Sola Scriptura

[Erose]

Those who must ignore some passages of scripture to get their doctrine to work are not really holding to Sola Scriptura.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-covenant.7924984/page-2#post-69512599

.

Would that not be the far majority of denominations out there then, but not YOUR denomination?

What I mean by this is that there aren't many SS churches who believe that THEY are ignoring passages in Scripture, but rather everyone else is who disagrees with their position.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Would that not be the far majority of denominations out there then, but not YOUR denomination?

What I mean by this is that there aren't many SS churches who believe that THEY are ignoring passages in Scripture, but rather everyone else is who disagrees with their position.

That's the problem. Most times when folks make such a charge, they don't think it applies to themselves. The lenses through which people view Scripture are necessarily limiting.

But then again, I don't like to be too hard on folks (and I'm not saying you or anyone else are, Erose). I am just concerned that some folks - if they take off their current lenses and try on lots of different ones in search of TRUTH - well, you never know the makeup of someone's faith. There are some folks who could be damaged by that.

And while I'm not God, and I can't know His judgement, I'm less inclined to think that having ALL the right answers just-so is as important as having a true faith and right heart. What I mean by that is that I'm not sure if a person might not be in danger by having false beliefs. Maybe they are. So if we ever have a chance to help in any way, I think it's our duty to do so. BUT - I am pretty sure it's possible to have every bit of correct knowledge regarding one's theology, and yet have a wrong heart (pride, unforgiveness, what-have-you) and be in serious danger at judgement. This is one reason I put spiritual well-being above argumentativeness.

Some people's faith could be shipwrecked by having their errors proven at a certain point of weakness. I don't want to be responsible before God for that! I think gentleness is less likely to have that effect. God protects and guides us all, if we let Him.

Sorry - I seem to be taking this in a different direction than I'd intended. Combination of recent conversations, recent experiences, and recent reading. I'm still trying to consolidate some things myself. Forgive me please.

 

[BABerean2]

Would that not be the far majority of denominations out there then, but not YOUR denomination?

I do not have a denomination. That is the point.

The name of the local body that my wife and I attend is "Cross Community Church".
Our only source of doctrine is the Bible, instead of manmade confessions.


1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.



1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.


1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?



Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.





.

 

[Korah]

hedrick,

You stated: 'I believe that every Christian tradition considers Scripture authoritative, and that differences are really in how the interpretive tradition works. How willing is the community to change interpretations? How tolerant is it of dissent? How much attention to individual members and teachers actually pay to the current interpretation of the tradition?'

I think you could be pulling my leg when I consider the USA Episcopalian Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), Uniting Church of Australia, much of the Anglican Church in Australia, United Church of Canada, and heterodox Presbyterian promoter such as emeritus NZ Presbyterian professor, Lloyd Geering, now aged 98.

Oz

I see on #157 you accuse someone besides me of a Red Herring. So I'll let pass your similar accusation of me elsewhere as just your standard of discourse.
You might want to add to your list the ELCA: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in which I have been a member since 2004. I would leave it for NALC (North American Lutheran Church) if there were any parish within 75 miles of me in California.
All Lutherans implicitly deny Sola Scriptura because all denominations reverence the Book of Concord, which even the ELCA backs up so far as its universal Lutheran adherence to the Augsburg Confession. It even requires all three creeds, most tellingly including the Athanasian Creed, which not even the Western branch of the Roman Catholic Church (from which it originated) uses any more. Very little of it (and not even all of the Nicene Creed) can be found in the Bible.
You ask for Luther's statement on Sola Scriptura. You don't realize that that is irrelevant. Luther's opinion is just that, it wasn't even observed in naming our denomination (against his stated wishes) as "Lutheran". A Lutheran can be assailed as heretical for endorsing some of Luther's beliefs, such as in Purgatory. That's a good case in point. Though Luther explicitly stated that the doctrine of Purgatory could not be found in the Bible, he nevertheless continued to believe in it personally. So much for any thought that Luther taught or even accepted Sola Scriptura.

 

[Erose]

That's the problem. Most times when folks make such a charge, they don't think it applies to themselves. The lenses through which people view Scripture are necessarily limiting.

