Sola Scriptura

[AngCath]

interprates itself and needs no one to interprate it

then why do sola scriptura churches not agree on that interpretation?

 

[Jerrysch]

Where does church tradition make this claim for itself?

Me; Yet it is Scripture alone that is/was given by inspiration of God, no other "media" has that as a characteristic. Sola is a conclusion which is drawn because Scripture is by its very nature the word of God.

Traditions by thier very nature are of man's origins, they are not given by inspiriation of God, the lack of a responce regarding this is proof of that fact. There is no communication which carries higher authority that that which comes directly from God.

 

[Jerrysch]

It funny because they say tradition does not contradict scripture SO if you say you go by scripture ONLY it shouldnt matter because as they say its says the same thing. The fact is it doesnt which is why they have such a problem with people saying sola scripture.

Ths solution to this is to recognize that only Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

 

[Jerrysch]

the problem with the Sola Scriptura argument is not that it disagrees with tradition, but that scripture alone is incomplete and leads to misinterpretations which are not in alignment with tradition.

Scripture is not incomplete, 2Tim3:16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture indicates that by it a person can be thorughly equiped for every good work. God's word doesn't need the additions of men.

 

[Jerrysch]

the problem with the Sola Scriptura argument is not that it disagrees with tradition, but that scripture alone is incomplete and leads to misinterpretations which are not in alignment with tradition.

The tradition of the RC organization does not line up with Scripture, that is when the Scripture and Tradition differ, the RC leadership abandons Scripture in favor of thier tradition.

 

[Jerrysch]

the problem with the Sola Scriptura argument is not that it disagrees with tradition, but that scripture alone is incomplete and leads to misinterpretations which are not in alignment with tradition.

When Scripture and tradition differ it is the word of God (Scripture) which must be followed, in that it has God "standing behind it", while tradition has "men standing behind it". We are accountable to God not to men.

 

[Jerrysch]

then why do sola scriptura churches not agree on that interpretation?

A very good question... I will suggest that the farther they go from a literal hermeneutic the farther they go from discovering the one true interpretation of Scripture. As one looks upon the horizon of biblical interptetation it goes from a purely allegorical method to a purely literal (or plain) method of interpretation. As you move farther towards the literal one gets closer to the true meaning of the text. Upon study of this horizon one could place in a general way the various Christian groups on it. Over at the far extreme of allegorical we would see the RC camp. Not to far downstreem the Luthern camp would be discovered, and it goes on and on, one needs to look and see where s/he fits into this horizon to determine how far they are from a literal hermeneutic. (Please see my blog for what I am referring to as a literal hermeneutic).

 

[AngCath]

Scripture is not incomplete, 2Tim3:16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture indicates that by it a person can be thorughly equiped for every good work. God's word doesn't need the additions of men.

Paul was referring to the Old Testament here.

Also, it makes no sense to say that Scripture is the only thing given inspired by God when Scripture itself makes reference to teachings not explicitly contained within.

 

[Jerrysch]

Paul was referring to the Old Testament here.

Also, it makes no sense to say that Scripture is the only thing given inspired by God when Scripture itself makes reference to teachings not explicitly contained within.

Paul was referring to that which was given by inspiration of God. I don't think it is correct to limit that to the Old(er) Testament alone.

The Scripture makes the witness of itself that it is given by inspiration of God. One needs to not forget that it is the Holy Spirit who is the one who determines what He will inspire and what He will not. Paul surely wrote a number of thisgs which were not inspired by the Holy Spirit, notes to friends who knows what he also wrote,yet these are notall considered Scripture just because Paul wrote them, the greater author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit,did not inspire these writtings, for that reason they are not Scripture.

 

[AngCath]

He was referring to the Old Testament because there was no New yet.

Personal notes of Paul are not Scripture because the Church did not put them into the canon.

 

[sunlover1]

Paul was referring to the Old Testament here.

Also, it makes no sense to say that Scripture is the only thing given inspired by God when Scripture itself makes reference to teachings not explicitly contained within.

The NT is not Scripture?

 

[AngCath]

I did not say that, I merely pointed out that when Paul was writing his letter to timothy he was referring to the Tanakh.
When the Church later put that letter into the canon is when his teaching about Scripture was expanded to include the New Testament.

 

[Jerrysch]

He was referring to the Old Testament because there was no New yet.

Personal notes of Paul are not Scripture because the Church did not put them into the canon.

Not quite, Scripture is determined by God, when The Holy Spirit inspires a text, that text is Scripture. The Holy Spirit determines Scripture by inspiring some writtings and not inspiring others.

 

[AngCath]

if that is so, how do we tell the difference?

 

[Ino]

You shouldn't trust the traditions of men. The only authority you need is Bible. It is God's word. All you need to know is in that book. To follow a church tradition is to follow a man when instead we should all be following Jesus Christ.

 

[plmarquette]

My friend, and brother in Christ. No need to yell.

The word Trinity is nowhere in the Bible.
The word "Bible" is nowhere in the Bible.
More importantly, the idea of following tradition is nowhere in the Bible. Actually, this idea of following tradition is spoken about at length in the Gospels in a highly negative light as the Pharisees attempted to follow tradition rather than Scripture.

As for the idea of Sola Scriptura, it is supported by Scripture when Paul wrote 1 Cor 4:4-6. It is also supported by Jesus when He quoted only Scripture and never supported the traditions of man.

