Sola Scriptura

[Carrye]

The separation of flesh and spirit (Christian from the world, etc) is different than how the Holy Spirit teaches. We believe that the revelation from God of Himself to Man is complete. That there is no more new revelation coming.

Agreed. So Baptists would hold that Jesus was the last prophet, and that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle?

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

While we realize that the verse above is specifically speaking of the book of Revelation, we apply the principle stated to the whole of the Bible. Albert Barnes states it better than I in his "Notes on the New Testament"

"If any man shall add unto these things. With a view to furnish a more full and complete revelation; or with a profession that new truth had been communicated by inspiration. The reference here is to the book of Revelation only--for at that time the books that now constitute what we call the Bible were not collected into a single volume. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced as referring to the whole of the sacred Scriptures. Still, the principle is one that is thus applicable; for it is obvious that no one has a right to change any part of a revelation which God makes to man; to presume to add to it, or to take from it, or in any way to modify it."

Ok, so you're saying that no one should add to or subtract from the Scriptures, correct? You'd say that the Scriptures are in essence a finished work. No more pages should be added, nor anything taken away from?

But the Holy Spirit speaking and teaching is a whole different ball of wax. The Holy Spirit who is here with us, and within us, has an entire ministry of speaking and teaching. However his teaching and speaking is not in the scope of "new revelation" it is rather in the field of illumination and preservation. He illuminates what has already been given (the Bible) and preserves the Word for us. He makes intercession on our behalf, teaches us what to pray, etc. etc. etc. it goes on. One of the most important aspects of the Holy Spirit speaking to us and through us is the all important area of "what". Biblically we find that (contrary to some denominational theology) the Spirit does not speak "new revelation" He is he confirming Spirit and does not speak of himself. He has a job of sanctification which is progressive and He leads us through.

I agree.

(you might benefit from a word study on "Word of God", in this whole topic).

That'll be next on my exegetical list!

Yeah that's something that I came up with in my devotions. I devoted some study to it and have been mulling it around for awhile. I haven't dedicated the time to it that I will before I see if I'm on the right track or way off... It's one of those things that I usually don't talk about because I'm not 100% on it myself...

If you ever make more progress with it, I'd love to hear your thoughts. As I said, this isn't an argument I've heard before, and it intrigues me. And as a friend of mine says, one of the highest compliments I can give is, "Interesting!"

After going through your post BT, I'm now curious about where the difference between Baptist and Catholic theology is here. I agree with what you've said above, about revelation not changing and about not adding to/subtracting from the Scriptures. We don't seem to disagree about the role of the Scriptures, and so now it seems like we might disagree about the role of Tradition. And so I wonder where that leaves us. Interesting.

Edit: Thanks for the congrats.

 

[Carrye]

CLS, this probably won't help you much with your assignment, but sola scriptura has more historical support than biblical. The whole concept would never have arisen except that the Reformers pointed out how certain practices of the Church (beginning with the sale of indulgences) contradicted scripture. They wanted scripture to be a touchstone for all church doctrines and practices to prevent this from happening.

Of course, it continued to evolve beyond that. Perhaps too far. But it didn't spring directly from the Bible itself. It was first proposed as a method of correcting errors.

This too is interesting, Liz. How did the Reformers justify sola scriptura? Was it simply a reaction against the Church? - you noted the controversy over indulgences. Do you think that it was a kind of pendalum swing, an attempt to be as seemingly far away from the Church as one could?

Also, is sola scriptura used to justify the development of your (Baptist) theology? Do Baptists use other methods, sources, etc. other than Scripture to better understand God and His Revelation? I suppose this is getting a bit off topic, but it does seem (at least in my own mind) to be a natural extention. It seems to be the practical application of the sola scriptura doctrine. Your thoughts?

 

[Crazy Liz]

This too is interesting, Liz. How did the Reformers justify sola scriptura? Was it simply a reaction against the Church? - you noted the controversy over indulgences. Do you think that it was a kind of pendalum swing, an attempt to be as seemingly far away from the Church as one could?

