Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

[2PhiloVoid]

...which seems to amount to saying to renounce both the term and the concept.

I think the idea of "renouncing" is a bit beyond what I was attempting to convey in my meaning, particularly if we take into account the second, contingent portion of my statement.

I'm not Catholic, so I wasn't assimilating to their particular position when I said what I said. What I am attempting to imply, instead, is that the Reformationist's formulations aren't by necessity the paragon of articulations in regard to the nature of the Bible 'either.' In fact, I don't think that any particular Christian party--whether Catholic, Orthodox, or various shades of Protestantism, has the "one up-man-ship" over all the others, and not because one may or may not have better arguments than the other about each of their respective positions on the Bible's place in the Church, but rather because the Bible itself does not come replete with a comprehensive articulation as to its own place in the Christian life, other than that it is indispensable and authoritative. "It is written ... "

But somehow, each group in Christiandom today seems to think it has gotten the Systematic Theology (and its systemic ideas) down pat so as to overthrow the other groups. And it's this "Revolutionary" kind of attitude behind the use of specific terms as applied to the status of the Bible that really, IMO, is counter to God's intentions and needs to go.

We just love to use the Bible to "Lord it over the others ..."

Maybe the question here should become, how does the acceptance and application of "Sola Scriptura" enable each Christian to serve other people (and thus God) better?

2Philovoid

 

[Albion]

I think the idea of "renouncing" is a bit beyond what I was attempting to convey in my meaning, particularly if we take into account the second, contingent portion of my statement.

I'm not Catholic, so I wasn't assimilating to their particular position when I said what I said.

Understood.

Maybe the question here should become, how does the acceptance and application of "Sola Scriptura" enable each Christian to serve other people (and thus God) better?

If we're boiling the debate down to something basic, I'd suggest instead that it be "Why wouldn't the word of God be a more credible guide to doctrine than anything else?"

 

[fat wee robin]

I believe Sola Scriptura is over rated also; Abraham never had it; Noah never had it. It is possible to walk with God with out scripture. Still the scriptures should not be under rated either. The 12 apostles had scripture plus Christ plus the holy Spirit; while they didn't have doctrines of men, they didn't have Sola Scriptura either; Sola Scriptura is also a doctrine of men.

I agree , for as a child ,and even later ,when I came back to Jesus , it was not ,certainly not the O.T. which convinced me , as I knew only twopence halfpenny about it .
But when someone really knowledgeable discusses it , is very interesting .Just not essential as a first step .

 

[fat wee robin]

@W2L - I tend to see sola scriptura as the agenda. I tend to use scripture with everything else God speaks to me through as a compliment. The focus has become too imbalanced, so I reject it.

@Hieronymus - The scripture refers to creation as a reliable source of wisdom from God, The New Testament speaks of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth, A peace that surpasses understanding, and a love that surpasses knowledge. There are some things that can only be learned by being intimate with God. The scripture is useful, but not the only way God uses to teach us.

True.... I was into the now obviously false "soul sleep' theory back when I had a Sola Scriptura approach.

What do you mean here by 'soul sleep ' ?

 

[fat wee robin]

To state my position clearly: I believe that the Bible is the 'inspired Word of God'. But just 'reading it' is not able to reveal God's 'truth'. It takes the guidance and conviction of the Holy Spirit to reveal 'the truth' contained within it's pages.

Blessings,

MEC

And that takes time, (patience )and listening and hearing ,and then the fruit appears ,and confirms or not.
I have just realised,fter writing that,that the RCC calls the ceremony to recieve the H.S. ' Confirmation ' .

 

[Meowzltov]

Protestants claim to be Sola Scriptura, but THEY ARE NOT. Doctrines that orthodox Christians accept, even though they are not in the Bible:

From Church Councils

• Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, with two natures, not one nature with God and man blended together, not half God and half man, not his humanity being a husk possessed by God.
• The canon of the New Testament being settled, not seen as superfluous as it was seen during the first years of the Church, not simply proposed by one person or another in earlier times, which was contradicted by others.
• The Holy Spirit being a person. Although we can find the Father, Son and HS in the Bible, the idea of One God, three PERSONS is simply not found in Scriptures.

