreements there is overwhelming scripture evidence and at the end we will have have to stand in front of Jesus on why we either accepted or rejected God’s Truth. The confusion of God’s Word is not coming from God.

Click to expand...

So you really have no way of resolving a difference between you and your brother except to wait until you stand before Jesus and he tells you which one was wrong? Sounds like both of you are free to think you are right and the other one wrong. To me that makes the Holy Spirit AND the Bible sources of confusion. You think your way and your brother (former I presume) thinks the opposite and you can both tell the world you are right and the other is wrong. And confusion reigns. I would think Jn 17 would apply but I guess it doesn't.

fhansen said:

But...but...truth is not about majority vote. Even within Catholicism people may believe all kinds of things but the gospel truth is the treasure of the church while individual Christians can and do bring quite a smorgasbord of beliefs to the table, more so yet with the advent of Sola Scriptura.

Allowed? God allows evil. We pretty much have free reign down here so not everything that occurs is necessarily according to His will, including scandals within the RCC as an example.

Click to expand...

Nowhere do I insinuate any belief that majority vote decides truth. Yes, the Truth is the treasure of the Body of Christ whoever and wherever they are and sitting in whatever denominations they are in.

Men have described His will in different ways in an attempt to understand Him. We have free reign within boundaries decreed by Him. Theologically, under a heading of His permissive will, He sovereignly allows evil for His purposes. I recall an interesting evening in seminary where we were working on the Greek of one of the Thessalonian letters and struggling a bit with a certain verse(s). After all the grammatical work and some expressions belying uncertainty of what the writing meant, I saw it saying that God has the right to and allows His Children to be persecuted at the hands of those who are having their cups of judgment made full. Our professor agreed. I think it was you and I some time ago who briefly discussed what was being said in Isa45:7 easily translated as God saying He creates evil - probably better translated for most in context as calamity as some translate it. His involvement in things is not as cut & dry as we'd like to make it for our comfort levels. BUt it is always righteous and just.

There seem to be scandals in many - probably all organizations at some point. NC congregation plants were dealing with them. The larger the organization the less it can be controlled it seems. My simple point is that Rome is not the organization some would like to make of it, just like all organizations of people. And the history of Rome is riddled with scandals as I recall. When you're inferring something high like infallibility in any sense, there is not only argument against it, but plenty of low to bring some balance into perspective. This is just reality when it comes to people and organizations of people. And you never did respond to my posted link that seemed to convey the lack of unanimity among the ECF's which apparently had to be worked out through some process - maybe majority vote - that I'm sure Rome, like anybody, would say is infallibility coming through - even when there is lack of agreement between the claimants.

At some point it would be preferable to bring all this discussion back into Scripture if you will. Your finding a home with Rome is not my contention and you are not the only one who has made the decision to go from Protestantism to Rome. I do not share your high view of Rome and have by this time given some of my reasoning.

On the other hand, I have found many agreements with you in Scripture and theological topics. I recall responding to one or more of your posts when I first interacted on this forum, with high praise for what I was reading. This is because I was not only in agreement with you in much of what you said, but I was impressed with how you could articulate it. Any such agreements are not because I learned from Rome, and assuming we are both correct, it would be because I learned from His Word by His Spirit as others do and have. You are free to consider some infallibility concept of Rome. Many, many do not agree with you. I am one of them. You may quip that when we outside of Rome become enlightened, we will come to see how we were wrong. You'd then be met with a "likewise" and we'd both go on our merry way awaiting Him to clear it all up - likely after we breathe our last here.

chevyontheriver said:

So you really have no way of resolving a difference between you and your brother except to wait until you stand before Jesus and he tells you which one was wrong? Sounds like both of you are free to think you are right and the other one wrong. To me that makes the Holy Spirit AND the Bible sources of confusion. You think your way and your brother (former I presume) thinks the opposite and you can both tell the world you are right and the other is wrong. And confusion reigns. I would think Jn 17 would apply but I guess it doesn't.

Click to expand...

I never said there is no way of resolving disputes, I am referring to finding Truth in scripture, that Jesus promises to give us the Spirit of Truth for those who keep His commandments John 14:15-18 and will teach us all things. You think it doesn’t apply to individuals, but I disagree- all scripture is for teaching and instruction 2 Timothy 3:15 which includes these promises. I’m not saying we can’t learn from Pastors or leaders in church, but it’s still our responsibility to test everything by scripture.

