Sola Scriptura

[seebs]

Actually it usually refers to the gospel as taught by the apostles.

Yes. But consider; those who have "the word" are those with the Holy Spirit, right? And the Holy Spirit, to trinitarians, is also God, right?

Acts 11:16
"And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

Note lowercase "w". That's not the same word.

I fact I can find no time that the words "word of the Lord" is used to mean Christ. Your assertion is incorrect.

The word of the Lord is what Jesus said. The Word of God is Jesus himself.

However, neither of them is "the Bible". The Bible is a book containing a small portion of what Jesus said (it even says this, explicitly), and many other things that were deemed relevant or even necessary to the faith.

It is not the Word of God. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Bible is not flesh, and does not "dwell", being inanimate.

 

[Terri]

Just because someone fails to discern that there are spiritual words within the written words does not make it less so! It just means that he doesn't have the Spirit to discern them! See 1CO 2:13 below.

Any bells going off?? Jesus is God. God is Spirit. God's Words are Spirit. The Word became flesh! Spirit, Spirit, we are talking Spirit. God's Word is not just pieces of ink on paper. They are Spirit. They are living and active as HEB 4:12 says. (see below)



1CO 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

HEB 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Actually the scriptures are commonly refered to as the Word of the Lord or the Word of God. The Word without anything following it is used to refer to Christ.

I'm happy someone posted that.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Yes. This is called "bibliolatry", and is a form of idolatry. It is a willful conflation of a book with the Living Word, used mostly to give human interpretations the semblence of Divine Will.

The Bible is the divine revelation of God to his people, apokalupsis or disclosure. God gives us a special revelation in Christ (John 1:18, 5:36-37, 6:63; 14:10) and in the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Pet. 1:21). But not in the traditions of man. (Matt. 15, Mark 7)

As for you word "bibliolatry":
bibliolatry

\Bib`li*ol"a*try\ (-tr[y^]), n. [Gr. bibli`on book + latrei`a service, worship, latrey`ein to serve.] Book worship, esp. of the Bible; -- applied by Roman Catholic divines to the exaltation of the authority of the Bible over that of the pope or the church, and by Protestants to an excessive regard to the letter of the Scriptures. --Coleridge. --F. W. Newman.

I think you miss use it, or rather misunderstood the non catholic view of the Bible. We do not worship the Bible but we do praise the message. The Bible brings us the Gospel in it's simplist form. Could I say that you believe in "reasonolatry?" You seem to rely on reason before the word of God... Sounds silly doesn't it...

 

[xenia]

A problem I have with Sola Scriptura...

(which I hope is not perceived as argumentative.)

When I was a Baptist, and later on, as a member of Calvary Chapel, we believed what a previous poster said:

Those of us that are born again have the Holy Spirit living inside of us and the Holy Spirit testifies as to what is true and what is false; what is scripture and what is not.

But I ran into some practical problems with this idea.

Our pastor used to teach through the Bible verse by verse, and now and then he'd come across a verse he didn't understand. He would ask the Holy Spirit for some illumination. Nothing seemed to come to mind, so he'd check out the commentaries he had in his office. All four of the commentaries he checked had a different interpretation, even though we must assume, with all charity, that the authors of these commentaries also asked the Holy Spirit for guidance. So, the pastor picks the one he likes the best, and that's the one he preaches. So what gives? Why did the Holy Spirit give each commentator a different interpretation? Or can it be that this is not quite what God meant when he said the Holy Spirit would lead us into truth?

This is NOT to say the Bible isn't God's perfect Word, because it is. What isn't perfect is our ability to interpret the Bible. Bob can say "The Holy Spirit told me THIS" and Fred can say "The Holy Spirit told me THAT" and who can judge? That is why the Catholics and the Orthodox (and others) look to Tradition to help interpret the Bible.

Again, I hope this post is viewed as explanatory and not argumentative.

-Xenia

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Good points.

When I was attending an Orthodox church, I had a problem with lining up what was in the Bible and the way we worshipped God. No where in the N.T. do we see ministers set above the common folk, that was a problem for me. When I read the Bible I saw how all people were priests of God, with those who have gifts leading the people. It wasn't a Bishop who was the church (and outside no salvation) it was a group of believers who gathered to share the Gospel and break bread. Nothing fancy at all. Christ was the center of worship and ceremony was little... This is a good reason to return to the Bible. Christ is the center theme in the Bible, what better way to worship and love God then to read His words to us?

I believe the Bible to be the only rule of faith because, as Christ told us, traditions can be corrupted. I follow the example of Jesus and return to the word when corrupt traditions take hold...

RB

 

[seebs]

I think you miss use it, or rather misunderstood the non catholic view of the Bible. We do not worship the Bible but we do praise the message. The Bible brings us the Gospel in it's simplist form. Could I say that you believe in "reasonolatry?" You seem to rely on reason before the word of God... Sounds silly doesn't it...