From Sacred Tradition

• The switch of worshiping on the Sabbath (Saturday) to worshiping on the Lord's Day (Sunday) because Christianity was not Judaism and keeping the Sabbath had to do with Jews, and Sunday was the Day Christ rose from the dead and was therefore blessed.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Of course you can. But maybe the word antinomian isn't the best one after all. What else says "Believe Jesus is your guy and all other doctrines or beliefs or behavior are just whatever you want to make them be?"

But people do that with scripture, so what's the benefit?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Understood.


If we're boiling the debate down to something basic, I'd suggest instead that it be "Why wouldn't the word of God be a more credible guide to doctrine than anything else?"

That's a good point, Albion. But, one way in which I'd differ with you is by suggesting that our respective questions about the role the Bible should play in the Christian life not be seen as dichotomous choices over what is "basic"; in fact, I'd say that your question is complementary to mine.

2PhiloVoid

 

[sparow]

I agree , for as a child ,and even later ,when I came back to Jesus , it was not ,certainly not the O.T. which convinced me , as I knew only twopence halfpenny about it .
But when someone really knowledgeable discusses it , is very interesting .Just not essential as a first step .

I believe I have always had faith or a subconscious inclination. Only once have I been seriously challenged and it involved a single scripture; after 4 hours of study I convinced myself I was right but it took a week to recover my confidence. When some one is really knowledgeable it doesn't mean they know God and theirs could be a divergence.

I was amazed this morning when listening to Dr. Jeremiah talking about faith, but he missed an important fact and that is Pagans and Atheists also have faith and knowledge (not in God); faith being a grammatical variation of trust. The NT makes many references to education in the things of God; theology is something else.

 

[sparow]

Protestants claim to be Sola Scriptura, but THEY ARE NOT. Doctrines that orthodox Christians accept, even though they are not in the Bible:

From Church Councils

• Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, with two natures, not one nature with God and man blended together, not half God and half man, not his humanity being a husk possessed by God.
• The canon of the New Testament being settled, not seen as superfluous as it was seen during the first years of the Church, not simply proposed by one person or another in earlier times, which was contradicted by others.
• The Holy Spirit being a person. Although we can find the Father, Son and HS in the Bible, the idea of One God, three PERSONS is simply not found in Scriptures.

From Sacred Tradition

• The switch of worshiping on the Sabbath (Saturday) to worshiping on the Lord's Day (Sunday) because Christianity was not Judaism and keeping the Sabbath had to do with Jews, and Sunday was the Day Christ rose from the dead and was therefore blessed.

You make good points but what you find acceptable I do not. If we divide those who believe they serve God into two groups; those who please God and those who do not, and I only have my interpretations of scripture to form my opinion, and those who do not please God. The difference between these is their attitude towards sin; the first group repents and repents and repents; the second group apologises its way out of sin by rejecting the Law, and eventually when Christ returns He says to the people on one side, "Depart from me you who practice lawlessness".


I don't think you have the Sacred Tradition concerning the Sabbath and the Lord's day quite right. Traditions are not something I pay attention to but tradition does not have to be bad. There is a book which is a thesis from the Vatican University and published by The Pontifical Gregorian University Press Rome 1977, that tells all about the Change from Saturday to Sunday, FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY, Samuele Bacchiocchi.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

ANd in fact, since we manufacture our DOCTRINES, and Theologies on OUR INTERPRETATIONS of the Word, rather that on the WORD ITSELF, "Sola Scriptura" has become become "Sola my interpretation of Scriptura", and so the term is pretty Meaningless in the practical sense anyway.

 

[thecolorsblend]

ANd in fact, since we manufacture our DOCTRINES, and Theologies on OUR INTERPRETATIONS of the Word, rather that on the WORD ITSELF, "Sola Scriptura" has become become "Sola my interpretation of Scriptura", and so the term is pretty Meaningless in the practical sense anyway.

If only there was an authority to interpret the Word for the faithful, eh?

 

[now faith]

@now faith - Just a point of curiosity, do you know where in the scripture the Word is there in the beginning. The instance in scripture John is referring to ... in the beginning was the word, and the word was God and is God ..

