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

[Gregory Thompson]

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.

The church is the people not the steeple, your argument does not follow.

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 some people somewhere, it's all people everywhere who claim to have the right interpretation and use Sola Scriptura as some kind of Mantra that makes their different interpretation okay. It's simply imbalanced.

It's not a criticism of Sola Scriptura, for example, if we know someone who holds the Bible up to his forehead, opened, 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.

I can't say I know anyone like that, if you do however, you should make a YouTube so we can all laugh together.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I must say, this whole "you are throwing out scripture" when I'm saying we don't need sola scriptura is a tiring strawman dummy to knock down ... But it's still a good conversation.

 

[Rick Otto]

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

Even the ones who deny it, use it.
Certainly like anything, it can be abused and blamed for everything from bad breath to demon possession.
Did you have a bad experience with a person who advocates it?

 

[Albion]

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

Yes, I'd agree.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Even the ones who deny it, use it.
Certainly like anything, it can be abused and blamed for everything for bad breath to demon possession.
Did you have a bad experience with a person who advocates it?

I find the interpretive lense "sola scriptura" has this tendency to make honest discussion of the scriptures impossible. People according to their sola scriptura make any issue about their issue, and it's hard to find a small group where there isn't at least one to muddy up the pond.

 

[Rick Otto]

@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.

I tend to see SS as a method of calibrating veritas.
It is the fulcrum on which complimentary input is balanced.

 

[Rick Otto]

I find the interpretive lense "sola scriptura" has this tendency to make honest discussion of the scriptures impossible. People according to their sola scriptura make any issue about their issue, and it's hard to find a small group where there isn't at least one to muddy up the pond.

I see.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I tend to see SS as a method of calibrating veritas.
It is the fulcrum on which complimentary input is balanced.

Every invention whether tangible or imagined has a good use, but over time, the bad uses of it multiply.

With ideologies, it's best to not have anything too consistent, otherwise it attracts them. Since there's lots of variations and a lifetime of mind transformation, there's no need to stay with one type of interpretation. Using many in parallel usually confuses them but is very efficient.

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

If it has a use, it becomes part of the process.
I agree with all the other stuff you say, though.
That's why Psalm 19 is one of my faves.

 

[Rick Otto]

Every invention whether tangible or imagined has a good use, but over time, the bad uses of it multiply.

With ideologies, it's best to not have anything too consistent, otherwise it attracts them. Since there's lots of variations and a lifetime of mind transformation, there's no need to stay with one type of interpretation. Using many in parallel usually confuses them but is very efficient.

Dude, it's just a method of verification.
It doesn't dictate conclusions anymore than it does assumptions.
It merely uses scripture as a reliable source, it doesn't qualify the person doing so as error free.
Don't judge the value of wine by the behavior of the town drunk.

 

[davidcrosby]

http://www.solagroup.org/about.html

 

[Albion]

The church is the people not the steeple, your argument does not follow.

I didn't make any such argument! I said that Sola Scriptura (a concept) is not defined by whatever any looney might choose to do with a copy of the Holy Bible. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand or why anyone would question the truth of it.

It's not some people somewhere, it's all people everywhere who claim to have the right interpretation and use Sola Scriptura as some kind of Mantra that makes their different interpretation okay. It's simply imbalanced.

No. IT is not. THEY are.

If the discussion were about Tradition and I said that lots of people think that barking at the moon is a good tradition, would you say that this, if true, demolishes the Catholic idea of Holy Tradition defining doctrine? I would hope not.

 

[Albion]

I find the interpretive lense "sola scriptura" has this tendency to make honest discussion of the scriptures impossible. People according to their sola scriptura make any issue about their issue, and it's hard to find a small group where there isn't at least one to muddy up the pond.

For the umpteenth time, what people do wrongly with Scripture does not in any way disprove the principle of "Sola Scriptura." Sola Scriptura does not authorize erroneous interpretations of the Bible and it does not define what is correct interpretation. It says that Scripture is the proper guide to essential doctrine rather than the batch of human customs and opinions that had been considered authoritative before the Reformation.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Dude, it's just a method of verification.
It doesn't dictate conclusions anymore than it does assumptions.
It merely uses scripture as a reliable source, it doesn't qualify the person doing so as error free.
Don't judge the value of wine by the behavior of the town drunk.

