Sola Scriptura?

[Albion]

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.

OK. The Catholic Encyclopedia includes ideas rejected by the RCC. That's more or less the nature of such comprehensive reference works.

 

[anna ~ grace]

For example if I belong to one church and write twenty five books outlining theology that pertains to my church in various nuanced aspects, and then 500 years later a guy comes along who breaks ties with my beloved church on the grounds that it is corrupt or teaching lies, and he uses my theological writings to elaborate upon and back up his ideas, wouldn't that be kind of weird?

 

[Albion]

For example if I belong to one church and write twenty five books outlining theology that pertains to my church in various nuanced aspects, and then 500 years later a guy comes along who breaks ties with my beloved church on the grounds that it is corrupt or teaching lies, and he uses my theological writings to elaborate upon and back up his ideas, wouldn't that be kind of weird?

Not in the least. It happens all the time. Keep in mind that a 'Reformed (whatever)' is, by definition, retaining what's correct about the entity in question while correcting the parts which went wrong. And if we are speaking of church history in particular, the church of the first millennium is the common ancestor of almost every one of today's denominations.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Not in the least.

Like, if my church taught a, b, c, d, e, and f, and a huge bulk of my theological works were dedicated to defending and explaining these ideas, and a later theologian rejecting my church for teaching a, b, c, d, and e uses my books or ideas to elaborate on his personal beliefs regarding f, that doesn't strike you as bizarre or hypocritical?

 

[Albion]

Like, if my church taught a, b, c, d, e, and f, and a huge bulk of my theological works were dedicated to defending and explaining these ideas, and a later theologian rejecting my church for teaching a, b, c, d, and e uses my books or ideas to elaborate on his personal beliefs regarding f, that doesn't strike you as bizarre or hypocritical?

It's commonplace. Why should everyone necessarily agree with 100% of someone else's thinking in order to agree with some of it? St. Augustine and Origen are cited by many churchmen, Catholic and otherwise, and yet they are both admired and rejected, depending on which writings of those men are in question.

 

[anna ~ grace]

It's commonplace. Why should everyone necessarily agree with 100% of someone else's thinking in order to agree with some of it? St. Augustine and Origen are cited by many churchmen, Catholic and otherwise, and yet they are both admired and rejected, depending on which writings of those men are in question.

But I'm talking about a situation in which a-f are taught by a church as essential doctrines and in which one thinker condemning said church for teaching a bulk of these doctrines feels free to quote selectively from thinkers fully in line with a-f to back his own novel ideas or beliefs on the one point he personally considers valid.

 

[Albion]

But I'm talking about a situation in which a-f are taught by a church as essential doctrines and in which one thinker condemning said church for teaching a bulk of these doctrines feels free to quote selectively from thinkers fully in line with a-f to back his own novel ideas or beliefs on the one point he personally considers valid.

I know. There's nothing unusual about it. Not unless, hypothetically speaking, he were to misrepresent what that earlier person believed.

 

[hedrick]

Please remember what sola scriptura meant. Luther and Calvin were not like American restoration theology. Restoration basically claimed to recreate Christianity from the Bible alone. That’s not what the original Reformers meant.

For them Scripture was a standard for checking belief and practice. They thought that the Church had gone astray. Scripture, as the embodiment of the original faith of the Apostles, was the obvious standard to check it against. But for them Scripture spoke to the Church, not individuals. So an individual could (and did) say that based on Scripture there were things that needed to be corrected. But in the end the Church evaluated this.

Because Scripture was used primarily as a way to check belief and practice, it didn’t do away with tradition. And in fact the Reformers kept most theology. They thought their objection was primarily to changes in the late medieval period, and that with the aid of Scripture they were restoring the original Apostolic faith. It’s not clear that they were always right about the lateness of the things they objected to, but still, they did normally have not just Scriptural but early Christian support for their ideas.

As far as I can see, the only real alternative to the authority of Scripture is the conviction that the Church never makes serious errors. Because the moment you concede that errors are possible, it’s hard to see any real alternative to using Scripture to check.

In practice, magisterial Protestantism used both tradition and Scripture. They did in fact use tradition as a guide to understanding Scripture. But if you don't put Scripture on top in principle, you won't be able to use it to correct tradition. History shows pretty clearly that the Church wili always find a way to interpret Scripture to support their current position.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but in actual practice, it is rarely completely accurate or even fair to describe "Protestants" as a group in regard to very many questions. We all do it (myself included) so I'm not criticizing, just trying to give a partial answer.

But generally speaking, you could find major disagreements from members of various denominations if you tried to link them together - say Lutherans and Full Gospel, Presbyterians and charismatics, or Baptists and Pentecostals.