Er, I'm not Catholic. My view of the Bible is a "non-Catholic" view of the Bible.

I do not believe that the Bible's presentation of the Gospel is the simplest one. The saving relationship with Jesus is the Gospel in a much simpler form.

I don't rely on reason before the Word. However, reason is necessarily true. Your premises can be wrong, or you can do it wrong, but if the premises are true, and the reasoning is sound, the conclusion is necessarily true.

To attack reason is bad theology. Reason is always right. If reason contradicts what you think God says, then your understanding of what God says is wrong. If the Bible is, indeed, inerrant, then it is our understanding of it which errs, and errs frequently and impressively. It makes no difference to me; I cannot perceive the Bible separately from my interpretation of it, and I know that my interpretation will be wrong sometimes.

From where I'm standing, I think sola scriptura is wrong for exactly the reasons I don't accept the authority of the Catholic Church; it's putting authority in something which isn't actually God. The Bible, and the Church, have whatever authority they have only insofar as they correctly describe God's will, and even when they're right, we may misunderstand them.

Do I read the Bible? Yes. Do I consider it a reliable source? Yes. But I don't think my understanding of it is perfect, and I interpret the Bible according to the leadings of the Holy Spirit, not the other way around.

 

[seebs]

When I was attending an Orthodox church, I had a problem with lining up what was in the Bible and the way we worshipped God. No where in the N.T. do we see ministers set above the common folk, that was a problem for me. When I read the Bible I saw how all people were priests of God, with those who have gifts leading the people. It wasn't a Bishop who was the church (and outside no salvation) it was a group of believers who gathered to share the Gospel and break bread. Nothing fancy at all. Christ was the center of worship and ceremony was little...

I actually agree with everything you seem to be expressing here.

This is a good reason to return to the Bible.

Is it now?

Christ is the center theme in the Bible, what better way to worship and love God then to read His words to us?

Hmm. The two that come to mind are:
1. Pray in your own words, directly.
2. Pick up your cross and follow Him. This may involve putting the book down and getting your hands dirty.

I believe the Bible to be the only rule of faith because, as Christ told us, traditions can be corrupted.

I believe the Bible itself to be a tradition; we believe book X to be "part of the Bible", but not book Y, because someone before us said so.

I believe the will of God to be the only rule of faith, and the Bible only one part of how we can come to understand Him.

 

[Terri]

Each individual is responsible for getting to know God. Part of getting to know God is learning to be led by the Holy Spirit. We do not at this present time know all of the truth, so a very big part of being led by the Holy Spirit is learning to let Him lead us into truth.

Accepting tradition as truth without seeking the truth for yourself through the Word of God is just shifting the responsibility to others and it doesn't work because although people can teach you what they think is right, they may be wrong and it also robs you of the personal relationship with God that one gains when they actively seek Him and His truth on their own and learn to yield to and be lead by the Holy Spirit.

And anyone that doesn't believe that those of us that are born again have the Holy Spirit living inside of us and the Holy Spirit testifies as to what is true and what is false; what is scripture and what is not is saying that they don't believe God's Word which makes it of little use to them. Believing God is of utmost importance!!

 

[Reformed Baptist]

I believe the will of God to be the only rule of faith, and the Bible only one part of how we can come to understand Him.

The argument you give against sola scriptura is better used against ‘reason.’ We both agree, the Bible is the word of God. We both agree that reason is faulty, even if our interpretation is wrong or faulted, how does that make the Bible any less of a rule of faith?

 

[seebs]

The argument you give against sola scriptura is better used against ‘reason.’

No, it isn't.

We both agree, the Bible is the word of God.

Actually, no. I think it contains some of the words God gave us, but not all of them, and that it probably contains some other stuff.

We both agree that reason is faulty,

No. I agree that our reason is probably faulty, but I don't think reason itself is.

In short, reason is sort of like the theoretically-inerrant Bible; since we don't really have access to it, what we do have is always unreliable.

even if our interpretation is wrong or faulted, how does that make the Bible any less of a rule of faith?

God can guide us out of error, but only if we're listening. If we say "nope, I have this here book, and it says this, and I'm done thinking about this issue", then we will never really seek His guidance.

The rule of faith is to listen to, and trust, God. You can follow this with or without a Bible. You can follow it with or without reason.

The more tools you have available, the better your chances of checking and correcting errors, but the first one has to be the personal relationship. If that's not there, the rest is irrelevant at best.

 

[orthedoxy]

I don't think anyone have showed one verse that says sola scriptura the Bible is the word of God but where does it say Bible only to be accepted?
If anything the bible teaches against sola scriptura.
2 Thessalonians 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

I think you last posts sums up your view well seebs, thanks.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

I don't think anyone have showed one verse that says sola scriptura the Bible is the word of God but where does it say Bible only to be accepted?

