Sola Scriptura?

[Albion]

I'm not trying to knock these groups, just pointing out that Protestants and other non-Catholic / non-Orthodox do essentially the same thing that these Churches do, only they describe it differently.

But they do not.

Perhaps if you would give us some concrete, real life, examples. Then we might have something to work with.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

in light of other's writings or their own ideas and interpretations. It's a constantly evolving series of cultures based on interpretation and there's not a whole lot of unity.

only they describe it differently. So it functionally comes down to the same thing. And it's not *technically* Sola Scriptura. Because everyone interprets through some lens. Even their own.

Yes, you have observed that happening.
Yet, is is written, and never, never, ever changed,
that's not right nor good for them to do that, in any century.
You have seen what happens when that is done.

Keep seeking, and YHWH says (HIS WORD) you will find (the TRUTH) (not tradition).

Otherwise, stop seeking, accept what men say, and lose the opportunity for TRUTH.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Yes, you have observed that happening.
Yet, is is written, and never, never, ever changed,
that's not right nor good for them to do that, in any century.
You have seen what happens when that is done.

Keep seeking, and YHWH says (HIS WORD) you will find (the TRUTH) (not tradition).

Otherwise, stop seeking, accept what men say, and lose the opportunity for TRUTH.

I hear you. But at the same time, everyone reads and applies Scripture through a lens, whether it be the theology of their favorite author, the standards of their denomination, what a certain televangelist tells them the Bible means, or their own hopes and desires.

Let's say I lean towards Universal Reconciliation. I'm more likely to apply this meaning to Scripture which may or may not actually point to everyone being saved in the end.

Everyone does this. Many Protestants seem more likely to let the man on TV tell them the Bible means than actually pick up the book and read it for themselves. In light of this it comes across as odd and misguided for Protestants to criticize Catholics and Orthodox for using Tradition to interpret Scripture when in their own way, they do the same thing.

 

[Soyeong]

So as of right now, I'm coming to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is basically impossible. Protestants, while claiming Scripture Alone, are informed theologically by a massive library of very diverse theologians, authors, TV personalities, radio personalities, and pastors as diverse as John Calvin and Joyce Meyer who basically tell their audience what the Bible says, what it means, and how to live it out.

What's the difference between this and Tradition interpreting Scripture? Because the points of Calvinism are no where spelled out point by point in Scripture, line by line, yet Christians adhering to Reformed Soteriology interpret the Bible through the thoughts and writings of Calvin and others. Likewise Protestants generally interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Sola Fide, in spite of numerous verses that seem to indicate that our works in Christ *do* determine where we go when we die.

So in light of all this, why get upset by Catholics and Orthodox who interpret Scripture through their Tradition, when Protestants do the exact same thing, essentially? Thoughts?

There is no escaping tradition. Even the idea that we are just going to follow what the Bible says is itself a tradition. Sola Scriptura does not prohibit us from following traditions or man's teachings about the Bible, but rather it takes the stance that where tradition and Scripture conflict, Scripture has the priority. Naturally, people are going to have different opinions about whether a particular tradition or teaching is according to Scripture, and people are going to disagree about whether Sola Fide is in accordance with Scripture, but if someone does see that there is a conflict, then they should consider Scripture to have the priority. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans checked everything Paul said against Scripture to see if it was true, and Sola Scriptura is basically saying that we should follow this same practice whenever we are taught anything. It says that many of the Bereans believed Paul's message, which implies that there were at least some who do not, but regardless of whether or not they agreed with Paul, they were all in agreement that Scripture is what should be used to determine whether what he said was true.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I hear you. But at the same time, everyone reads and applies Scripture through a lens

Then, you admit you don't hear me.
Y'SHUA did not say to read, [nor see], nor to apply YHWH'S WORD through any lens.

HE told Simon barjona HOW he learned Y'SHUA is MESSIAH.