I kind of wish we had better language to discuss this. I've tried, but I find people disagree with my designations or divisions, even when I think I'm using well-established ones.

Albion's statement seems accurate to the degree that all Protestants appear to have Catholicism within their pedigree, and have disagreements with the Catholics (and in many cases with intervening "generations" of "parent denominations" as well (leading to their own creation - whoever they are).

 

[anna ~ grace]

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but in actual practice, it is rarely completely accurate or even fair to describe "Protestants" as a group in regard to very many questions. We all do it (myself included) so I'm not criticizing, just trying to give a partial answer.

But generally speaking, you could find major disagreements from members of various denominations if you tried to link them together - say Lutherans and Full Gospel, Presbyterians and charismatics, or Baptists and Pentecostals.

I kind of wish we had better language to discuss this. I've tried, but I find people disagree with my designations or divisions, even when I think I'm using well-established ones.

Albion's statement seems accurate to the degree that all Protestants appear to have Catholicism within their pedigree, and have disagreements with the Catholics (and in many cases with intervening "generations" of "parent denominations" as well (leading to their own creation - whoever they are).

Thank you, Ma'am it's good to be disagreed with, too! You are right about the vastness of Protestantism, and the differences. Some Pentecostals are non-Trinitarians, and some Anabaptists historically rejected Original Sin.

But if most of those who describe themselves as Protestants also accept a number of theologies and ideas that are not necessarily immediately obvious based on Scripture (E.g. God existing as One Godhead in Three Persons), and feel comfortable quoting Catholic theologians, to some extent, wouldn't that kind of make Protestantism close to Catholicism than anything else?

 

[anna ~ grace]

I know. There's nothing unusual about it. Not unless, hypothetically speaking, he were to misrepresent what that earlier person believed.

Which is possible, if not likely, considering that he (thinker b) is divorcing selected aspects of parts of the original thinker (a)'s ideas from the fact that a 's writings were penned within the context of faithful adherence to a tradition of history and belief which is being critiqued in and of itself by the later thinker b. In light of that it seems possible that thinker b, while he could have some valid points, is also taking a 's writings grossly out of context and is quite possibly misunderstanding and appropriating at the same time.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

From the nature of mankind disclosed in SCRIPTURE,
I'd think that happens all the time, (through most history thru today)
even since shortly after legible writing began.... no big surprise there.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you, Ma'am it's good to be disagreed with, too! You are right about the vastness of Protestantism, and the differences. Some Pentecostals are non-Trinitarians, and some Anabaptists historically rejected Original Sin.

But if most of those who describe themselves as Protestants also accept a number of theologies and ideas that are not necessarily immediately obvious based on Scripture (E.g. God existing as One Godhead in Three Persons), and feel comfortable quoting Catholic theologians, to some extent, wouldn't that kind of make Protestantism close to Catholicism than anything else?

Thank you for your graciousness.

Perhaps various Protestants may agree with Catholics on more things than they realize, as well as the fact that they misunderstand various doctrines.

Depending on which Church Fathers they are quoting, you could also say that makes them closer to Orthodox.

The evolution and comparison of theology is a fascinating and also vast volume of information. I've been working on assimilating and understanding it for a few years. I've added to my own knowledge, but I doubt my lifetime will be sufficient to fully understand.

Btw, if you are interested in such (not quite sure if you are?), Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick's Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy is a good overview. He basically compares and contrasts everything else with the Orthodox Church, but because of the order, a lot of the process of theological development can be seen. He's not always gentle, though - very straightforward, but not terribly diplomatic. He does at times praise the truth found in various denominations, and pretty much lays it all out, from an Orthodox point of view.



Personally, I tend to view Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants rather like a Venn diagram of three circles arranged like the points of a triangle. There are overlaps between all three - much of the core of Christianity. And because the Catholics shared 1000 years of history with the Orthodox, we have much in common. But we also have 1000 years of separation, resulting in teaching within Catholicism that Orthodox do not share. Then we have the Reformation, when the new Protestants rejected what they saw as Catholic errors, but obviously kept much of the faith as well, resulting in an overlap between Catholic and Protestant, but also uniquely Protestant doctrines. From the Orthodox point of view, they correctly identified some things as error, which gave them overlap and moved them closer to Orthodoxy on some doctrines. But some things they rejected but should not have, and other things they created wrongly (from our point of view), creating uniquely Protestant doctrines that overlap neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

What happened in the following centuries, though, is tremendously complex and varied. So my characterization of "Protestantism" here is not exactly accurate, because it has and continues to change.