Saying sticking to the Bible is being heretical is a scary idea. That's the heart of Sola Scriptura- sticking to the Bible. It means getting theology from the Bible alone. It hails back to Athenasias at the Council of Nicea, not the 1500's, as he frequently wrote about the Scriptures being sufficient.

In Him,
Dave

The trinity is "implied " ... the lord (Jehova) , your God( elohiem- plural ) is one ; the 3 who bear witness in heaven the water(God) , Spirit ( holy spirit ) and the blood( Jesus) epistle of 3rd John ; the story of the baptism of John ...Jesus in the water , God speaking , Holy Spirit descending ...

Bible ... biblion a "bound work " , rather than a "scroll" which is what bible means ... the bound work of the teachings of God & Jesus ...

paul instructs in the epistles to follow the apostles , as they follow Christ Jesus ...
... the gospel is written for unbelievers (milk of the word) the epistles are written to the church to correct errors - meat of the word )

Faith Plus ... that part is correct ... the book (theory) and the Church ( practice ) of the word of God ...
though some avoid the 9 gifts of the spirit , tongues , laying on of hands or speak of believers authority which is in the book , but not practiced in many parts of the church ( denominations )

this arguement stems from a passage in Leviticus "out of the mouth of 2-3 witnesses " ; which both Jesus and Paul both spoke of .

The application of some doctrine cannot be supported within the text of the bible , though it has been done within the church for centuries .

So one side says if it cannot be sustained in the mouth of 2-3 witnesses , don't do it ...

The other says it is tradition , it is right , go away
ad infinitum ....

... Perhaps Philippians 4.8 is a better yard stick what ever is good , lovely ,holy , pure ....dwell upon these things ( avoid these contentious dialogues that offend , deminish , and devide )...

amen ?

 

[Jerrysch]

if that is so, how do we tell the difference?

That sir, is a long discussion.

 

[Jerrysch]

You shouldn't trust the traditions of men. The only authority you need is Bible. It is God's word. All you need to know is in that book. To follow a church tradition is to follow a man when instead we should all be following Jesus Christ.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Sola Scriptura cannot be what Christ wanted. The Bible was given by the authority of the Catholic Church. We should not follow the bible ALONE but also the teachings of the Church.

1. Then, how do you suggest we hold that "church" (however you define it) accountable for what it teaches and claims? As you well know, anyone can claim anything - only the size of their ego governs that. But is it true? Ah, that's an altogether different question! How do you determine we 2,000,000,000 Christians determine if what the Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist or Mormon church teaches is correct?


2. No, the Catholic denomination did not write a single stroke, a single letter, a single word of Holy Scripture. The NT was all written in the First Century - long before their is any evidence that the Catholic denomination even existed - it clearly had NOTHING to do with it. This is what the CC teaches, "The Bible is the Word of God (not the Catholic denomination) and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible is inspired by God (not the Catholic denomination). What does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible (not the Catholic denomination - GOD!!). God inspired the penmen (not the Catholic denomination) to write (not speak) as He wished, and God (not the Catholic denomination) guided them (the penmen - not the CC) to do so without error (the Bible is without error). Protestants agree.


3. Sola Scriptura is an epistemological approach to norming (norming is the process of evaluating if something is correct). Sola Scriptura says that the Rule (as in ruler) or Canon (the word literally means measuring stick) is God's inerrant holy written Word - with God as the Author, written so that it's knowable by all and alterable by none , and it's embraced by all parties involved. Sola Scriptura says that our words are subject to His Word, not the other way around.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Catholic Church is the only Church that has been around since Christ-all other sects are break-offs.

1. That's a separate issue; we're talking about how to determine correctness of teachings, not what is the nature of the church. I disagree with you, in that I believe that all Christians are people and so I don't agree that the church is instead a singular institution. I also know of no verifiable evidence that the Catholic denomination existed in the First Century - or even the Second. I frankly think the EO probably has the best claim for being the oldest denomination, but all are newer than the New Testiment, and in my humble opinion, none are the same as the one holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the community of faith, the mystical union of all believers. Protestants think Christians are people, not our denomination - or any other. But I'd invite us to stay on the topic of how Christians can best determine if what a denomination teaches is correct or not.

Sola Scriptura is a heretical belief that came up around 1500.

No. It's not a belief or doctrine at all, it's an epistemological approach to norming. It says that the Rule/Canon for this process is God's Holy Word. This is not a view new with the Reformers. We see it all over Scripture. In fact, Jesus refers to God's holy inerrant written Word authoritatively and normatively over 50 times! Peter (!!) Paul, John, James all did the same - referring to God's Scriptures. None of them ever once referred to the Catholic Church or the Infallible Pope or the Bishop of Rome. Not once. What is revealed in the First Century from Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and others - is Scripture as the Rule.

SHOW MW WHERE SOLA SCRIPTURA IS AN THE BIBLE!!!

Open up every verse that says, "God says..." "Scripture says...." and so forth. There are HUNDREDS of such references. Then count how many times we are referred, authoritatively and normatively (or at all) to the Catholic Church, the Bishops of the same, the Bishop of Rome, the Infallible Pope, the Magisterium. Not once. Not even once. I think Sola Scriptura is well demonstrated, but using the Catholic denomination and all those other things - nope, not a single instance. IMHO, this reveals which is biblcial and which is not.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.