The idea definitely got started as a reaction first against indulgences, and then against the heavy-handed way the pope justified them. I submit that if the pope had listened to Luther about indulgences, there would be no concept of sola scriptura today. I would not say the idea sprung fully-formed from the reaction against indulgences. Does that make sense?

Also, is sola scriptura used to justify the development of your (Baptist) theology? Do Baptists use other methods, sources, etc. other than Scripture to better understand God and His Revelation? I suppose this is getting a bit off topic, but it does seem (at least in my own mind) to be a natural extention. It seems to be the practical application of the sola scriptura doctrine. Your thoughts?

I'm not Baptist; I'm Anabaptist, so I'll leave that to someone more qualified to answer. While Anabaptists also have been heard to say "no creed but the Bible," Anabaptist theology significantly differs from Baptist theology in several respects, this being one of them, I think. Anabaptists interpret scripture together, not individually, and believe the Holy Spirit works through our brothers and sisters to correct our interpretations. Basically, I look at it as horizontal tradition. Anabaptists tend to give deference to their living brothers and sisters almost the same way Catholics and Orthodox Christians give deference to their dead brothers and sisters.

 

[Carrye]

The idea definitely got started as a reaction first against indulgences, and then against the heavy-handed way the pope justified them. I submit that if the pope had listened to Luther about indulgences, there would be no concept of sola scriptura today. I would not say the idea sprung fully-formed from the reaction against indulgences. Does that make sense?

So basically you're saying that the idea originated because of the controversy over indulgences, but didn't emerge fully-formed. Sola scriptura was a development, correct? Sola scriptura was basically an attempt to refute one particular issue?

I'm not Baptist; I'm Anabaptist, so I'll leave that to someone more qualified to answer. While Anabaptists also have been heard to say "no creed but the Bible,"

Referring to sola scriptura, and not failing to hold the Nicene Creed, for example?

Anabaptists interpret scripture together, not individually, and believe the Holy Spirit works through our brothers and sisters to correct our interpretations. Basically, I look at it as horizontal tradition. Anabaptists tend to give deference to their living brothers and sisters almost the same way Catholics and Orthodox Christians give deference to their dead brothers and sisters.

What do you mean by interpreting Scripture together? - as a community? or as an entire corpus - ie, not taking one verse and using it to proof-text?

 

[Crazy Liz]

So basically you're saying that the idea originated because of the controversy over indulgences, but didn't emerge fully-formed. Sola scriptura was a development, correct? Sola scriptura was basically an attempt to refute one particular issue?

Indirectly. It developed as a result of the controversy that began with indulgences. It was not created to refute indulgences only, but the arguments the Vatican put forward to justify indulgences.

Basically, since the Church was corrupt and claiming Tradition as authorization or justification for its corrupt practices, the protestants developed a standard more objective than Tradition.

After that, various protestant groups accepted Tradition, so long as it was subordinate to scripture, or rejected Tradition entirely, to varying degrees.

Referring to sola scriptura, and not failing to hold the Nicene Creed, for example?

Not failing to hold?

I actually think various types of protestants (sorry, BT ) mean slightly different things by the phrase sola scriptura.

What do you mean by interpreting Scripture together? - as a community? or as an entire corpus - ie, not taking one verse and using it to proof-text?

As a community.

 

[ZiSunka]

So basically you're saying that the idea originated because of the controversy over indulgences, but didn't emerge fully-formed. Sola scriptura was a development, correct? Sola scriptura was basically an attempt to refute one particular issue?

No, sola scriptura was not just about one issue, but about settling all issues. The catalyst was two things, the issue of how one could be certain of salvation and the issue of how far the catholic church had gotten from the basic teachings in the Bible. Once the indulgences started to be sold, people in central Europe became concerned that the Christian faith was being mocked by the church that had been charged with its preservation and care. Since no one knew at the time how far back the "corpution of the gospel" had started, all texts were rejected except the Bible, which was accepted among the "protestant heretics" as the basis of the faith. From that they could decide which aspects of catholicism were revisions or additions and which parts were valid. Sola Scriptura became a battle cry among the clergy trying to ferret out the grain from the chaff, so to speak.

Referring to sola scriptura, and not failing to hold the Nicene Creed, for example?