That's my little theory and way of understanding it anyway.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Thank you for your graciousness.

Perhaps various Protestants may agree with Catholics on more things than they realize, as well as the fact that they misunderstand various doctrines.

Depending on which Church Fathers they are quoting, you could also say that makes them closer to Orthodox.

The evolution and comparison of theology is a fascinating and also vast volume of information. I've been working on assimilating and understanding it for a few years. I've added to my own knowledge, but I doubt my lifetime will be sufficient to fully understand.

Btw, if you are interested in such (not quite sure if you are?), Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick's Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy is a good overview. He basically compares and contrasts everything else with the Orthodox Church, but because of the order, a lot of the process of theological development can be seen. He's not always gentle, though - very straightforward, but not terribly diplomatic. He does at times praise the truth found in various denominations, and pretty much lays it all out, from an Orthodox point of view.



Personally, I tend to view Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants rather like a Venn diagram of three circles arranged like the points of a triangle. There are overlaps between all three - much of the core of Christianity. And because the Catholics shared 1000 years of history with the Orthodox, we have much in common. But we also have 1000 years of separation, resulting in teaching within Catholicism that Orthodox do not share. Then we have the Reformation, when the new Protestants rejected what they saw as Catholic errors, but obviously kept much of the faith as well, resulting in an overlap between Catholic and Protestant, but also uniquely Protestant doctrines. From the Orthodox point of view, they correctly identified some things as error, which gave them overlap and moved them closer to Orthodoxy on some doctrines. But some things they rejected but should not have, and other things they created wrongly (from our point of view), creating uniquely Protestant doctrines that overlap neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

What happened in the following centuries, though, is tremendously complex and varied. So my characterization of "Protestantism" here is not exactly accurate, because it has and continues to change.

That's my little theory and way of understanding it anyway.

aps various Protestants may agree with Catholics on more things than they realize, as well as the fact that they misunderstand various doctrines.

Depending on which Church Fathers they are quoting, you could also say that makes them closer to Orthodox.

The evolution and comparison of theology is a fascinating and also vast volume of information. I've been working on assimilating and understanding it for a few years. I've added to my own knowledge, but I doubt my lifetime will be sufficient to fully understand.

Btw, if you are interested in such (not quite sure if you are?), Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick's Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy is a good overview. He basically compares and contrasts everything else with the Orthodox Church, but because of the order, a lot of the process of theological development can be seen. He's not always gentle, though - very straightforward, but not terribly diplomatic. He does at times praise the truth found in various denominations, and pretty much lays it all out, from an Orthodox point of view.



Personally, I tend to view Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants rather like a Venn diagram of three circles arranged like the points of a triangle. There are overlaps between all three - much of the core of Christianity. And because the Catholics shared 1000 years of history with the Orthodox, we have much in common. But we also have 1000 years of separation, resulting in teaching within Catholicism that Orthodox do not share. Then we have the Reformation, when the new Protestants rejected what they saw as Catholic errors, but obviously kept much of the faith as well, resulting in an overlap between Catholic and Protestant, but also uniquely Protestant doctrines. From the Orthodox point of view, they correctly identified some things as error, which gave them overlap and moved them closer to Orthodoxy on some doctrines. But some things they rejected but should not have, and other things they created wrongly (from our point of view), creating uniquely Protestant doctrines that overlap neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

What happened in the following centuries, though, is tremendously complex and varied. So my characterization of "Protestantism" here is not exactly accurate, because it has and conti

That's my little theory and way of understanding it anyway. [/QUOTE]

That's a pretty fascinating, charitable, and scholarly understanding. Please forgive me if my overview of Protestant thought can be a bit uncharitable or abrupt. I know it can be. Or general.

Your venn diagram idea is neat. Sounds about right, too. I would love to read that book some day. But my life is kind of in transition right now. We recently broke ties with a very dear group of Plain Anabaptists, and part of me feels a bit lost and saddened to have not been able to join them. They were amazing folks and *so* close to my husband's and mine convictions on holiness, obedience, and marriage standards, save for things like clothing rules and music (homemade dresses and white bonnets only and only Acapella singing in church, which felt odd to my raised-Anglican husband.)

Perhaps in time. Thank you for your answers, responses, and kindness. You rock.

 

[~Anastasia~]

aps various Protestants may agree with Catholics on more things than they realize, as well as the fact that they misunderstand various doctrines.

Depending on which Church Fathers they are quoting, you could also say that makes them closer to Orthodox.

The evolution and comparison of theology is a fascinating and also vast volume of information. I've been working on assimilating and understanding it for a few years. I've added to my own knowledge, but I doubt my lifetime will be sufficient to fully understand.