Anyway, I am going to sign out wish you well in seeking His Word.

fhansen said:

Then we ask, 'What the heck was all this Reformation business about? Was there really any reason to split the church after all?" Luther didn't want to at first aand he, himself, maintained later that justification was the crux of the reason for the Reformation, why it was necesary. And he was wrong.

Click to expand...

To get us out of the errors and abuses of Rome on certain matters.

fhansen said:

Originally it did, in the west at least.

Click to expand...

We're far beyond originally now. I appreciate how God has used Rome and how God has separated many from Rome. We are where we are and if I want to dwell on going backward it would be pre-Rome. As I've said, I've watched the Messianic movement growth and determining what it will be for three+ decades. I have great appreciation for some of the light they shed on Hebrew idioms and where and how Jesus and Paul for instance are in agreement or disagreement with certain Hebrew schools of thought at the time. Given time they may settle in and provide more insights than we know. He knows if & when. I don't.

fhansen said:

Not sure where the 500 years comes from. The early teachings were the same and that theology would also be concretized, so to speak, in the sacraments for us simple folk. Later more elaborate amd sophisticated means of explaining and claifying and defining the faith would come, as possible and as needed. And I can show the basic outworkings of that process and dialogue at council which demonstrates the fuller understanding of the church on justification. Either way plenty disagree with Rome, which is why the Reformation took place, obviously. Plenty disagree with God for that matter -which is why the world's in darkness to begin with.

Click to expand...

The 500 years came from some lessons on church and doctrines history teachings I had many years ago. I don't recall the specific doctrine, but the instructor took us back to some degree to show how it got worked out through centuries of efforts.

Most certainly agree with your last sentence. But it's all in His hands as they say, and I trust Him to work it all out in His way in His time. I'd love to see what it's like to achieve the corporate maturity Paul speaks of in Eph4. Right now, the best I can do with it is to see it interspersed in those He knows are His wherever they are. Honestly, but for this issue re: Rome, I've viewed you as one of those interspersed assuming I'm one also. But you may be wandering off so I'm discussing your wandering with you (don't normally use emojis but had to here!)

fhansen said:

Those who are strong Catholics don't blindly bow to the Magisterium although they will come to a point where they give it the benefit of the doubt because they've come to trust it as they've come to agree with it on the basics.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear there may be some Bereans within the organization who may see the necessity of Scripture/Spirit as primary! I've read some of them. Thread solved. Word/Spirit reigns.

Aaron112 said:

Perhaps. Just like the OP, and most threads and posts.

Click to expand...

Well no, some posts do contain logical arguments. There is only one valid criticism of @zippy2006 ’s post and that is that what he describes is more accurately characterized as Nuda Scriptura, and not Sola Scriptura, because the 16th century Magisterial Reformers, as they are known, such as Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Melancthon, Boucher, even Zwingli, did not abolish church tradition and in the case of Anglicanism and Lutheranism directly embraced it, whereas some of the Radical Reformers discarded more tradition, infuriating Martin Luther, and by the 17th century we start encountering Restorationism, which often invokes the idea of a Great Apostasy and takes an iconoclastic approach to church tradition, and now this new radical interpretation of what Sola Scriptura means, which is different from how Luther, Calvin and Cranmer understood the concept and how it is usually understood in Anglicanism and Lutheranism, the largest and second largest Protestant denominations, and also in United Methodism and those Wesleyan churches which are actually Wesleyan, relying on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

