Sola Scriptura?

[All4Christ]

AMBASSADOR HAT



Please remember to review the entire Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose, including the following section quoted below.

This is a topic driven forum to bridge open discussion for those interested in all the ways traditional theology is expressed and lived around the world. Its not meant to exclude those who don't practice traditional theology but it is meant to be topic restrictive and non combative to traditional ideas and structure. If you need to prove traditional theology as unbiblical or incomplete, we respect your right to do this in the General Theology forum and not in this topical forum. This is a place to explore with in the defined topic not debate against it.

 

[Radagast]

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

There's not much point discussing Sola Scriptura without understanding exactly what it means. The Belgic Confession, one of the standard Reformation documents, gives a summary:

We believe
that this Holy Scripture contains
the will of God completely
and that everything one must believe
to be saved
is sufficiently taught in it.
For since the entire manner of service
which God requires of us
is described in it at great length,
no one—
even an apostle
or an angel from heaven,
as Paul says [Galatians 1:8] —
ought to teach other than
what the Holy Scriptures have
already taught us.
For since it is forbidden
to add to the Word of God,
or take anything away from it [Deuteronomy 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19],
it is plainly demonstrated
that the teaching is perfect
and complete in all respects.
Therefore we must not consider human writings—
no matter how holy their authors may have been—
equal to the divine writings;
nor may we put custom,
nor the majority,
nor age,
nor the passage of times or persons,
nor councils, decrees, or official decisions
above the truth of God,
for truth is above everything else.
For all human beings are liars by nature
and more vain than vanity itself.
Therefore we reject with all our hearts
everything that does not agree
with this infallible rule,
as we are taught to do by the apostles
when they say,
“Test the spirits
to see whether they are from God” [1 John 4:1],
and also,
“Do not receive into the house
or welcome anyone
who comes to you
and does not bring this teaching.” [2 John 1:10].

 

[Tayla]

Sola Scriptura is basically impossible.

the points of Calvinism are no where spelled out point by point in Scripture, line by line

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.

Good point, that Protestants interpret scripture through their traditions, using those doctrines invented by the Protestant reformers (or any new idea any Bible teacher comes up with). When listening to much Protestant Bible interpretation and teaching, I often sense the text says something radically different.

Catholic and Orthodox teaching is correct on this point: Sola Scriptura (scriptura only) is a false doctrine (as are all, I'm not exaggerating, all other doctrines invented by the Protestant reformers).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Sola Scariptura?Discussion in 'Traditional Theology' started by Gracia Singh, Oct 7, 2016.

First the Title(above) , with a question mark.

Then the op:
QUOTE="Gracia Singh, post: 70253564, member: 262261"]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?[/QUOTE]

Sola Scriptura? I don't think the examples in the OP are referring to Sola Scriptura accurately. Maybe it's just me though? (I didn't look through your posts to see a definition of Sola Scriptura)

The way the OP presents Sola Scriptura, there might not be a defense of Sola Scriptura possible. Is that like a set up ?

Personally I think Sola Scriptura is wonderful and strong and better than most all other , ..... what.... "systems" ?
To me, it "looks" misrepresented in the OP.....

My question I guess is, can any else verify that Sola Scriptura fits the various descriptions of it in the OP, or not ?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Sola Scariptura?Discussion in 'Traditional Theology' started by Gracia Singh, Oct 7, 2016. First the Title(above) , with a question mark.
Then the op:
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?

Sola Scriptura? I don't think the examples in the OP are referring to Sola Scriptura accurately. Maybe it's just me though? (I didn't look through your posts to see a definition of Sola Scriptura)

The way the OP presents Sola Scriptura, there might not be a defense of Sola Scriptura possible. Is that like a set up ?

Personally I think Sola Scriptura is wonderful and strong and better than most all other , ..... what.... "systems" ?
To me, it "looks" misrepresented in the OP.....

My question I guess is, can any else verify that Sola Scriptura fits the various descriptions of it in the OP, or not ?

I only know of one definition of sola scriptura and that is the one I believe and that is Scripture alone... I am not sure of what they are using on this thread for their definition. Jesus taught sola scriptura.....

Matthew 4:4
"Man does not live my bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God"

How wonderful is this.... many cannot see the beauty of pointing people away from man to follow the Word of God alone.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="LoveGodsWord, post: 71838731, member: 398970"]I only know of one definition of sola scriptura and that is the one I believe and that is Scripture alone... I am not sure of what they are using on this thread. Jesus taught sola scriptura.....

Matthew 4:4
"Man does not live my bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God"

How wonderful is this.... many cannot see the beauty of pointing people away from man to follow the Word of God alone.[/QUOTE
COOL! I agree (as far as I know)....

Perhaps the OP could clarify if they have a different definition from somewhere ?

 

[Radagast]

Catholic and Orthodox teaching is correct on this point: Sola Scriptura (scriptura only) is a false doctrine

Really?

"We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonise with the intention of those writings." -- St Gregory of Nyssa.

That's a perfect statement of what the Protestant Reformers called Sola Scriptura, as expressed in the lengthy Reformation-era document I quoted earlier.

I think that a lot of people on this thread are reacting against a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.

 

[prodromos]

Really?

"We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonise with the intention of those writings." -- St Gregory of Nyssa.

That's a perfect statement of what the Protestant Reformers called Sola Scriptura, as expressed in the lengthy Reformation-era document I quoted earlier.

I think that a lot of people on this thread are reacting against a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.

What is "the intention of those writings" if not the traditional interpretation handed down?

 

[Tayla]

Really?

Proof the Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Catechism of the Catholic Church​

 

[Tayla]

"We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonise with the intention of those writings." -- St Gregory of Nyssa.

Just because a few Church Fathers teach something doesn't prove it's true. A counter quote (there are others):

Irenaeus, 180 A.D. True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops
​

I agree everyone had a high regard for scripture being it was written by the apostles who are the authorities of Christian faith.

 

[Tayla]

That's a perfect statement of what the Protestant Reformers called Sola Scriptura, as expressed in the lengthy Reformation-era document I quoted earlier.

I think that a lot of people on this thread are reacting against a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.

A reason I reject Sola Scriptura is that it ignores the question of interpretation. Even heretics used scripture.

There needs to be an overarching set of principles to interpret the Bible. Examples

1. Should we consider modern science as true? If so, the creation account is in big trouble.
2. How to address errors, anachronisms, and contradictions; internally in the text, and with archaeology?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review. I am not sure why this is in Traditional Theology. Sola Scriptura is not something held by many Traditional Christians.


Edit: This thread is staying closed. There were too many debating outside the parameters of the Statement of Purpose for this forum.​