Many baptist and anabaptist groups do not have any relationship with the Nicene Creed, not because it is wrong, but because it is a repetitious prayer, which especially in anabaptist circles, is considered improper. That doesn't mean they don't hold to its doctrines, it merely means that they reject any rote repetition. And most have their own confession of faith or statement of faith that contains all of the doctrines of the Creed, with much more besides. Refer to the Mennonite Confession of Faith here:
http://www.bibleviews.com/BriefSF.html

What do you mean by interpreting Scripture together? - as a community? or as an entire corpus - ie, not taking one verse and using it to proof-text?

Yes, as a community. I have never heard of an anabaptist church that didn't have Bible study as its core form of fellowship and teaching.

 

[Carrye]

Basically, since the Church was corrupt and claiming Tradition as authorization or justification for its corrupt practices, the protestants developed a standard more objective than Tradition.

Ok, so how was it that Scripture was taken as being more objective than Tradition? Why choose one over(/to the exclusion of) the other?

After that, various protestant groups accepted Tradition, so long as it was subordinate to scripture, or rejected Tradition entirely, to varying degrees.

Sure, that makes sense, and can clearly be seen both in the development of Protestantism and within denominations today.

Not failing to hold?

Ah yes, one of my clear as mud statements. You mentioned "no creed but the Bible", and I was wondering whether that was to the exclusion of the Nicene Creed?

I actually think various types of protestants (sorry, BT ) mean slightly different things by the phrase sola scriptura.

That's the way it seems. I guess I'm trying to get a handle on some of those nuiances. Because as you said above, not all Protestants reject Tradition outright, and so really (at least in some denominations - ie Lutheran, Anglican) they're not purely sola scriptura.

Can someone help me out here as to how the Baptists might fit into that? This is touching on my question from before too, about what other forms of knowledge Baptists use to determine their theology.

 

[Carrye]

No, sola scriptura was not just about one issue, but about settling all issues. The catalyst was two things, the issue of how one could be certain of salvation and the issue of how far the catholic church had gotten from the basic teachings in the Bible.

How does sola scriptura assure a person of his salvation?

Since no one knew at the time how far back the "corpution of the gospel" had started, all texts were rejected except the Bible,

How did the Reformers know that the Bible wasn't "corrupted" as well?

From that they could decide which aspects of catholicism were revisions or additions and which parts were valid.

How did they decide which parts were valid?

Many baptist and anabaptist groups do not have any relationship with the Nicene Creed, not because it is wrong, but because it is a repetitious prayer, which especially in anabaptist circles, is considered improper.

A Baptist would say that the Nicene Creed is a prayer?

 

[@@Paul@@]

The Bible is the complete revelation of God

What I'm trying to figure out is where the Scriptures say that. Any ideas?

I always believe that's what this taught...

Col 1:25-29 KJV Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; (26) Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: (27) To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: (28) Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: (29) Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.​

...The Apostle Paul was given the last revelation by God and He had the ministry to "to make replete" or "fulfill" or "complete" the word of God.


As BT (I think pointed out)...

2Pe 1:17-21 KJV For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (18) And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: (20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.​

...There is a more sure word of prophesy than hearing God the Father speaking from heaven.

What could be more sure than hearing God speaking from heaven?

 

[Carrye]

Col 1:25-29 KJV Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God



...The Apostle Paul was given the last revelation by God and He had the ministry to "to make replete" or "fulfill" or "complete" the word of God.

So you're saying that Paul was given the task of, in a way, putting the finishing touches on the Scriptures? But how does this show that the Scriptures are sufficient?

What could be more sure than hearing God speaking from heaven?

What I wonder though is whether God stopped speaking once He had communicated the Scriptures? Does God still speak? And if so, how?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Ok, so how was it that Scripture was taken as being more objective than Tradition? Why choose one over(/to the exclusion of) the other?

Because the pope at that time insisted that certain practices, such as indulgences, were supported by Tradition, when clearly the practice was corrupt. As LL said, the Bible was written in fixed form, dating back to the early church, it was deemed reliable.

Basically, since the pope was claiming certain indefensible things were part of Tradition, this made Tradition itself unreliable, since it was impossible to sort true Tradition from false Tradition.

