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

[Albion]

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?

You're still talking about the Bible rather than custom or legend, etc. One Bible translation may be better than another, but they're all Bibles unless we're talking about one of obvious parodies of the Bible that can be found in any bookstore (like the Radical's Bible or the Anarchist Bible).

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I understand. BUT that's not Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura puts God's word on the highest level of credibility

Since sola scriptura was more of an "anti tradition" phrase, I suppose I could agree with that. Putting the words in the bible on the highest level of credibility is something I have done. since the bible has basis verses, the geometry of my interpretation has changed accordingly.

The application of SS i commonly see tends to give each passage the same weight, when Jesus didn't do that. So whatever that interpretive lense is, I disagree with that.

It is possible that I disagree with a lot of bad interpretive methods where people use SS as a catch phrase to make it sound more correct.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

You're still talking about the Bible rather than custom or legend, etc. One Bible translation may be better than another, but they're all Bibles unless we're talking about one of obvious parodies of the Bible that can be found in any bookstore (like the Radical's Bible or the Anarchist Bible).

Agree.

 

[Albion]

The application of SS i commonly see tends to give each passage the same weight, when Jesus didn't do that. So whatever that interpretive lense is, I disagree with that.

OK, but again, that's not inherent in the idea of SS. It's what some people, using the Bible, have tended to do. I mean, we all know that a semi-literate person who picks up a Bible isn't going to understand it as well as a college-educated Bible scholar. But the whole point is just "What do we turn to for the answers?" A or B,C,D or E??

It is possible that I disagree with a lot of bad interpretive methods where people use SS as a catch phrase to make it sound more correct.

Do they? I guess that I see them using some other terminology, and most of the people I think you may be referring to don't even know where the term SS comes from. But that's my experience and it's not based on anything that's been very well researched.

 

[rjs330]

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.

But once they got it It became the guiding light for their whole life. So yes sola-scriptura was the way one the law was given. Please read Deuteronomy God commanded that the people learn the law all the time and abide by it.

 

[chilehed]

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

The idea that scripture contains the entirety of God's revealed truth, or that it is written so simply that anyone can be certain of understanding it rightly without assistance, is both irrational and anti-biblical. Both ideas come straight from the pit of hell.

 

[FireDragon76]

"Sola scriptura" is just a bad slogan of 17th century Lutheran/Refromed scholastics (and as Timothy Wengert pointed out, it's doubtful than Luther himself would recognize this concept as it is often articulated). It's meaningless in the modern context of thousands of Protestant churches, all confident that they are using Scriptures as their final or sole authority.

"The Bible says..." is simply not a good theological method, and it's often the refuge of the person wishing to avoid moral accountability in their beliefs or actions. The history of slaveholders in the US is proof enough of this.

 

[Albion]

The idea that scripture contains the entirety of God's revealed truth, or that it is written so simply that anyone can be certain of understanding it rightly without assistance, is both irrational and anti-biblical. Both ideas come straight from the pit of hell.

On the first point, the idea is not that it contains "the entirety of God's revealed truth." It does mean that it contains all of it that which is necessary to salvation and which any church can require of its people.

 

[Albion]

"The Bible says..." is simply not a good theological method, and it's often the refuge of the person wishing to avoid moral accountability in their beliefs or actions. The history of slaveholders in the US is proof enough of this.

Now you're back to focusing on what people can do with the Bible, which is not what Sola Scriptura means.

 

[FireDragon76]

Now you're back to focusing on what people can do with the Bible, which is not what Sola Scriptura means.

Sola Scripture means so many things it's become little more than an anti-Catholic slogan.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Sola Scriptura is the only sound theological position to affirm regarding the authority of divine revelation.

Interesting theory. How do you know the Bible is divine revelation?

 

[thecolorsblend]

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

Pastors? Ha! Every Protestant is his own pope. Sacred Scripture doesn't interpret itself. If it did, nobody would disagree on the meaning. So some people like me trust in the Magisterium (which I at least consider a good alternative considering they've had 2,000 years to study the scriptures and figure out what it means) while others exercise their own personal magisterium which results in thousands of different denominations.

 

[chilehed]

On the first point, the idea is not that it contains "the entirety of God's revealed truth." It does mean that it contains all of it that which is necessary to salvation and which any church can require of its people.

That depends on which version of s.s. you hold to, which points out another aspect of its irrationality.

From the Westminster Confession:

"Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased."
​

Also, your contention that a church can require a specific understanding of scripture among its members completely cuts the bottom out of the entire idea. Still more irrationality.

 

[Albion]

Pastors? Ha! Every Protestant is his own pope. Sacred Scripture doesn't interpret itself. If it did, nobody would disagree on the meaning. So some people like me trust in the Magisterium (which I at least consider a good alternative considering they've had 2,000 years to study the scriptures and figure out what it means) while others exercise their own personal magisterium which results in thousands of different denominations.

Not much of an argument, considering that no one knows what the semi-mythical "Magisterium" believes, and all its members are currently alive, meaning that its connection to a correct interpretation of scripture, if a lineage is any determiner of correct interpretation, is no better than any other living person.

 

[Albion]

That depends on which version of s.s. you hold to, which points out another aspect of its irrationality.

From the Westminster Confession:

"Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased."​

I don't see any conflict there.
​

Also, your contention that a church can require a specific understanding of scripture among its members completely cuts the bottom out of the entire idea.

No, it doesn't. The point is an important one. There are all sorts of truths and not all of them are in the Bible. But OTOH, we don't suppose that there's any reason that they ought to be.

 

[ebedmelech]

This is amazing!!! To condemn sola scriptura...yet our Lord REPEATEDLY straightened out the Scribes and Pharisees by appealing to scripture.

In His temptation, our Lord corrected Satan's misuse of scripture (for His own purposes), by again appealing to scripture correctly applied.

Jesus says many times "it is written", "have you not read" or “you are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures..."

Clearly scripture was THE AUTHORITY to Jesus...it should also be THE AUTHORITY to the church!!!

 

[thecolorsblend]

This is amazing!!! To condemn sola scriptura...yet our Lord REPEATEDLY straightened out the Scribes and Pharisees by appealing to scripture.

In His temptation, our Lord corrected Satan's misuse of scripture (for His own purposes), by again appealing to scripture correctly applied.

Jesus says many times "it is written", "have you not read" or “you are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures..."

Clearly scripture was THE AUTHORITY to Jesus...it should also be THE AUTHORITY to the church!!!

He also attended services for Hanukkah, a commemoration of an event that never occurred in Sacred Scripture. At least none that Protestants recognize.

Your move.

 

[Meowzltov]

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.

Go for it. Make your case, citing scripture. Please use a separate post for each of the four points.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Is this discussion circling around keeping God contained in a book?Theobiblos? God in the book. My own word there so just go with it.

Everything is God because God is the source of everything. If the Bible is for some the only place they find God who can argue with that?
They found God. They cleave to God.
Changing their mind? Is silly. God knows.

 

[SolomonVII]

Sola Scripture means so many things it's become little more than an anti-Catholic slogan.

I don't agree with that. Sola Scriptura is not anti-Catholic. It is merely a means to anchor the Faith in something permanent, something tried, tested, and true.
Catholics actually have nothing to fear from authentic people going to Scripture as the primary source of their Faith. A popular means of making the point of an obvious fact is to ask "Is the pope Catholic?".
The answer is obvious. It is a rhetorical question. Obviously the pope is Catholic.

Another truism would be to ask if the Bible is Catholic.
Ditto the answer. The Bible is a Catholic book. To the extent that people reference their faith to the Bible, they reference their faith to a Catholic source. There is nothing anti-Catholic about that.