However, if this thread were about Nuda Scriptura, which is the theological term of art , or otherwise addressed the issue I raised of the understanding of Sola Scriptura changing, for example, in many churches belonging to Fundamentalist Baptist, Restorationist, Evangelical and other denominations that are a few generations removed from the Reformation in the Western Church*, there would be a contradiction, and that is the Pauline Epistles clearly cite tradition as authoritative, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and Galatians 1:8-9, for example, whereas there is a lack of texts which actually reject the idea of an inspired tradition. Only the idea of “Traditions of Men,” which refers to the Oral Torah kept by the Pharisees and committed to writing by the Scribes, but largely ignored by Hellenic Jews and rejected by the Sadducees, and presumably the Essenes, and obviously the Ethiopian Jewsk the Beta Israel (who have their own traditions), and perhaps also to the errors of the Samaritans concerning Mount Gerizim, although since this error is explictly discussed, I think Mark 7 is most likely concerned with the traditions of Pharisaical Judaism which predominated in the Synagogues, just as the Sadducees were predominant in the Temple. So after the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora following the Roman genocide of Jews in the wake of the disastrous revolt of 130 AD, the Scribes and Pharisees were the only surviving religious authorities with any real power, and they in effect became Rabinnical Judaism, with the Oral Torah written down in the Mishnah and later combined with additional material to produce the Talmud, which has some interesting chapters, which I enjoyed reading. Judaica is fascinating even if I disagree with their interpretation of the Old Testament.

Later, the Karaite Jews appeared, rejecting the Mishnah and later the Talmud, and using a kind of Sola Scriptura based around a rule of logic, the Kalaam, which produced Karaite traditions which are less strict than Orthodox Rabinnical traditionsk , and the Karaites, who came into being around the 6th century, and came close to overtaking the Rabinnical Jews before dwindling to a small, persecuted minority with only 50,000 members today, whose butchers in Israel are not allowed to call themselves Kosher butchers because the Karaites disagree with the Rabinnical interpretation of what is Kosher concerning the proper handling of meat. They have a small community and a synagogue in Daly City, California, which I would very much like to visit some day, along with the Samaritan synagogue in Nablus and the ruined temple on Mount Gerizim itself, preferrably on Sukhot, as the Samaritan tabernacles are amazing.

So, Jewish history aside, what we can say is that Nuda Scriptura is contradicted by the writings of St. Paul, whereas Sola Scriptura, as originally conceived by Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer and the other Magisterial Reformers of the 16th century, such as Calvin, Zwingli, and Melancthon, and also other Protestant leaders such as John Wesley and his brother Charles, is not, because these Reformers valued tradition, and simply disagreed with some practices of the Roman church not because they were traditional but because they believed they contradicted scripture, as they interpreted.

Who was right? In my opinion, neither, but I can’t prove it, and neither side can, although many have tried, but these polemics seem irrelevant given ecumenical reconciliation and the more important causes of division at the moment, and also the external threat Christianity faces from resurgent communism in China and persecution from Islam, with perhaps as many as 300 million Chinese Christians endangered by the former, and the survival of entire ethnic groups and nationalities facing genocide, such as the Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Assyrian, Nasrani, Georgian, Eritrean, Antiochian, Maronite, Melkite, Indianm Chaldean, Sinaitic, Bedouin, Pakistani, South Sudanese, Alexandrian Greek, Hagiopolitan Greek, Jordanian and Phanariot Christians, and others who live alongside radicalized Muslims and increasingly, radical Hindu Nationalists in India. There is a need for solidarity, against domestic persecution by secular “post-Christian” apostate governments, who wish to legislate Christianity into a form more palatable to them, against hostile religious and political movements, and against an increasingly perverse society devoid of moral values, where greed and sexuality are openly feted as in ancient Babylon, and all we need is gladiatorial combat, which I at times feel we are uncomfortably close to, to get back to ancient Rome, and also closing all the hospitals, which were invented by St. Basil, the bishop of Caesarea, in the 4th century, and since the pandemic, some countries have seen a number of smaller hospitals close.

Thus we need unity, to tackle internal disputes but more importantly, to ensure the survival of Christianity in countries where the governments regard us as the Jews were regarded by many European and American elites in the 1920s and 1930s.