Actually, though, the Traditions that were firmly embedded in Christian faith and practice from ancient times, such as the Trinity and other matters that can be found in the ancient creeds, continued to be accepted, even by groups that stopped using the formal creeds themselves. But newer developments were called into question because the most recent one, the sale of indulgences, was so far over the top.

Ah yes, one of my clear as mud statements. You mentioned "no creed but the Bible", and I was wondering whether that was to the exclusion of the Nicene Creed?

It's a slogan, but actually, you would find Anabaptists actually do believe what the Nicene Creed says. They just don't use any post-biblical formulations - creeds, written prayers, etc. However, Anabaptists do sing hymns. In fact, they are known for an abundance of excellent singers. There are quite a few churches (like my mom's) where the congregational singing would beat the choirs of most churches.

 

[@@Paul@@]

So you're saying that Paul was given the task of, in a way, putting the finishing touches on the Scriptures? But how does this show that the Scriptures are sufficient?

Yes, that's what I believe it's saying... Now If that is true and Paul completed God's word, to me that shows us that Scripture is sufficient for our walk today...

What I wonder though is whether God stopped speaking once He had communicated the Scriptures? Does God still speak? And if so, how?

I believe He still speaks to people, but i don't believe there's any new revelations (the Mormons for example)... Both through His word and through our (believers) hearts. i.e. I don't believe God is speaking from heaven.

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;​

God has always spoken through man in times past when He filled us with His Spirit; and we are commanded to be "filled with the Spirit" >>

Exo 35:31 And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship;
Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.​

<< I believe this is how God speaks to and through people today, those that are "filled with the Spirit" are usable by God... There are many, many more examples of what people can do when filled with His Spirit.

 

[Carrye]

BT, Lambslove, Liz, and Paul:

Thank you for your answers. I feel like, at least for my part, to go much further with this thread would lead me into debate, and so I think I'll let it be.

 

[BT]

Ok bye Carrie. Hope some light was shed for you.

 

[ZiSunka]

How does sola scriptura assure a person of his salvation?

Sola Scriptura doesn't assure a person of salvation, the Bible does. The Bible says that a person can be absolutely certain of salvation, while the catholic church did, and still does, say that salvation is uncertain and depends on one's adherence to catholicism.

How did the Reformers know that the Bible wasn't "corrupted" as well?

The OT predates Catholicism and 75% of the NT predated the establishment of the canon by the Catholic church. The other 25% preexisted in the form of widely circulated copies of the epistles. The only thing the canon really did was assemble all of them together in one book. There is also a lot of faith that God ordained the Bible and put in it what he wanted it to contain, and therefore it needed no embellishment, commentary or catechesis.

How did they decide which parts were valid?

For most churches, only the parts of the catechism which are in complete agreement with the Bible are considered valid. Furthermore, I don't know of any baptist church that has a catechism. The Bible is the only catechism needed, because it explains itself so well that even a child can understand the gospel.

A Baptist would say that the Nicene Creed is a prayer?

I am an anabaptist not a baptist, but even in the catholic church I grew up in, it was uttered as part of the liturgy, like a prayer. However, I don't know of an anabaptist church where the Nicene Creed is read or recited. We just don't pay any attention to it at all. We use our own confession of faith, not the Nicene Creed.

 

[ps139]

Sola Scriptura doesn't assure a person of salvation, the Bible does. The Bible says that a person can be absolutely certain of salvation, while the catholic church did, and still does, say that salvation is uncertain and depends on one's adherence to catholicism.

This is a misrepresentation of what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[BT]

This is a misrepresentation of what the Catholic Church teaches.

What is the truth?

 

[ps139]

What is the truth?

The truth is that the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is between you and God. By grace we are saved. Grace. The Curch is a divinely instituted vehicle to aid man, but not the savior. And the CC teaches that non-Catholics can be saved, lambslove post implies otherwise. It is not that salvation is about following certain rules, which is what LL wishes to convey. Obedience to Jesus will come naturally to those who have faith in Him. The whole uncertainty thing is that we do not judge ourselves.

 

[Crazy Liz]

 

[ZiSunka]

oops, double post