NOT through any lens.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Bereans checked everything Paul said against Scripture to see if it was true, and Sola Scriptura is basically saying that we should follow this same practice whenever we are taught anything. It says that many of the Bereans believed Paul's message, which implies that there were at least some who do not, but regardless of whether or not they agreed with Paul, they were all in agreement that Scripture is what should be used to determine whether what he said was true.

I don't know if that implication is there - that some of the Bereans did not believe Paul's message.
If they all used SCRIPTURE as YHWH'S WORD SAYS,
then they all accepted Paul's message, as Y'SHUA taught Paul.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="Soyeong, post: 70255075, member: 375022"]Bereans checked everything Paul said against Scripture to see if it was true, and Sola Scriptura is basically saying that we should follow this same practice whenever we are taught anything. It says that many of the Bereans believed Paul's message, which implies that there were at least some who do not, but regardless of whether or not they agreed with Paul, they were all in agreement that Scripture is what should be used to determine whether what he said was true.QUOTE

Yes, went and double-checked, LIKE the Bereans!

Here it is:
Acts 17:11-14 [Full Chapter]
[ —followed by encouragement at Beroea ] Without delay the brothers despatched Paul and Silas off to Beroea that night. On their arrival there they went to the Jewish synagogue. The Jews proved more generous-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they accepted the message most eagerly and studied the scriptures every day to see if what they were now being told were true. Many of them became believers, as did a number of Greek women of social standing and quite a number of men. But when the Jews at Thessalonica found out that God’s message had been proclaimed by Paul at Beroea as well, they came there too to cause trouble and spread alarm among the people. The brothers at Beroea then sent Paul off at once to make his way to the sea-coast, but Silas and Timothy remained there.

 

[Soyeong]

I don't know if that implication is there - that some of the Bereans did not believe Paul's message.
If they all used SCRIPTURE as YHWH'S WORD SAYS,
then they all accepted Paul's message, as Y'SHUA taught Paul.

Acts 17:11-12 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

It seems clear to me that it is saying many of those who examined the Scriptures every day believed what Paul said was true, but it does not say that all of them accepted that. I think people can genuinely examine Scripture to see what the truth of the matter is and be sincerely wrong.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It seems clear to me that it is saying many of those who examined the Scriptures every day believed what Paul said was true, but it does not say that all of them accepted that. I think people can genuinely examine Scripture to see what the truth of the matter is and honestly come to different opinions.

It is written that all those who accepted/ believed Paul's message (sent by YHWH)
became believers.

Those who rejected Paul's message (sent by YHWH)
remained UNbelievers.

 

[Soyeong]

It is written that all those who accepted/ believed Paul's message (sent by YHWH)
became believers.

Those who rejected Paul's message (sent by YHWH)
remained UNbelievers.

Naturally those who believed became believers and not who didn't believe remained unbelievers, that tuatolocial. My point was that people are disagree about what Scripture says, but still be in agreement that we should believe whatever it is that Scripture says where there is a conflict between it and man's opinion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

My point was that people are disagree about what Scripture says, but still be in agreement that we should believe whatever it is that Scripture says where there is a conflict between Scripture and man's opinion.

That did not seem to be your point earlier, sorry if I missed that.
Yes, YHWH, YHWH'S WORD Y'SHUA , and the Apostles all were in agreement - no opinion - believe SCRIPTURE.
Since YHWH doesn't change HIS WORD to anyone,
no other opinion is expected to be accepted - hence the Bereans were used as the good examples, in agreement with all of YHWH'S WORD.

 

[Albion]

There is no escaping tradition. Even the idea that we are just going to follow what the Bible says is itself a tradition.

But it is not "Tradition" AKA Holy Tradition or Sacred Tradition, which some Christians think is a separate divine revelation in addition to the Bible.

What's more, not "escaping (a) tradition" that leads to the Bible doesn't define any doctrines. That's what Tradition does. Once again, we see two similar (but not identical) words used interchangeably but incorrectly so

 

[thecolorsblend]

So as of right now, I'm coming to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is basically impossible. Protestants, while claiming Scripture Alone, are informed theologically by a massive library of very diverse theologians, authors, TV personalities, radio personalities, and pastors as diverse as John Calvin and Joyce Meyer who basically tell their audience what the Bible says, what it means, and how to live it out.