But then again, I don't like to be too hard on folks (and I'm not saying you or anyone else are, Erose). I am just concerned that some folks - if they take off their current lenses and try on lots of different ones in search of TRUTH - well, you never know the makeup of someone's faith. There are some folks who could be damaged by that.

And while I'm not God, and I can't know His judgement, I'm less inclined to think that having ALL the right answers just-so is as important as having a true faith and right heart. What I mean by that is that I'm not sure if a person might not be in danger by having false beliefs. Maybe they are. So if we ever have a chance to help in any way, I think it's our duty to do so. BUT - I am pretty sure it's possible to have every bit of correct knowledge regarding one's theology, and yet have a wrong heart (pride, unforgiveness, what-have-you) and be in serious danger at judgement. This is one reason I put spiritual well-being above argumentativeness.

Some people's faith could be shipwrecked by having their errors proven at a certain point of weakness. I don't want to be responsible before God for that! I think gentleness is less likely to have that effect. God protects and guides us all, if we let Him.

Sorry - I seem to be taking this in a different direction than I'd intended. Combination of recent conversations, recent experiences, and recent reading. I'm still trying to consolidate some things myself. Forgive me please.

Well we aren't saved by knowledge are we. That would be a gnostic position I believe. In my opinion is more important for the Church to have the right knowledge than the people to have it. The Church needs to know how to save people, to guide people to God, and to help them grow in sanctity; but the person in the pew? Well I think that is a different matter altogether. I think for the layman it is more important to have faith in the God, that their Church is teaching them, and to be obedient to that Church, than it is for us to know every single thing our Church teaches. For us Catholics obviously that would be impossible to know the full Deposit of Faith wouldn't it? How many lifetimes would that take!?!

 

[~Anastasia~]

I do not have a denomination. That is the point.

The name of the local body that my wife and I attend is "Cross Community Church".
Our only source of doctrine is the Bible, instead of manmade confessions.


1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.



1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.


1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?



Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.





.

With all due respect .... an assembly that is in particular communion with no other is for all intents and purposes still just a denomination of one congregation.

There is still a lens by which they view Scripture.

EVERYone says "we just follow what the Bible says" .... and I don't doubt the sincerity of any of them. Yet they all manage to come up with different interpretations of this matter or that.

There hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians in the world who all have the exact same doctrines, passed down from the Apostles. We find our Church to be something that unifies us all, not something that causes divisions.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well we aren't saved by knowledge are we. That would be a gnostic position I believe. In my opinion is more important for the Church to have the right knowledge than the people to have it. The Church needs to know how to save people, to guide people to God, and to help them grow in sanctity; but the person in the pew? Well I think that is a different matter altogether. I think for the layman it is more important to have faith in the God, that their Church is teaching them, and to be obedient to that Church, than it is for us to know every single thing our Church teaches. For us Catholics obviously that would be impossible to know the full Deposit of Faith wouldn't it? How many lifetimes would that take!?!

LOL true - the same would be true of Orthodox. I will never, ever know ALL that there is to know.

And thankfully, no, this is not what "saves" us - you're right that this would be a gnostic belief. It is this very thing that made me realize just how gnostic much of modern Christianity is. Soooooo many will tell you that knowing and believing exactly as they do is what "saves" you ... no matter what one does, nor what kind of heart one has. Lord have mercy. I don't think they see that themselves ... I know that I never did at the time.

 

[BABerean2]

With all due respect .... an assembly that is in particular communion with no other is for all intents and purposes still just a denomination of one congregation.

There is still a lens by which they view Scripture.

EVERYone says "we just follow what the Bible says" .... and I don't doubt the sincerity of any of them. Yet they all manage to come up with different interpretations of this matter or that.

There hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians in the world who all have the exact same doctrines, passed down from the Apostles. We find our Church to be something that unifies us all, not something that causes divisions.

Based on your first statement, each of the first century church bodies found in the New Testament would be a different denomination.


I have not been able to find infant baptism in the New Testament.
After the day of Pentecost we find water baptism only after a person came to faith in Christ.
We find Jesus referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit in John chapter 3 during His conversation with Nicodemus.



Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?


Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Here Jesus is using the word "water" in reference to the amniotic fluid of the womb, because Nicodemus had just referred to natural child birth. Christ places the emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, instead of the water. This is confirmed by verses 6 and 8.)



Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


We find this interpretation confirmed throughout the New Testament.

Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:



Therefore, the doctrine of infant baptism was not passed down from the Apostles because it is not found in the text.

.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Based on your first statement, each of the first century church bodies found in the New Testament would be a different denomination.

Do you mean, for instance, the Church at Antioch, the Church at Ephesus, and so on? No, they were not, because they were all in communion with one another, all received an Apostle or other emissary sent by their own establishing Apostle, all shared the same structure, belief, and practice. As our Churches still do today.

I have not been able to find infant baptism in the New Testament.
After the day of Pentecost we find water baptism only after a person came to faith in Christ.
We find Jesus referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit in John chapter 3 during His conversation with Nicodemus.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?


Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Here Jesus is using the word "water" in reference to the amniotic fluid of the womb, because Nicodemus had just referred to natural child birth. Christ places the emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, instead of the water. This is confirmed by verses 6 and 8.)



Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


We find this interpretation confirmed throughout the New Testament.

Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:



Therefore, the doctrine of infant baptism was not passed down from the Apostles because it is not found in the text.

.

This has been hashed out repeatedly in GT in just the years since I have been here. If you want to discuss it in TT, then out of respect for the thread and OP it ought to have its own thread.

I of course disagree with you - on Scriptural grounds as well. But this rather proves the point(s) I originally made.

I know of no believer or denomination who sets out to willingly misunderstand or misinterpret Scripture. (Well, ok, I take that back in some limited cases where folks sometimes desire to justify themselves such as divorce on non-scriptural grounds.) But basically all denominations and believers tend to be sincere. Yet with all their sincerity, and in all great care, they come to different conclusions. And most of them aren't sitting in a bubble alone with their Bibles, but at some point in their lives have had someone tell them this passage means this and that passage doesn't mean that.

I don't doubt your sincerity, and the desire you almost certainly have to be faithful to what you believe is laudable.

 

[All4Christ]

Based on your first statement, each of the first century church bodies found in the New Testament would be a different denomination.


I have not been able to find infant baptism in the New Testament.
After the day of Pentecost we find water baptism only after a person came to faith in Christ.
We find Jesus referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit in John chapter 3 during His conversation with Nicodemus.



Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?


Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Here Jesus is using the word "water" in reference to the amniotic fluid of the womb, because Nicodemus had just referred to natural child birth. Christ places the emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, instead of the water. This is confirmed by verses 6 and 8.)



Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


We find this interpretation confirmed throughout the New Testament.

Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:



Therefore, the doctrine of infant baptism was not passed down from the Apostles because it is not found in the text.

.

I am reading the same text as you but do not have the same interpretation by a long shot. Second - there are plenty of places that, while not explicit, give evidence towards the presence of infant baptism in scripture. The passages you posted thus far are not sufficient for a comprehensive examination of baptism in scripture. As Anastasia said, we could discuss this in another thread if you want to pursue it further (since it is a different subject matter than the thread topic).

Also, Anastasia's first statement does not imply that there was a different denomination for each one. In fact, all the churches were bound by the results of a joint council in Acts. They were of one faith, with unified doctrine, and it was not characterized by each church's individual interpretation of scripture.

 

[BABerean2]

I of course disagree with you - on Scriptural grounds as well.

The point I am attempting to make is that all of us should be willing to have our doctrine examined and questioned by other members of the Body of Christ, which is the only Church found in Matthew chapter 16.

If there is no clear text which proves a particular doctrine, then it can not be a focus of Church doctrine.


The only way to get into the Body, based on the clear teaching of the New Testament, is through faith in Christ.



Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.


A ceremony performed by the parents of a child cannot do the same thing.


The parents of Judas had him circumcised on the 8th day.

 

[All4Christ]

The point I am attempting to make is that all of us should be willing to have our doctrine examined and questioned by other members of the Body of Christ, which is the only Church found in Matthew chapter 16.

Matthew chapter 16 does describe a unified Body of Christ. Acts is one of the best places to look in Scripture to see how that Body of Christ interacted.