From the beginning the Word was God,everything God said he spoke into existence.
Except for Man God said let us go down and create man.
The triune of God like us is Body ,Soul,and Spirit.
The Word is Christ Jesus

John: 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John: 1. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. -


Proverbs: 8. 22. The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26. While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28. When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29. When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30. Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31. Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. 32. Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. 33. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. 34. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. 35. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. 36. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

 

[SolomonVII]

It is all there in Scripture. The only problem is that Scripture does not read and study and pore over and contemplate itself and understand itself. Being sola scripture means that people actually got to study scripture and glean the meaning from scripture. Just like sitting at the weight set does not build muscle, it is necessary to actually open up the Bible and read it.

It is the task of a lifetime and more actually.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

Sola Scriptura is the only sound theological position to affirm regarding the authority of divine revelation. All of the points presented in opposition to this doctrine are either ignorant of what it means for Scripture to be the ultimate authority (which is to be the ultimate reference point for confirming the authenticity of any given revelation, ostensible or actual, to be determined by said Scriptures), or are simply ignorant of the fact that they affirm what they deny (in the ironic instances of referring to Scripture to denounce Sola Scriptura). How can one claim to have authority apart from the Scriptures, except to refer to the Scriptures themselves, thus reestablishing Scripture as the ultimate authority? It would be interesting for someone to claim a broad divinely instituted authority without being able to provide an immutable reference that is concretely available, as this would essentially create a 'power vacuum' by which any church could boast it's own authority completely unchecked. This is also true conversely for denying the authority of any theological claim; either way nothing would tether the claims of the competing doctrines and disunity could never be confidently reconciled.

One argument I have seen consistently throughout this thread is that Sola Scriptura is undermined by the Patriarchs of antiquity not having access to any Scripture or a limited set of Scripture to infer their doctrinal understanding and emerging systematic theology. However, these examples possess a seemingly readily apprehensible exception in that the Patriarchs had access to either direct, audible communication with God, confirmation by miraculous signs, angelic appearances prophetic visions, or a combination of the aforementioned. So they weren't "flying blind", so to speak, in regards to the assuredness of the revelations they received, and their was no potential to conflate their own emotive and cognitive inclinations with the instigation of the Holy Spirit. That makes sense as these special revelations and events would provide the content, once recorded, that would constitute a singular and thus objective reference for assuring our understanding is consistent with what God has revealed about Himself and His will. The objectivity of the Scriptures would not preclude potential misinterpretations of this source, as even objective material can be misunderstood or misconstrued. Rather, as the Bereans were praised for doing (Acts 17:11), we should diligently search the Scriptures to ensure the soundness of our theology and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. This way we can best ensure the veracity of our interpretation and, combining our diligent study with the even more fundamental prayerful pursuit of wisdom, have a proper confidence in our knowledge of God.

Another argument I have seen is that Sola Scriptura is disproved by the ability to live Scripturally without having read the Scriptures. I don't see how this argument is supposed to advance anything against the doctrine considering it merely demonstrates both that consistency with God's will can occur prior to reading, and that what Jesus said regarding the ministry of the Holy Spirit is true (John 16:8-11). Concerning the first point, we can have unity in sound confidence of any doctrine or the acceptance or rejection of any behaviour precisely because of the Scriptures. Secondly, we can have proper confidence that the fruit produced in us is of the Holy Spirit because the Scriptures describe what those fruits are and what is constituent to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures provide us the means to train ourselves for righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and spiritual endurance in a refined manner rather than be left in the weaknesses and uncertainties of ignorance.

The last argument I have observed is that Sola Scriptura is likely motivated by arrogance and is a self-centred approach because it favours one's own interpretation. This is fallacious and presumptuous. It is fallacious because it is irrelevant to the truth of a position what the character is of the one who affirms it; someone can be simultaneously arrogant and correct (just as a haughty person who denies sola scriptura would not conversely reinforce the veracity of the doctrine). It is presumptuous because it presumes that the motivation under-girding exclusive reliance on Scripture is by default a-rational and unspiritual. Additionally, it is contradictory because it is in fact easier to assert one's own view by laying claim to the Holy Spirit's personal revelation absent any reference point than it is to assert a perspective referring to a ubiquitously static and concrete source.

In summation, it is obvious from both life experience and the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit ministers the Gospel of truth to all people and convinces the world regarding sin, righteousness and judgment. It is, however, impossible to deductively infer broad authority or absolute doctrines, permissions or inhibitions without tethering the truth claims to a source that does not exclusively rely on personal experience.