Btw, if you are interested in such (not quite sure if you are?), Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick's Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy is a good overview. He basically compares and contrasts everything else with the Orthodox Church, but because of the order, a lot of the process of theological development can be seen. He's not always gentle, though - very straightforward, but not terribly diplomatic. He does at times praise the truth found in various denominations, and pretty much lays it all out, from an Orthodox point of view.



Personally, I tend to view Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants rather like a Venn diagram of three circles arranged like the points of a triangle. There are overlaps between all three - much of the core of Christianity. And because the Catholics shared 1000 years of history with the Orthodox, we have much in common. But we also have 1000 years of separation, resulting in teaching within Catholicism that Orthodox do not share. Then we have the Reformation, when the new Protestants rejected what they saw as Catholic errors, but obviously kept much of the faith as well, resulting in an overlap between Catholic and Protestant, but also uniquely Protestant doctrines. From the Orthodox point of view, they correctly identified some things as error, which gave them overlap and moved them closer to Orthodoxy on some doctrines. But some things they rejected but should not have, and other things they created wrongly (from our point of view), creating uniquely Protestant doctrines that overlap neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

What happened in the following centuries, though, is tremendously complex and varied. So my characterization of "Protestantism" here is not exactly accurate, because it has and conti

That's my little theory and way of understanding it anyway.

That's a pretty fascinating, charitable, and scholarly understanding. Please forgive me if my overview of Protestant thought can be a bit uncharitable or abrupt. I know it can be. Or general.

Your venn diagram idea is neat. Sounds about right, too. I would love to read that book some day. But my life is kind of in transition right now. We recently broke ties with a very dear group of Plain Anabaptists, and part of me feels a bit lost and saddened to have not been able to join them. They were amazing folks and *so* close to my husband's and mine convictions on holiness, obedience, and marriage standards, save for things like clothing rules and music (homemade dresses and white bonnets only and only Acapella singing in church, which felt odd to my raised-Anglican husband.)

Perhaps in time. Thank you for your answers, responses, and kindness. You rock.[/QUOTE]

Thank you and you're welcome.

And I'm sorry for the disappointment in having to separate yourself from a community. That is always traumatic, I think. May God guide you to a new community.

It's actually a podcast, btw, on Ancient Faith Radio. (In many parts though, it's altogether quite a few hours' worth - I listened three times through over the past few years on long drives and commutes).

I was very interested in an Anabaptist community several years ago. They most especially impressed me with their real convictions to actually LIVE their faith, and I found them delightful folks. There were many in our area, and a certain dairy farmer gave me lots of helpful advice for my own farm, and a certain grocer was very helpful too. One of my best friends and neighbors was part of the community. There were a few doctrines at the time that bothered me. The thing I find quite ironic is that they are close to the Orthodox on many points, and it was an Orthodox doctrine that kept me from the Anabaptist community. Ah well. I am very blessed in how things eventually worked out.

Overall it's a very fascinating thing to look into though (the way theology develops and is shared between groups).

God be with you.

 

[anna ~ grace]

That's a pretty fascinating, charitable, and scholarly understanding. Please forgive me if my overview of Protestant thought can be a bit uncharitable or abrupt. I know it can be. Or general.

Your venn diagram idea is neat. Sounds about right, too. I would love to read that book some day. But my life is kind of in transition right now. We recently broke ties with a very dear group of Plain Anabaptists, and part of me feels a bit lost and saddened to have not been able to join them. They were amazing folks and *so* close to my husband's and mine convictions on holiness, obedience, and marriage standards, save for things like clothing rules and music (homemade dresses and white bonnets only and only Acapella singing in church, which felt odd to my raised-Anglican husband.)

Perhaps in time. Thank you for your answers, responses, and kindness. You rock.

Thankyou and you're welcome.

And I'm sorry for the disappointment in having to separate yourself from a community. That is always traumatic, I think. May God guide you to a new community.

It's actually a podcast, btw, on Ancient Faith Radio. (In many parts though, it's altogether quite a few hours' worth - I listened three times through over the past few years on long drives and commutes).

I was very interested in an Anabaptist community several years ago. They most especially impressed me with their real convictions to actually LIVE their faith, and I found them delightful folks. There were many in our area, and a certain dairy farmer gave me lots of helpful advice for my own farm, and a certain grocer was very helpful too. One of my best friends and neighbors was part of the community. There were a few doctrines at the time that bothered me. The thing I find quite ironic is that they are close to the Orthodox on many points, and it was an Orthodox doctrine that kept me from the Anabaptist community. Ah well. I am very blessed in how things eventually worked out.

