Reevaluating the term Sola Scriptura (Bible alone + God giving understanding on it is the truth).

[Bible Highlighter]

God talked to my heart the other day on the term "Sola Scriptura." It is a man made term that is very close to the truth, but it is not exactly accurate in describing the truth. Truth is not just Scripture alone without God giving us the understanding. My beliefs have not changed on the topic of Sola Scriptura but my use of the term "Sola Scriptura" has now changed.

Now, let me make myself clear here. I am not in support of adding anything to the Bible. There should be no church traditions, added holy books, or added prophecies or visions, or dreams, etc. The Bible is God's Word for man today. But there is another component that we need in the faith as a part of God's Word. That is God. Without God, we cannot understand His Word (i.e. the Bible). So I believe the term we should use is:

"Scripture and the understanding of it by God alone."​

According to Google Translate, this phrase would look like this in in the Latin: "Eloquia et legitima intellectus sit solum a Deo." Whether or not it is a correct translation is another matter (Note: if this translation is incorrect, please somebody let me know, so I can change it). Anyways, the point I want to make here is that Sola Scriptura needs to include God so that we can understand it. I know I used to say that God is implied in our understanding on Scripture because Scripture comes from God, but if we do not have the anointing of the Spirit to understand Scripture (1 John 2:27), then reading the Bible alone without the Spirit will not truly help us. We need spiritual eyes (by having the Spirit and asking the Spirit for knowledge of God's word) in order to understand Scripture. This aspect of the truth (GOD) needs to be included in our definition of our spiritual authority on the matters of the faith involving God's Word.

 

[Albion]

How about just understanding the real meaning of the term Sola Scriptura?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Please take note that one cannot exist without the other. God's Word (the Bible) is our final word of authority, but we cannot stand on any true interpretation of God's Word unless it is backed by the anointing of the Spirit. Our understanding on the Bible must come from God. Yes, the context needs to be there. Yes, the plain meaning of words and our understanding of them needs to be there. I am not discounting any of that. I am saying that God needs to be included in our authority of Scripture. God helps to give us the correct understanding on Scripture. I am not proposing that we add new words to the Bible here. No church traditions, no holy books, no prophecies, no visions, or no added fillers. Just the Bible and God giving us the understanding on it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How about just understanding the real meaning of the term Sola Scriptura?

I know how men may define the theological words "Sola Scriptura." They may include the definition I give, but the words "Sola Scriptura" itself alone (without the definition) is misleading and it is not exactly accurate or true when you speak such a theological word (without providing the definition). In short, the definition is not true to what the theological words actually say. It technically is not Scripture alone because we also need the anointing of the Spirit to understand Scripture. Perhaps "Scripture and the Anointing Alone." Google translates this into Latin as: "Eloquia et legitima sola unctio."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It's like Cessationism. That is also a theological word that is not true in my opinion to express what Cessationists truly believe. Cessationists believe that the gift of apostleship has ceased and that the miraculous sign gifts have ceased, but they believe other gifts are still in operation like: The gift of being a teacher, an evangelist, a pastor, etc. So they technically would be a "Partial Cessationist" or they would believe in "Partial Cessationism."

 

[Albion]

I know how men may define the theological words "Sola Scriptura." They may include the definition I give, but the words "Sola Scriptura" itself alone (without the definition) is misleading and it is not exactly accurate or true when you speak such a theological word (without providing the definition). In short, the definition is not true to what the theological words actually say.

It's not untrue either. That's what most such terms are like--they don't include a lengthy definition/discussion which, if they did, it would render the term useless.

Take "The Bible," for example. What is your preferred and corrected term for it?

The term itself, you know, refers to a book, so it could be argued that we don't know which book out of many that exist is being referred to.

 

[Albion]

It's like Cessationism. That is also a theological word that is not true in my opinion to express what Cessationists truly believe. Cessationists believe that the gift of apostleship has ceased and that the miraculous sign gifts have ceased, but they believe other gifts are still in operation like: The gift of being a teacher, an evangelist, a pastor, etc. So they technically would be a "Partial Cessationist" or they would believe in "Partial Cessationism."

So the new and improved term would be something like General cessation of the gifts of apostleship except for certain gifts that God grants upon occasion. And a proponent of it would be a General cessation of the gifts of apostleship but not all gifts God may grant as he wills--ist.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It's not untrue either.