 

[fat wee robin]

I believe I have always had faith or a subconscious inclination. Only once have I been seriously challenged and it involved a single scripture; after 4 hours of study I convinced myself I was right but it took a week to recover my confidence. When some one is really knowledgeable it doesn't mean they know God and theirs could be a divergence.

I was amazed this morning when listening to Dr. Jeremiah talking about faith, but he missed an important fact and that is Pagans and Atheists also have faith and knowledge (not in God); faith being a grammatical variation of trust. The NT makes many references to education in the things of God; theology is something else.

Oh yes it's a long journey ,and we have learn to navigate 'shark infested waters', as well as seemingly benign, seductive ones .The latter are the most dangerous really ,as they have 'the feel good factor '. Some ,and that includes all of us , at sometime are fooled , so we must continue seeking HIS truth .
P.S. I have no idea who Dr. Jeremiah is ,as am in Europe and just a Christian (ex RCC ) for now ,but am interested in the E.O. more and more .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

ANd in fact, since we manufacture our DOCTRINES, and Theologies on OUR INTERPRETATIONS of the Word, rather that on the WORD ITSELF, "Sola Scriptura" has become become "Sola my interpretation of Scriptura", and so the term is pretty Meaningless in the practical sense anyway.

Yeah regrettably so.

If only there was an authority to interpret the Word for the faithful, eh?

I guess pastors do become like a mini-pope in a sense, not that they'd agree.

From the beginning the Word was God,everything God said he spoke into existence.
Except for Man God said let us go down and create man.
The triune of God like us is Body ,Soul,and Spirit.
The Word is Christ Jesus

John: 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John: 1. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. -


Proverbs: 8. 22. The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26. While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28. When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29. When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30. Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31. Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. 32. Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. 33. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. 34. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. 35. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. 36. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

I've seen the Logos correlated to Wisdom of Proverbs 8, but have you considered how the Voice of the Lord God walked around in the Garden during the cool of the day?

Fascinating subject the Logos, thanks for that

 

[Albion]

Protestants claim to be Sola Scriptura, but THEY ARE NOT. Doctrines that orthodox Christians accept, even though they are not in the Bible:

From Church Councils

• Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, with two natures, not one nature with God and man blended together, not half God and half man, not his humanity being a husk possessed by God.
• The canon of the New Testament being settled, not seen as superfluous as it was seen during the first years of the Church, not simply proposed by one person or another in earlier times, which was contradicted by others.
• The Holy Spirit being a person. Although we can find the Father, Son and HS in the Bible, the idea of One God, three PERSONS is simply not found in Scriptures.

From Sacred Tradition

• The switch of worshiping on the Sabbath (Saturday) to worshiping on the Lord's Day (Sunday) because Christianity was not Judaism and keeping the Sabbath had to do with Jews, and Sunday was the Day Christ rose from the dead and was therefore blessed.

This is an interesting effort, but it's not true as claimed. In almost all the cases you mentioned, the statement certainly IS taught in Scripture and, more than that, the proof that any Bible-oriented believer would give would be a verse from Scripture!

For example, that's how we "prove" that the Holy Spirit is a person and not a force--a Bible verse. That's how we justify the move from Saturday worship to Sunday--a Bible verse. And so on. Your thesis is simply wrong.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Sola Scriptura is the only sound theological position to affirm regarding the authority of divine revelation. All of the points presented in opposition to this doctrine are either ignorant of what it means for Scripture to be the ultimate authority (which is to be the ultimate reference point for confirming the authenticity of any given revelation, ostensible or actual, to be determined by said Scriptures), or are simply ignorant of the fact that they affirm what they deny (in the ironic instances of referring to Scripture to denounce Sola Scriptura). How can one claim to have authority apart from the Scriptures, except to refer to the Scriptures themselves, thus reestablishing Scripture as the ultimate authority? It would be interesting for someone to claim a broad divinely instituted authority without being able to provide an immutable reference that is concretely available, as this would essentially create a 'power vacuum' by which any church could boast it's own authority completely unchecked. This is also true conversely for denying the authority of any theological claim; either way nothing would tether the claims of the competing doctrines and disunity could never be confidently reconciled.