*This really began in the 15th century under the martyrs St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, venerated in the Eastern Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, as a reaction against the imposition of the Latin Rite liturgy on the formerly Byzantine Catholic or Eastern Orthodox peoples of what is now Czechia and Slovakia when these countries were conquered by the Archduchy of Austria, but with their martyrdom three distinct polarities emerged, the very traditionalist Utraquists, who just wanted the Eucharist in both species, and on the other hand the Taborites, whose theology resembled an older proto-Protestant church, the Waldensians, which like the Lollards in England appears to have been inspired by the mendicant religious orders, particularly the Franciscans, albeit without the loyalty of the original Order of Friars Minor and other mendicant orders to the Holy See, but rather with a sense of independence, which we also see in John Wycliffe, and this was doubtless a reaction to the problems the Roman church was suffering with corruption in the era of the Avignon Papacy, the Inquisition, the Borgias, which also reflected in signs of poor health among the Benedictine monastic community, with reformation within monastic orders, for example, the Cistercians, of which my friend @Paidiske and I are enthusiasts, organized in opposition to perceived decadence on the part of Cluniac Benedictines, and the Order of Cistercians of Strict Observance, better known as Trappists, whose beer and cheese is the stuff of legend both for its quality and its price, and the Carthusians, an order of organized hermits whose even more potent liquer, Chartreuse, is likewise respected by connoisseurs and is by no means inexpensive. The interesting side effect of the Reformation is that the Counter Reformation and the Council of Trent accomplished many positive reforms, such as ending the sale of indulgences, as well as two reforms which I think are regrettable, that being promoting the removal of rood and chancel screens, the Western equivalent of the Eastern or Coptic iconostasis, the Armenian bema, and the Syriac, Assyrian and Ethiopian curtain, which allow for the altar to be concealed from view and revealed in a manner that adds to the liturgical drama, by aluding to the curtain in the Second Temple being rent, and also architecturally referencing the Holy of Holies that the Tabernacle and the two Temples had, and which Jewish synagogues retain as a shrine in which the Torah Scrolls are kept**, and suppressing all liturgical uses that could not be proven to have been in use for at least 200 years in favor of what was arguably a new standardized use of the Roman Rite; prior to this time each major city had its own slightly different liturgy, in response to which the Dominicans developed a standard liturgy in the 13th century, and other friars and monastics implemented similiar orders, including the Carmelite friars, Norbertine canons regular, and Carthusians as mentioned above, although conversely I will say the Tridentine rite is very beautiful, and the idea of eliminating corrupt and spurious uses is not inherently bad, but in practice, some local rites disappeared for the sake of convenience and standardization. Vatican II likewise caused what I regard as a liturgical over-reaction.

At any rate, Luther managed to avoid being killed, and in England it was the Catholic St. Thomas More who was martyred, and then Thomas Cranmer was himself martyred during the reign of the Roman Catholic Queen Mary, not to be confused with Mary, Queen of Scots, after the death of young King Edward VI, before she herself died and her Anglican sister Queen Elizabeth I. This prefaced a period of calm before the tragedy of the three decades of war between Lutherans, Calvinists and Catholics known as the Wars of Religion in the early 17th century, but its resolution in the Peace of Westphalia was an important event.

There was never a mass reformation in the Eastern church; there were schisms in the Russian Orthodox Church when it updated its liturgical books based on newer Greek editions under Patriarch Nikon in the 1660s, but the vast majority of these are Old Believers, or Russian Old Rite Orthodox, some of whom fled the country, some of whom reconciled with the Russian Orthodox Church and some of whom survived and remain separate Orthodox churches to this day, for example, the Belokritsniya Synod, with their own Archbishop or Metropolitan of Moscow, others existing in this manner but in other countries like Romania, such as the Lipovans, and a few believing that all legitimate bishops had been killed and thus the priesthood was extinct, and many of these priestless Old Believers moved to the US in the 19th century and live in Oregon, in a way of life that in some respects resembles the lifestyle of Amish and Mennonites.

A few embarked on radical reforms however, including the Subbotniks, or Sabbatarians, such as the Molokans, and the Doukhobors, who embraced Unitarianism and whose founder downplayed the importance of all of the Bible except the Sermon on the Mount. The latter group emigrated en masse to Canada, financed by Leo Tolstoy, who held similar beliefs, and there are a few Doukhobor communities left.