You have made your point. It also reminds me of:

If a liar and deceiver comes and says, ‘I will prophesy for you plenty of wine and beer,’ that would be just the prophet for this people! (Micah 2:11)

Hehehe that would be funny.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I didn't make any such argument! I said that Sola Scriptura (a concept) is not defined by whatever any looney might choose to do with a copy of the Holy Bible. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand or why anyone would question the truth of it.


No. IT is not. THEY are.

If the discussion were about Tradition and I said that lots of people think that barking at the moon is a good tradition, would you say that this, if true, demolishes the Catholic idea of Holy Tradition defining doctrine? I would hope not.

I think my basis of this argument is that the scripture places compassion and mutual respect as a hierarchical concept, but sola scriptura seems to be a tool to dance around the many passages in the bible and avoid this concept. Not always the case, but quite common.

For the umpteenth time, what people do wrongly with Scripture does not in any way disprove the principle of "Sola Scriptura." Sola Scriptura does not authorize erroneous interpretations of the Bible and it does not define what is correct interpretation. It says that Scripture is the proper guide to essential doctrine rather than the batch of human customs and opinions that had been considered authoritative before the Reformation.

But what about the passages that say God speaks to us through other things such as the creation passage in the book of romans. It's just too narrow of a focus.

 

[Albion]

I think my basis of this argument is that the scripture places compassion and mutual respect as a hierarchical concept, but sola scriptura seems to be a tool to dance around the many passages in the bible and avoid this concept. Not always the case, but quite common.

This is becoming rather frustrating, so rather than me explaining and explaining Sola Scriptura, maybe it would work better if I asked you to elaborate on your thinking.

What about using Scripture to discern God's will for us--rather than something else--causes you to say "(it's) a tool to dance around the many passages in the Bible and avoid this concept?" How on earth can a commitment to USE the Bible be a way to avoid using it??

 

[Albion]

But what about the passages that say God speaks to us through other things such as the creation passage in the book of romans.

Just a minute. The concept of Sola Scriptura relates to doctrines, essential doctrines, doctrines that the Church imposes upon the people though Creeds, etc.

Let's take your example here. What about that passage would you say is essential to the faith but missing? And (second question) IF there is something left unrevealed that we must know in order to be Christians, where is the answer to be found, and how do we know that??

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This is becoming rather frustrating,

Not intentional, sorry about that.

How on earth can a commitment to USE the Bible be a way to avoid using it??

I think this lies in the intent of the person using the bible. Of all the people who show up for sunday service ... how many are there for Him?

The answer to this question implies what the answer is to your question: The intent changes from person to person, and those who seek God to actually seek God .. are a low percentage of people.

You've always been so diligent to explain your view, and I appreciate that, earnestly contending for your faith. It's good.

I think my perspective comes from one transformation that was a bit too far outside my church's ability to understand the bible. Something related to the text became alive in me ... so the implications of the text directly affect me. So though I don't expect to agree necessarily because of our different perspectives ... I appreciate what you are saying.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Just a minute. The concept of Sola Scriptura relates to doctrines, essential doctrines, doctrines that the Church imposes upon the people though Creeds, etc.

Let's take your example here. What about that passage would you say is essential to the faith but missing? And (second question) IF there is something left unrevealed that we must know in order to be Christians, where is the answer to be found, and how do we know that??

I think it is helpful to have more than one way of checking, people can change translations of the bible to their whim, and language can change within culture to make sentences mean something different from one generation to the next. But the creation pours out the same language to every generation, since Jesus taught in Parables ... why not His children?

 

[Albion]

I think this lies in the intent of the person using the bible.

I understand. BUT that's not Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura puts God's word on the highest level of credibility, but as I've said repeatedly, that doesn't guarantee that every last reader is going to get the right interpretation or use the Bible properly...not anymore than they would necessarily understand or properly use any alternate source of religious guidance.

Of all the people who show up for sunday service ... how many are there for Him?

I couldn't say, but it has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura one way or the other.

You've always been so diligent to explain your view, and I appreciate that, earnestly contending for your faith. It's good.

Oh. I do appreciate you saying that.

I think my perspective comes from one transformation that was a bit too far outside my church's ability to understand the bible. Something related to the text became alive in me ... so the implications of the text directly affect me. So though I don't expect to agree necessarily because of our different perspectives ... I appreciate what you are saying.