Overall it's a very fascinating thing to look into though (the way theology develops and is shared between groups).

God be with you.

Badiya (wonderful), as my husband would say. Thank you, Anastasia. Might I ask, what Orthodox doctrine kept you from joining the Anabaptists?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Badiya (wonderful), as my husband would say. Thank you, Anastasia. Might I ask, what Orthodox doctrine kept you from joining the Anabaptists?

Well ...

I was told that they considered it presumptuous to assume with certainty that one was saved. And that did not fit my theology at the time. I'd had too much personal experience to accept what I felt was a lack of assurance.

The Orthodox teaching is more nuanced, and I doubt I can do it justice. Sometimes Orthodox will say "I have been saved (2000 years ago), I am being saved (by God's grace right now), I will one day be saved (at the judgement - God willing)". All parts focus on God, not ourselves. But another very important feature is that we do not judge anyone's salvation, including our own. Firstly, it usurps Christ's sole right to judge. Secondly, it presumes we will not fall away. It IS important to remember that God keeps us. The important thing here is that we trust in HIM and NOT in ourselves.

A very useful spiritual exercise is to remain aware of our own weakness, and be sure not to trust in ourselves. But really, our only job is if we fall, we repent, we get back up, and we keep trying. Stay in the faith. That is our only real responsibility. At the same time, we trust in God's great help and mercy.

There's a tension, and a balance there. As I said, I'm sure I didn't do it justice. And I don't know the thinking behind the Anabaptist community's belief, so I can't compare the foundations. But the expression of the doctrine is the same.

 

[Ron Gurley]

NOT "Sola Scriptura"...ONLY "Scriptura Suprema"

QI: Does church "tradition" (and / or "magisterium"") trump what is written in Scripture?
A1: No. In the event of unresolvable conflict among the "3 legs of the stool", Scripture must reign SUPREME! "Scriptura Suprema"...NOT "Sola Scriptura".

Q1A: Which is the ultimate authority?
A1A: The "word of God" revealed to Man in the miraculous Bible.

Q2: ...RE: (TRUE BELIEVERS / ) church leaders, "church fathers:
how plausible is it that they are led by the God the Holy Spirit?

A2: VERY!
2 Peter 1: 19-21 (NASB)...Bible "produced by Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
So we have the prophetic WORD (Scripture) made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
But know this first of all, that
no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but
men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Q3: Does the Bible mention the "WORD of God"?
A3: YES!

John 3:34
For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God;
for He gives the Spirit without measure.

Ephesians 6:17
And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION,
and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

1 Timothy 4:5
for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

Hebrews 4:12
For the "Word of God" is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword,
and piercing as far as the division of SOUL and SPIRIT,
of both joints and marrow, (Body)
and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.(spirit /soul?)

Q4: Is "Scripture" the same as the "WORDS" in the present Bible?

"Scripture" occurs 32 times in 32 verses in the NASB...all in the NT
Greek:
G1121 gramma ~= letter, bill, writing, learning, scripture, written
G1124 graphe ~= scripture

A4: My guess: the existing OT as viewed by the authors of the NT?

But see: 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20

Q5. Should the WORDS of the Bible be used as the BEST TEST of all other writings and spiritual ideas?

A5: Yes..because it is miraculous...spirit inspired (God-breathed and superintended By God The Holy Spirit)

The Bible as a piece of literature is withhout peer, and
it has been MIRACULOUSLY remembered, inspired, dictated, written, copied, translated, preserved, interpreted, and distributed.

 

[Tangible]

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.

That's a complete misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.

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.

You need to learn what Sola Scriptura actually means.

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.

And you say this in spite of numerous verses that explicitly indicate that we are saved by faith alone apart from our works. But works do matter, if you are speaking of the works of Christ.

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?

It's because Protestants recognize the scriptures as the ultimate authority for defining and regulating doctrine and practice, not just one authority among several.

This OP is almost completely one big straw man. If you would like to discuss Sola Scriptura, you need to begin with the actual concept as it is revealed in scripture, not a fabrication and a misconception of the idea.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's a complete misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.

You need to learn what Sola Scriptura actually means.

And you say this in spite of numerous verses that explicitly indicate that we are saved by faith alone apart from our works. But works do matter, if you are speaking of the works of Christ.

It's because Protestants recognize the scriptures as the ultimate authority for defining and regulating doctrine and practice, not just one authority among several.

This OP is almost completely one big straw man. If you would like to discuss Sola Scriptura, you need to begin with the actual concept as it is revealed in scripture, not a fabrication and a misconception of the idea.

Hear, hear.