However, there has never been anything really comparable to the Reformation in the East; similiar schisms always occur whenever the liturgy is slightly reformed or altered, and I think this is because the Eastern and Oriental and Assyrian churches are the most committed to tradition. Indeed the concept of Holy Tradition that one finds in the East is not like the Roman Catholic idea of the Scriptures and the Magisterium providing guidance on how to interpret them, but rather a holistic unit in which the Gospels are at the heart of Holy Tradition, surrounded by the other books of the Bible, in varying degrees of importance (for example, the Psalms, Pauline Epistles and Isaiah are of extreme importance, as are Genesis and the first half of Exodus, with some books regarded as deuterocanonical in the West like Sirach and Wisdom and Tobit being more important than say, 2 Kingdoms or Micah), and then outside of the Sacred Scriptures are layered the various other important parts of Tradition, such as the Divine Liturgy, and not just the service books but the hymns, the entire experience.

**There is sometimes only one, but most synagogues prefer to have three or more, the way the Jewish lectionary as defined in the Babylonian Talmud works, and some synagogues have a massive number and use a different Torah scroll at each service owing to pious Jews spending the $80,000 or so to commission a Torah scroll from a kosher scribe on kosher vellum, as this is considered a Mitzvah; the liturgical gospel books used and venerated in some traditional churches, for example, some traditional Latin mass parishes and other high church Western churches, some Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, Assyrian churches and some Eastern Catholic churches, cost betwrrn $500-$1,000 usually, and are arranged according to the lectionary of the particular church; some become priceless due to their antiquity, along with ancient manuscripts of the Bible such as the Codex Sinaiticus, which a European adventurer stole from the Alexandrian and Hagiopolitan Greek monks of St. Catharine’s Monastery, before dividing it and selling part to the British Library and part to the Czarist regime; since then a fragment has been returned to the library). Torah scrolls are kept in beautiful cloth or metal cases. I love Judaica, that is to say, Jewish religious art and architecture, and also Samaritania.

SabbathBlessings said:

I never said there is no way of resolving disputes, I am referring to finding Truth in scripture, that Jesus promises to give us the Spirit of Truth for those who keep His commandments John 14:15-18 and will teach us all things. You think it doesn’t apply to individuals, but I disagree- all scripture is for teaching and instruction 2 Timothy 3:15 which includes these promises. I’m not saying we can’t learn from Pastors or leaders in church, but it’s still our responsibility to test everything by scripture.

Anyway, I am going to sign out wish you well in seeking His Word.

Click to expand...

I would note for the benefit of @zippy2006 that, as I debated with you once in another thread, the SDA definition of Sola Scriptura is also in my opinion different from that of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and the other Reformers because the SDA has a single body of inspired prophecy which guides Adventist interpretation of scripture in the same way that, I would argue, the Magisterium guides Roman Catholic interpretation, the difference being that while the Roman church has prophets, belief in their private revelations, for example, Fatima, is optional, and I can think of only one case since the episcopacy of St. Peter in Antioch, before he even made it to Rome, that being Vatican I, where a private revelation may have had had a substantial impact on a decision made by the Roman church, and it was a controversial decision which did cause the schism with the Old Catholics.

zippy2006 said:

I will have to take the time to give your informative post a closer read. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that this question of Nuda Scriptura will come down to something I said earlier:


Now it seemed to me then and it seems to me now that an X of 'authoritative' would lead to Nuda Scriptura.* That's to say that the Magisterial Reformers would reject premise (2) on the basis of Nuda Scriptura if we used an X of 'authoritative,' because they held that some councils and traditions were authoritative if not infallible.

My time is short at the moment, but this is a rather important point for the thread, so feel free to digress.

* Particularly when the authoritative doctrine is thought to be reformable.

Click to expand...

Well unfortunately I couldn’t sleep last night, and I spent a week in the hospital and was only discharged Thursday, so I can’t keep going, but I think you have the basic idea.

Now I would say Luther and Cranmer were more amenable to tradition than Calvin or Zwingli and Cranmer even went perusing through the liturgical service books of the Greek Orthodox Church when composing the Book of Common Prayer, which is why the Prayer of the Second Antiphon said silently by the priest while the antiphon is chanted is part of the Anglican Divine Office, listed as The Prayer of St. Chrysostom (although the prayer is also used when the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil is served during the day, for example, on Sundays in Lent). However, one cannot forget it was Calvinist theologians who coined the term consensus patrum to refer to the prevailing Patristic opinion, as anyone into Patristics is bound to encounter, and indeed Calvin’s Institutes is very concerned with what specific Church Fathers taught, almost as much, perhaps even more so, than the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. This is in contrast, I think, but I could be wrong as it is a complex subject one can earn a PhD in, Karl Barth‘s Church Dogmatics, as Karl Barth and the Neo-Orthodox movement he started preferred not to rely on tradition as a source of doctrine, even though Church Dogmatics is effectively a grand system of Calvinist-based Reformed theology.