I believe it is because it is using the word "alone" in there. Scripture is never alone without the Anointing of God giving us the understanding on it.

Take "The Bible," for example. What is your preferred and corrected term for it?

The term itself, you know, refers to a book, so it could be argued that we don't know which book out of many that exist is being referred to.

The Bible is generally understood as the Holy Bible and it exists generally as a collection of 66 books. It does not make an inaccurate statement like "Sola Scriptura." The Bible is simply stating a basic truth. Scripture needs to include the "Anointing" in the Sola (or alone) part; If not, it is a misleading word. If the term merely said Scripture is our authority and it did not mention the word "alone" that would be different. The word "alone" suggests that is all you need. This is not true. A person can have Scripture alone and if they do not have the anointing to understand the Bible, they are not going to get anywhere spiritually.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So the new and improved term would be something like General cessation of the gifts of apostleship except for certain gifts that God grants upon occasion. And a proponent of it would be a General cessation of the gifts of apostleship but not all gifts God may grant as he wills--ist.

Not following you on this one. Please clarify.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I mean, I get it. These terms may be precious to some believers. They are not to me. They were invented by men. The Bible and God are the authority here. Nothing else.

 

[Albion]

I believe it is because it is using the word "alone" in there. Scripture is never alone without the Anointing of God giving us the understanding on it.

That's why we have to know what the term means. But there is nothing wrong with the term itself. If there is...then Scriptura also needs amplification since some people will misunderstand the meaning of that word.

The Bible is generally understood as the Holy Bible and it exists generally as a collection of 66 books.

Not according to the 2/3 of the world's Christians who belong to churches that count 72 books or some other number.

 

[Albion]

I mean, I get it. These terms may be precious to some believers. They are not to me.

No, that wasn't the point. The point was that most terms, religious or otherwise, are summations of more complicated ideas and require the reader to know what they are intended to summarize. I gave a few examples--Bible, Scripture, Cessationist.

Logically speaking, we would have to turn almost every term into a short paragraph in order to fully and clearly explain the complete meaning every time a mention was made, not just in the case of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That's why we have to know what the term means. But there is nothing wrong with the term itself. If there is...then Scriptura also needs amplification since some people will misunderstand the meaning of that word.

Do you believe Scripture is alone without the anointing? Yes, or no?
So then how can Sola Scriptura be true?
Yes, I am aware of the definition, but it does not match the theological word itself.

Not according to the 2/3 of the world's Christians who belong to churches that count 72 books or some other number.

The Bible does not distinguish which books. It is a vague term and the word "The Bible" is not untrue in and of itself like Sola Scriptura is.

 

[Albion]

Do you believe Scripture is alone without the anointing? Yes, or no?

I believe that Scripture Alone contains everything that is necessary for salvation. Nothing else--tradition, custom, personal inspiration, etc.--is needed for us to have the information needed for that objective to be accomplished. That's what it means, what the ALONE part means there.

Yes, I am aware of the definition, but it does not match the theological word itself.

It looks from here that you actually are not aware of the meaning.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, that wasn't the point. The point was that most terms, religious or otherwise, are summations of more complicated ideas and require the reader to know what they are intended to summarize. I gave a few examples--Bible, Scripture, Cessationist.

Actually, I mentioned Cessationist first, my friend. But again, it does matter how a word represents its definition. If that word is not true to how it is described, then it fails to be a true word or words. For example: If decided to say that cat means dog, that would be illogical. We know cats are cats, and dogs are dogs.

Logically speaking, we would have to turn almost every term into a short paragraph in order to fully and clearly explain the complete meaning every time a mention was made, not just in the case of Sola Scriptura.

No. That's not what I am getting at. I am not seeking to make an entire paragraph out of words here. Words can accurately describe what a definition says. Sola Scriptura fails to do that because we know it is not Sola Scriptura but it also includes the Anointing.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe that Scripture Alone contains everything that is necessary for salvation. Nothing else--tradition, custom, personal inspiration, etc.--is needed for us to have the information needed for that objective to be accomplished. That's what it means, what the ALONE part means there.


It looks from here that you actually are not aware of the meaning.