What's the difference between this and Tradition interpreting Scripture? Because the points of Calvinism are no where spelled out point by point in Scripture, line by line, yet Christians adhering to Reformed Soteriology interpret the Bible through the thoughts and writings of Calvin and others. Likewise Protestants generally interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Sola Fide, in spite of numerous verses that seem to indicate that our works in Christ *do* determine where we go when we die.

So in light of all this, why get upset by Catholics and Orthodox who interpret Scripture through their Tradition, when Protestants do the exact same thing, essentially? Thoughts?

That's a question I keep asking myself, actually. And btw, the "answer" is usually a variation of I "don't understand what Sola Scriptura is!!"

Your shoutout to Calvin, Meyer and the rest is also a good point. Apparently my Church's high view of the Early Church is bad and I should trust nothing but Sacred Scripture. And yet, these same Protestants living their little purpose-driven lives will read every single hackjob, borderline heretical devotional book that comes out if there are enough flowers on the book cover. It's a bit confusing, I must say.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Acts 17:11-12 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

It seems clear to me that it is saying many of those who examined the Scriptures every day believed what Paul said was true, but it does not say that all of them accepted that. I think people can genuinely examine Scripture to see what the truth of the matter is and be sincerely wrong.

That same passage also argues against Sola Scriptura. The jews in Thessalonica abided by Sola Scriptura so they chased St. Paul out of town. The Berean jews were of more noble character as they compared Paul's teachings to the scriptures and found they agreed with one another so they believed in Our Lord.

 

[Albion]

[Staff edit]

Apparently my Church's high view of the Early Church is bad and I should trust nothing but Sacred Scripture.

Well, let's come right to the point. What do you consider to be more reliable than the word of God? It's really that simple.

[Staff edit].

 

[anna ~ grace]

That same passage also argues against Sola Scriptura. The jews in Thessalonica abided by Sola Scriptura so they chased St. Paul out of town. The Berean jews were of more noble character as they compared Paul's teachings to the scriptures and found they agreed with one another so they believed in Our Lord.

Thanks for this post. I agree. Whether the books through which you understand, interpret, and apply Scripture are homilies by Origen, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Calvin, A.W. Tower, or Joel Osteen you're still using the thoughts and theologies and a heritage of others' theologies to understand what is written.

It's still relying on others' notions and theological traditions to apply the text.

 

[Albion]

Thanks for this post. I agree. Whether the books through which you understand, interpret, and apply Scripture are homilies by Origen, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Calvin, A.W. Tower, or Joel Osteen you're still using the thoughts and theologies and a heritage of others' theologies to understand what is written. .

True or not, it still has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura... and Sola Scriptura is supposed to be our discussion topic on this thread.

[Staff edit].

 

[anna ~ grace]

Is it also entirely possible to describe Protestants, theologically, as rebellious Catholics? Because many Protestants feel completely comfortable and justified quoting theologians who are basically pillars of Catholic thought (like Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Aquinas) and even saints. So the foundation of thought is very similar, minus faith plus works and minus other doctrines viewed as excessive or incorrect, and minus submission to the Pontiff. But plenty of other stuff is arguably quite similar.

 

[Albion]

Is it also entirely possible to describe Protestants, theologically, as rebellious Catholics? Because many Protestants feel completely comfortable and justified quoting theologians who are basically pillars of Catholic thought (like Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Aquinas) and even saints. So the foundation of thought is very similar, minus faith plus works and minus other doctrines viewed as excessive or incorrect, and minus submission to the Pontiff. But plenty of other stuff is arguably quite similar.

It's reasonable to think of Protestants as Reformed Catholics, sure.

 

[anna ~ grace]

It's reasonable to think of Protestants as Reformed Catholics, sure.

Which is interesting, because the Library of Latin Christian thought often drawn on by Protestant scholars and theologians also includes works containing ideas rejected by most Protestants.