SabbathBlessings said:

I never said there is no way of resolving disputes, I am referring to finding Truth in scripture, that Jesus promises to give us the Spirit of Truth for those who keep His commandments John 14:15-18 and will teach us all things.

Click to expand...

IF you are indeed taught all truth by God and your brother is also taught all truth you would think there would be no disputes to resolve. I'm saying there is something wrong if you can't, something wrong with your understanding that you are infallible in your understanding of the truths God tried to teach you

SabbathBlessings said:

You think it doesn’t apply to individuals,

Click to expand...

We went over that. I think different individuals have different gifts and different callings. We are not all equally gifted. Or equally called. Some are teachers whose job is to teach us and correct us as need be. You seem to deny the need to be taught or corrected by others in the Body of Christ who have been called and gifted for that job.

SabbathBlessings said:

but I disagree- all scripture is for teaching and instruction 2 Timothy 3:15 which includes these promises. I’m not saying we can’t learn from Pastors or leaders in church, but it’s still our responsibility to test everything by scripture.

Click to expand...

You can test what you wish. But the Biblical role of bishops is to teach and lead and guide and rein in as needed. They have been called to that.

SabbathBlessings said:

Anyway, I am going to sign out wish you well in seeking His Word.

Click to expand...

And I hope that you can be attentive to the different callings and different gifts and different promises even as they are spoken about in the Scriptures. May you see the Biblical role of the teaching and shepherding office of the Church as something necessary for you to accept, and how it's not just you in a cave with a Bible. Nor is it a naked Bible, but a Bible in the context of a tradition that continued from Jesus to the Twelve to their descendants to the present, providing liturgical and spiritual and historical context to your naked Bible.

The Liturgist said:

I would note for the benefit of @zippy2006 that, as I debated with you once in another thread, the SDA definition of Sola Scriptura is also in my opinion different from that of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and the other Reformers because the SDA has a single body of inspired prophecy which guides Adventist interpretation of scripture in the same way that, I would argue, the Magisterium guides Roman Catholic interpretation, the difference being that while the Roman church has prophets, belief in their private revelations, for example, Fatima, is optional, and I can think of only one case since the episcopacy of St. Peter in Antioch, before he even made it to Rome, that being Vatican I, where a private revelation may have had had a substantial impact on a decision made by the Roman church, and it was a controversial decision which did cause the schism with the Old Catholics.

Click to expand...

I thought we spoke about this previously, the SDA church believes everything must be tested by scripture, God’s Word is the authority,


The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Num. 12:6; 2 Chron. 20:20; Amos 3:7; Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 22:8, 9.). EGW points everything back to God’s Word as the Authority and what everything must be tested by. I don’t think the RCC teaches the same.

Quotes from the RCC believe they are the authority over the Word of God and have authority to change His commandments despite some warnings scriptures state in doing so. Deut 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6 Daniel 7:25 These are just a few. . .

Q. Have you any other proofs that they(Protestants) are not guided by the Scripture?
A. Yes; so many, that we cannot admit more than a mere specimen into this small work. They reject much that is clearly contained in Scripture, and profess more that is nowhere discoverable in that Divine Book.
Q. Give some examples of both?
A. They should, if the Scripture were their only rule, wash the feet of one another, according to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap. of St. John; —they should keep, not the Sunday, but the Saturday, according to the commandment, "Remember thou keep holy the SABBATH-day;" for this commandment has not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated;...
—Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 101 Imprimatuer

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; —she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.
—Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 174

Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.
—Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50

Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God... The Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.'
—Catholic Record, September 1, 1923.