If anything the bible teaches against sola scriptura.
2 Thessalonians 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

And I have asked in more then one forum, what are the traditions Paul is talking about? I've given everyone in IDD a chance to respond... Paul did not teach, and I say this based on the writings in the Bible, that we are to pray to Mary, that communion became the body and blood of Christ, that we as Christians are subject to Rome (I think we see eye to eye on this one), etc. This is the prot forum, but I did ask this question in a forum that you could have answered it in...

We see from history that in the first century the common believers were all seen as equal and those who were called to minister did so. In the second century we see a lack in this belief, in the gifts of the minister and a more formal style of worship began to take hold. By the third century we see that Bishops were now chosen ministers of the church, taking away from the common Christian access to God unless the Bishop was present. (History of the Christian Church, I get the author latter if you). Without the Bishop, no access to God and no salvation outside this church. We see the shift in church government and faith by the 4th century, so what do I do when I see from history and the Bible that the faith has lost it's first love? I do as Jesus Christ did, I return to the word of God.

If sola scriptura were a tradition, then I can see no other tradition more righteous then one based on God's word. The only way we can use tradition (as God breathed) is to say the Bible is not sufficient, calling into question the nature of 'God Breathed.' If tradition were 'God Breathed’, as some believe, then it is not sufficient either, based on this understanding.

 

[BBAS 64]

I don't think anyone have showed one verse that says sola scriptura the Bible is the word of God but where does it say Bible only to be accepted?
If anything the bible teaches against sola scriptura.
2 Thessalonians 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Good day, Orthedoxy

In the verse you quoted 2 Thes would you please tell me what exact Tradition is being refered to here? Also do you have Primary source historic evendance to support the source as the church at Thess. from the lips of Paul or any other of the 12.

In your statement this tradition would have to be outside the record of Scripture as understood at the time the primary source existed, as compared to the time the primary source transfered some knowledge that you phase as a Tradition "something passed down" by word. I have excluded the epistle for apparent resons.

Would you also on point explain the means and manner of this tradition from the time of the Church up untill now. Secondary source materail in this case is effective well with in the historical context " The Church of Thess."


Peace to u,

BBAS

 

[BBAS 64]

RB

Sorry for the double post. I could not resist and I did not see your post.

BBAS

 

[seebs]

And I have asked in more then one forum, what are the traditions Paul is talking about?

Well, I guess the thing to do would be to look at organizations that were around then, and see what traditions they have.

I've given everyone in IDD a chance to respond... Paul did not teach, and I say this based on the writings in the Bible,

See, I think this is the error. The entire claim under discussion is "there are things the Apostles taught which are not in the Bible."

You can't refute this by saying "I don't find any of these in the Bible"; if there are "things the Apostles taught which are not in the Bible", it is part of their definition that they are not in the Bible. The most we can do is see whether they are consistent with what the Bible teaches, and how they color our interpretation.

We see from history that in the first century the common believers were all seen as equal and those who were called to minister did so.

This is why some groups refuse, to this day, to have ministers or priests.

By the third century we see that Bishops were now chosen ministers of the church, taking away from the common Christian access to God unless the Bishop was present.

I disagree with this interpretation. I don't see any evidence that the common folks were not believed to have access to God.

If sola scriptura were a tradition, then I can see no other tradition more righteous then one based on God's word.

If I had to pick a tradition, I would pick the one that was used to select the words in the Bible, rather than the Bible.

The only way we can use tradition (as God breathed) is to say the Bible is not sufficient, calling into question the nature of 'God Breathed.'

Well, the Bible never says "this book is sufficient". There's passages saying it's good, but none which say it's sufficient, and at least one saying there are some teachings not written down, but which are important.

If tradition were 'God Breathed’, as some believe, then it is not sufficient either, based on this understanding.

That is not necessarily the case. It could be that the combination is sufficient, but either alone is insufficient. You can't stand a card on its edge, but you can lean two cards on each other, both standing nearly vertical.

 

[Terri]

Seebs you come across as contentious for the sake of contentiousness!

We get it--you don't believe in Sola Scripture!!

If you read the opening post you will see that Reformed asked if you agreed with the definition of Sola Scripture that he posted and if not what was your definition of Sola Scriptura. Your stating over and over the same reasons why you don't believe in it has nothing to do with the opening post which I posted a copy of below.

Do you agree with this:

"Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.” James White

If not, how do you as a non-catholic/non-orthodox Christian define sola scriptura?

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Thank you.

 

[seebs]

If you read the opening post you will see that Reformed asked if you agreed with the definition of Sola Scripture that he posted and if not what was your definition of Sola Scriptura.

Yeah. And I agreed with his definition, way back on page one or two.

I'm not trying to argue against it, just to explain where my position comes from, and respond to what I interpreted as questions about my position or challenges to it.