If there is no clear text which proves a particular doctrine, then it can not be a focus of Church doctrine.


The only way to get into the Body, based on the clear teaching of the New Testament, is through faith in Christ.



John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Would you agree that an individual scripture passage may look simplistic on the surface, but it may have more facets to it based on additional scriptures? I could quote many other scriptures that contribute to a more comprehensive view of salvation - but that is off-topic to this thread.

A ceremony performed by the parents of a child cannot do the same thing.


The parents of Judas had him circumcised on the 8th day.

A clarification - most people who accept infant baptism do not believe that all who are baptized will be saved. We need to choose to follow God and have faith in Him every day.

I'll reiterate this: there are many scriptures to consider, each contributing a bit more to the overall doctrine. Many interpretations are made from the same scriptures. Many believe that scripture clearly describes their particular interpretation. Most believe sincerely that their interpretation is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

That said - there is only one truth, not multiple truths.

 

[prodromos]

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Here Jesus is using the word "water" in reference to the amniotic fluid of the womb, because Nicodemus had just referred to natural child birth. Christ places the emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, instead of the water. This is confirmed by verses 6 and 8.)

It is your interpretation that "water" is a reference to amniotic fluid. I do not share that interpretation. It is complete eisegesis that Jesus is putting emphasis on the Spirit over water. Such emphasis simply does not exist in the text.

 

[Korah]

Traditional theology is certainly that the water is the water of baptism, and each of us here at Traditional Theology should be in agreement with that, but theologically, philosophically speaking I agree with BABerean2. (I just wonder why he's here in Traditional Theology.)

 

[All4Christ]

Traditional theology is certainly that the water is the water of baptism, and each of us here at Traditional Theology should be in agreement with that, but theologically, philosophically speaking I agree with BABerean2. (I just wonder why he's here in Traditional Theology.)

As a Lutheran though - you do believe in infant baptism, correct? I'm assuming you agree with BABerean2's sola scriptura philosophy but not with the baptism theology?

 

[Erose]

The point I am attempting to make is that all of us should be willing to have our doctrine examined and questioned by other members of the Body of Christ, which is the only Church found in Matthew chapter 16.

If there is no clear text which proves a particular doctrine, then it can not be a focus of Church doctrine.


The only way to get into the Body, based on the clear teaching of the New Testament, is through faith in Christ.



Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.


A ceremony performed by the parents of a child cannot do the same thing.


The parents of Judas had him circumcised on the 8th day.

So are you including the doctrinal concept in your assessment? Sola Scriptura is impossible to prove explicitly from Scripture. So why is this teaching given an exception?

 

[Job8]

Scripture alone, Sola Scriptura, goes back long before the time of the Reformation.

Sure it does, but not for Traditionalists. And it actually goes back to Christ Himself.

 

[OzSpen]

Sure it does, but not for Traditionalists. And it actually goes back to Christ Himself.

I've provided evidence from prior to the Reformation. Why don't you provide us with evidence of 'sola scriptura' from Christ himself?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So are you including the doctrinal concept in your assessment? Sola Scriptura is impossible to prove explicitly from Scripture. So why is this teaching given an exception?

Erose,

That is not the view of scholars and researchers, Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie in 'A Defense of Sola Scriptura' (CRI).

I suggest that you investigate the biblical material in support of this doctrine from Scripture itself.

Seems like a little myopia on your part.

Oz

 

[All4Christ]

Erose,

That is not the view of scholars and researchers, Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie in 'A Defense of Sola Scriptura' (CRI).

I suggest that you investigate the biblical material in support of this doctrine from Scripture itself.

Seems like a little myopia on your part.

Oz

Oz, how do you know that Erose hasn't studied the doctrine of sola scriptura from a Biblical perspective? There are plenty of other scholars that disagree with the conclusions of the researchers you posted.

It sounds like you assume people have not studied the Bible in regards to the validity of Sola Scriptura, if they do not agree with Sola Scriptura. I assure you that there are many who are well versed in all of scripture, and have studied it in all areas from various perspectives, who still do not agree with Sola Scriptura. In fact, there are some who started off believing in Sola Scriptura and ended up not believing in it after further study.