EGW wanted to bring people back to the teachings of God and keeping His commandments.

chevyontheriver said:

IF you are indeed taught all truth by God and your brother is also taught all truth you would think there would be no disputes to resolve. I'm saying there is something wrong if you can't, something wrong with your understanding that you are infallible in your understanding of the truths God tried to teach you

We went over that. I think different individuals have different gifts and different callings. We are not all equally gifted. Or equally called. Some are teachers whose job is to teach us and correct us as need be. You seem to deny the need to be taught or corrected by others in the Body of Christ who have been called and gifted for that job.

You can test what you wish. But the Biblical role of bishops is to teach and lead and guide and rein in as needed. They have been called to that.

And I hope that you can be attentive to the different callings and different gifts and different promises even as they are spoken about in the Scriptures. May you see the Biblical role of the teaching and shepherding office of the Church as something necessary for you to accept, and how it's not just you in a cave with a Bible. Nor is it a naked Bible, but a Bible in the context of a tradition that continued from Jesus to the Twelve to their descendants to the present, providing liturgical and spiritual and historical context to your naked Bible.

Click to expand...

We are talking about Truth of God’s Word, not Spiritual gifts, these are different things. I hope you are not suggesting that God wants only some people to seek Truth in His Word and not others.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

2 Thessalonians 2:10
and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

2 Thessalonians 2:12
that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

God’s desire is that everyone be saved, that everyone has the love of His Truth.

John 8: 31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

The Liturgist said:

Well no, some posts do contain logical arguments.

Click to expand...

That's quite a post! Interesting reading.

With all of that said, with all of the schisms of history, what is The Faith as you see it and why? Also, other than the unity you mentioned to defend The Faith, what do you think is required of a Christian in regard to how they assemble and what they practice - just how important is it?

GDL said:

That's quite a post! Interesting reading.

With all of that said, with all of the schisms of history, what is The Faith as you see it and why? Also, other than the unity you mentioned to defend The Faith, what do you think is required of a Christian in regard to how they assemble and what they practice - just how important is it?

Click to expand...

I think the Faith begins with the Nicene Creed. The Christian Forums Statement of Faith, which includes the Nicene Creed, plus a few additional items like the requirement of accepting the apostolate of Paul, is a very reasonable starting point.

Of course this isn’t the faith in its full splendor, but rather a minimum point of consensus to build from.

I myself follow a Patristic Orthodoxy, in that I am committed to the doctrines of the Early Church, particularly the first three Ecumenical Councils regarding Christology and Pneumatology and the seventh Ecumenical Council regarding iconography.

zippy2006 said:

So then you attack premise (2).

Is Sola Scriptura taught? Must it be believed? Is it something that is handed on in Protestant circles? If so, then in what sense is it not a doctrine?

Note that methods can be doctrines. Jesus tells his disciples not to follow the example of the Pharisees. This is a method, but it would also be a doctrine according to the sense of the OP. Just because something is a method does not mean it is not a doctrine.

Click to expand...

It depends if by Sola Scriptura one is talking about the same thing Lutherans were talking about in the 16th century (and still do on account of the Confessions), or if one is talking about another interpretation of Sola Scriptura from within the larger Protestant world.

In Lutheranism we speak of the Norma Normans (The Ruling Rule) and the Norma Normata (The Ruled Rule). Scripture alone is Norma Normans, there is no higher principle, text, or rule that governs the life and faith of the Church than Scripture, and Scripture is to rule over everything else; Norma Normata would refer to, for example, the Ecumenical Creeds and to the Lutheran Confessions; the Creeds do establish norms, they are teaching and confession which is to be confessed and taught, because they are ruled over, affirm, confess, and properly communicate the truth revealed in Scripture. That "because" is important, the Creeds don't represent an authority apart from Scripture, but authority because of Scripture; the Creeds are true because Scripture is true.

Sola Scriptura, therefore, is not understood to mean, "only what the Bible says can be believed", but rather following the Normative Principle, that which affirms and is in agreement with Scripture is also to be believed. If Scripture does not command nor prohibit something, and if it does not disrupt the peace and health of the Church, then it is permissable. So, for example, Scripture does not command having the Church Calendar, or to the ordinary pattern of the Liturgy, but Scripture certainly doesn't forbid them, and these have long been a great boon for the Faithful for they have been faithful ways the Church has confessed, believed, and worshiped the Lord since ancient times, there's no good reason then to do away with such things. They may not be "necessary", but they are certainly good, helpful, and have been proven over the last two thousand years to keep us grounded and focused on Jesus.