Again, I know that Sola Scriptura includes God in the understanding of Scripture within it's definition. I already stated that before. But the problem is that the word itself does not say what the definition says. It makes an untrue statement and then defines it differently than what the words say. That is a contradiction. It should be "Scripture and the Anointing to Understand It Alone."

 

[Albion]

Actually, I mentioned Cessationist first, my friend.

That's right. And you also first mentioned the Bible. What I did was comment on them, using them as examples of my point about these also needing your treatment, not just the term Sola Scriptura.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe that Scripture Alone contains everything that is necessary for salvation. Nothing else--tradition, custom, personal inspiration, etc.--is needed for us to have the information needed for that objective to be accomplished. That's what it means, what the ALONE part means there.

That's not what I asked. Do you believe you need 1 John 2:27 anointing as a part of having the correct faith or a proper understanding on God's Word?

It looks from here that you actually are not aware of the meaning.

I already told you I am aware of it. Why do you keep insisting that I am not aware of it? Are you suggesting that Sola Scriptura teaches that you do not need an anointing to understand God's Word? If so, then how can that be if 1 John 2:27 teaches it?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That's right. And you also first mentioned the Bible. What I did was comment on them, using them as examples of my point about these also needing your treatment, not just the term Sola Scriptura.

You said you gave a few examples, and then stated the word "Cessationist.". But let's not argue over the small things here.

 

[eleos1954]

God talked to my heart the other day on the term "Sola Scriptura." It is a man made term that is very close to the truth, but it is not exactly accurate in describing the truth. Truth is not just Scripture alone without God giving us the understanding. My beliefs have not changed on the topic of Sola Scriptura but my use of the term "Sola Scriptura" has now changed.

Now, let me make myself clear here. I am not in support of adding anything to the Bible. There should be no church traditions, added holy books, or added prophecies or visions, or dreams, etc. The Bible is God's Word for man today. But there is another component that we need in the faith as a part of God's Word. That is God. Without God, we cannot understand His Word (i.e. the Bible). So I believe the term we should use is:

"Scripture and the understanding of it by God alone."​

According to Google Translate, this phrase would look like this in in the Latin: "Eloquia et legitima intellectus sit solum a Deo." Whether or not it is a correct translation is another matter (Note: if this translation is incorrect, please somebody let me know, so I can change it). Anyways, the point I want to make here is that Sola Scriptura needs to include God so that we can understand it. I know I used to say that God is implied in our understanding on Scripture because Scripture comes from God, but if we do not have the anointing of the Spirit to understand Scripture (1 John 2:27), then reading the Bible alone without the Spirit will not truly help us. We need spiritual eyes (by having the Spirit and asking the Spirit for knowledge of God's word) in order to understand Scripture. This aspect of the truth (GOD) needs to be included in our definition of our spiritual authority on the matters of the faith involving God's Word.

there's more than one "sola" and certainly we all know we can do nothing without Him ... His Holy Spirit working in us.

Reformation Christian beliefs were based on the following:

1 Sola scriptura (Scripture alone as the foundation for faith and practice, not Scripture along with tradition). The “Scripture principle” is the conviction that the Bible is the only absolute source of authority and that all believers are equal before it. It is Protestantism’s central, unifying idea.

2 Sola gratia (by grace alone, not grace along with merits when it comes to salvation). The principle of “grace alone” highlights the depth of God’s love manifested in unmerited favor toward those He created in His image. Those who receive God’s grace are called to be gracious people.

3 Sola fide (by faith alone, not faith with works to earn salvation). The nature of justification was at the root of the Reformation. The righteousness of Christ is the ground of our hope. “Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that [righteousness] wrought (being molded/shaped) by His Spirit working in and through us.”

4 Solus Christus (Christ alone, the only mediator between God and humanity). This principle presupposes that only God can lead us to God. Only God can forgive offenses to God. Only God can save and offer eternal life.

5 Soli Deo gloria (to God be all the glory; only God is worthy of worship). Instead of seeking popularity, prestige, or power, pastors and other leaders/individuals are called to validate their ministry by embracing the humility of Christ, who, even though He was the only one worthy of glory, did not seek His own glory.

It's not one "sola" over the other or instead of the other.

All of the "solas" are combined in and through the One ..... Jesus.

The whole purpose of the Christian life is to be transformed through the work of His Holy Spirit in the believer) and live a Christ-centered life.