One argument I have seen consistently throughout this thread is that Sola Scriptura is undermined by the Patriarchs of antiquity not having access to any Scripture or a limited set of Scripture to infer their doctrinal understanding and emerging systematic theology. However, these examples possess a seemingly readily apprehensible exception in that the Patriarchs had access to either direct, audible communication with God, confirmation by miraculous signs, angelic appearances prophetic visions, or a combination of the aforementioned. So they weren't "flying blind", so to speak, in regards to the assuredness of the revelations they received, and their was no potential to conflate their own emotive and cognitive inclinations with the instigation of the Holy Spirit. That makes sense as these special revelations and events would provide the content, once recorded, that would constitute a singular and thus objective reference for assuring our understanding is consistent with what God has revealed about Himself and His will. The objectivity of the Scriptures would not preclude potential misinterpretations of this source, as even objective material can be misunderstood or misconstrued. Rather, as the Bereans were praised for doing (Acts 17:11), we should diligently search the Scriptures to ensure the soundness of our theology and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. This way we can best ensure the veracity of our interpretation and, combining our diligent study with the even more fundamental prayerful pursuit of wisdom, have a proper confidence in our knowledge of God.

Another argument I have seen is that Sola Scriptura is disproved by the ability to live Scripturally without having read the Scriptures. I don't see how this argument is supposed to advance anything against the doctrine considering it merely demonstrates both that consistency with God's will can occur prior to reading, and that what Jesus said regarding the ministry of the Holy Spirit is true (John 16:8-11). Concerning the first point, we can have unity in sound confidence of any doctrine or the acceptance or rejection of any behaviour precisely because of the Scriptures. Secondly, we can have proper confidence that the fruit produced in us is of the Holy Spirit because the Scriptures describe what those fruits are and what is constituent to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures provide us the means to train ourselves for righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and spiritual endurance in a refined manner rather than be left in the weaknesses and uncertainties of ignorance.

The last argument I have observed is that Sola Scriptura is likely motivated by arrogance and is a self-centred approach because it favours one's own interpretation. This is fallacious and presumptuous. It is fallacious because it is irrelevant to the truth of a position what the character is of the one who affirms it; someone can be simultaneously arrogant and correct (just as a haughty person who denies sola scriptura would not conversely reinforce the veracity of the doctrine). It is presumptuous because it presumes that the motivation under-girding exclusive reliance on Scripture is by default a-rational and unspiritual. Additionally, it is contradictory because it is in fact easier to assert one's own view by laying claim to the Holy Spirit's personal revelation absent any reference point than it is to assert a perspective referring to a ubiquitously static and concrete source.

In summation, it is obvious from both life experience and the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit ministers the Gospel of truth to all people and convinces the world regarding sin, righteousness and judgment. It is, however, impossible to deductively infer broad authority or absolute doctrines, permissions or inhibitions without tethering the truth claims to a source that does not exclusively rely on personal experience.

Okay, in the book of Romans, it says that everything about God including the Godhead is taught through the creation so people would be without excuse. In being against "sola" scriptura, I look at what the scripture writers also used to hear from God. The main problem is the sola is not scriptural, though I would agree with it being in compliment with other things God teaches us through such as the Peace that surpasses understanding, and the Love that surpasses knowledge. It is even written that "love" is made perfect in us (or matures within us) so that we will have confidence (or boldness) on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. So the passage does not say, we have an upload of perfect doctrine into our brains so we will have confidence on the day of Judgment.
.
The emphasis on scriptura as a means of developing has a "use" and is "profitable" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but is not part of the intimate spiritual maturity process God uses to make us ready for His day. The scripture comes to remembrance as God prepares us, this is the scriptural use of scripture.

 

[Albion]

But people do that with scripture, so what's the benefit?

I can't speak to "people." There are people who believe in the most ridiculous folk religious notions, but I don't say that this disproves any church's teachings. Similarly, it makes no sense to denounce or dismiss Sola Scriptura because we can find some people somewhere who misuse the Bible. It's not a criticism of Sola Scriptura, for example, if we know someone who holds the Bible, unopened, up to his forehead and says he's receiving a mental picture of something. That really has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, what it means, or what the church of antiquity did with Scripture.