The alternative understanding of Sola Scriptura would be the Regulative Principle, which essentially says "Whatever Scripture does not command should not be done", to what degree and how that principle is interpreted varies but is typical of the Reformed tradition of Protestantism, but not Lutheranism.

Beyond these, one could speak of a much more modern sentiment, "Nuda Scriptura", "Bare Scripture" we could say; essentially "If the Bible does not expressly teach something then we are obligated not to believe it". This is the kind of argument some heretical groups use, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses when they want to tell us the word "Trinity" isn't found in the Bible. But it is also the rationale behind some Protestant groups for their positions, for example "Scripture does not expressly mention the baptism of infants, therefore infants can't be baptized" could be an example of this.

If one holds to a view of "Sola Scriptura" that "only what is expressly mentioned in the Bible can be believed", then yes, that would render "Sola Scriptura" self-refuting. But that isn't the historic way Sola Scriptura was understood, or more accurately, the way Sola Scriptura was done--as was said earlier, it is more historically a method rather than a "doctrine" per se.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

It depends if by Sola Scriptura one is talking about the same thing Lutherans were talking about in the 16th century (and still do on account of the Confessions), or if one is talking about another interpretation of Sola Scriptura from within the larger Protestant world.

In Lutheranism we speak of the Norma Normans (The Ruling Rule) and the Norma Normata (The Ruled Rule). Scripture alone is Norma Normans, there is no higher principle, text, or rule that governs the life and faith of the Church than Scripture, and Scripture is to rule over everything else; Norma Normata would refer to, for example, the Ecumenical Creeds and to the Lutheran Confessions; the Creeds do establish norms, they are teaching and confession which is to be confessed and taught, because they are ruled over, affirm, confess, and properly communicate the truth revealed in Scripture. That "because" is important, the Creeds do represent an authority apart from Scripture, but authority because of Scripture; the Creeds are true because Scripture is true.

Sola Scriptura, therefore, is not understood to mean, "only what the Bible says can be believed", but rather following the Normative Principle, that which affirms and is in agreement with Scripture is also to be believed. If Scripture does not command nor prohibit something, and if it does not disrupt the peace and health of the Church, then it is permissable. So, for example, Scripture does not command having the Church Calendar, or to the ordinary pattern of the Liturgy, but Scripture certainly doesn't forbid them, and these have long been a great boon for the Faithful for they have been faithful ways the Church has confessed, believed, and worshiped the Lord since ancient times, there's no good reason then to do away with such things. They may not be "necessary", but they are certainly good, helpful, and have been proven over the last two thousand years to keep us grounded and focused on Jesus.

The alternative understanding of Sola Scriptura would be the Regulative Principle, which essentially says "Whatever Scripture does not command should not be done", to what degree and how that principle is interpreted varies but is typical of the Reformed tradition of Protestantism, but not Lutheranism.

Beyond these, one could speak of a much more modern sentiment, "Nuda Scriptura", "Bare Scripture" we could say; essentially "If the Bible does not expressly teach something then we are obligated not to believe it". This is the kind of argument some heretical groups use, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses when they want to tell us the word "Trinity" isn't found in the Bible. But it is also the rationale behind some Protestant groups for their positions, for example "Scripture does not expressly mention the baptism of infants, therefore infants can't be baptized" could be an example of this.

If one holds to a view of "Sola Scriptura" that "only what is expressly mentioned in the Bible can be believed", then yes, that would render "Sola Scriptura" self-refuting. But that isn't the historic way Sola Scriptura was understood, or more accurately, the way Sola Scriptura was done--as was said earlier, it is more historically a method rather than a "doctrine" per se.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

A very good explanation. But I wish you guys who keep using the term could come to some sort of agreement with each other on which version you were talking about. To me it’s just a little bit crazy.

chevyontheriver said:

A very good explanation. But I wish you guys who keep using the term could come to some sort of agreement with each other on which version you were talking about. To me it’s just a little bit crazy.

Click to expand...

If the rest of Protestantism cared about what Lutherans have been saying this entire time, then there probably wouldn't be such a thing as Protestantism in the first place.

-CryptoLutheran