Sola Scripture isn't rational

[oworm]

For the life of me i cant remember; who said? "History teaches us that history teaches us nothing"

 

[II Paradox II]

For the life of me i cant remember; who said? "History teaches us that history teaches us nothing"

I think that comes from Hegel.

ken

 

[Koey]

You are quite correct that sola scriptura doesn't make sense. In one sense it is a fiction, because NO CHURCH follows it literally. ALL churches have added to the Bible their traditions, their legalistic rules and so on. However, sola scriptura is an ideal to be strived for in doctrine. It is perhaps like utopia and unrealizable. However, if we don't have something to shoot for, we will fall into the same traps the Church has fallen into for 2,000 years - creating extra rules like the Pharisees.

Granted, Baptists have some silly rules which do not come from the Bible. The no-alcohol rule is not even Scriptural. It is a man-made rule which crept in from the women's temperance movement. The no-dancing rule which some few Baptist churches still follow is another such silly example.

However, the sola scriptura ideal also weeds out some other silly man-made rules, like mandatory celibate pastors (contrary to 1Tim 3), making Mary a mediatrix (contrary to 1Tim 2:5), etc.

 

[Rising_Suns]

For the life of me i cant remember; who said? "History teaches us that history teaches us nothing"

It is unfortunate that some people actually believe that to be true.

 

[Koey]

I think the quote is closer to "the biggest lesson of history is that nobody learns anything from history." Wars? Hey we've learned that lesson ---- not. Famines caused by politics? Failed. You name it and we have failed to learn from history.

Now we do have some wonderful gadgets and stuff which we did learn from our technological history. It takes generations of history to build the wonderful technology we have today. However, the lessons, the morals and the wisdom of history have been lost on us. What usually happens is that a new generation throws out the good with the bad of former generations.

e.g. Democracy vs. Oligarchy or Monarchy. In a monarchy/oligarchy people are trained from childhood for the office they held. They were really qualified unlike our democratic politicians of today. Problem? Greed, corruption, absolute power - and those were the Christian kings. In a democracy we get to choose someone who is handsome or witty or quick thinking or makes wonderful materialistic promises and kick out those who are greedy and corrupted or have failed us in some way. Problem? We elect ignoramuses who only look good to an ignorant public. We have not learned from history, just swapped weak and ineffective government for weak and ineffective government.

What humanity has failed to learn is "love thy neighbor" is the only rule that really works. All else is a failure.

 

[Rising_Suns]

I think the quote is closer to "the biggest lesson of history is that nobody learns anything from history." Wars? Hey we've learned that lesson ---- not. Famines caused by politics? Failed. You name it and we have failed to learn from history.

Yes exactly. The guilt is on us because we haven't learned from it, which has nothing to do with the value of history of itself. If anything, it further supports the fact that we tend to ignore its value.

What humanity has failed to learn is "love thy neighbor" is the only rule that really works. All else is a failure.

Amen.

 

[Koey]

Yes exactly. The guilt is on us because we haven't learned from it, which has nothing to do with the value of history of itself. If anything, it further supports the fact that we tend to ignore its value.


Amen.

I think that's 100% correct. History would be a FANTASTIC, VALUABLE lesson, IF we learned from it.

 

[II Paradox II]

It is unfortunate that some people actually believe that to be true.

What's even funnier is that Hegel said it... Doesn't quite jive with Thesis, Antithesis & Synthesis very well. He pretty much laid the foundations for the idea of development across many fields (including theology - influencing the development theories of Newman and Schaff alike).

ken

 

[ChiRho]

You are quite correct that sola scriptura doesn't make sense. In one sense it is a fiction, because NO CHURCH follows it literally. ALL churches have added to the Bible their traditions, their legalistic rules and so on.

Sola Scriptura


Q. Where in the Bible is the doctrine of sola scriptura taught? Are the verses of 2 Pet. 1:20 and 2 Pet. 3:15-16 contradictory to this doctrine?

A. The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm for all that is taught and confessed in the church. In numerous passages the Scriptures claim this authority for themselves as the inspired Word of God. For example, St. Paul writes in 2 Tim. 3:16, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...." (RSV). Likewise, the apostle Peter declares that "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21; RSV). It should be remembered that acceptance of the Bible as the sole authority for teaching comes not from rational arguments or human traditions, but is a conviction produced by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. In other words, it is a matter of faith worked by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures themselves (see 1 Thess. 2:13)!

There is, of course, no contradiction between 2 Pet. 1:20 and what Peter says later in 3:15-16. That the Scriptures may be difficult for human beings to understand in certain places does not take away from their divine authority. In fact, St. Peter's words underline the necessity and importance of praying for the Holy Spirit's guidance to properly interpret Scripture as we "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3:18; emphasis added).

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2519

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[Rising_Suns]

It's interesting that the first part of the question was never really answered.

 

[Koey]

...Are you willing to die based on what someone else believes about Christianity without searching it out yourself?...How can you throw away history and tradition?...Why was the bible changed during the reformation? Had it not been the Word of God for a long time prior? Can you really ignore history and tradition?...God left everyone in the wilderness for 1600 years following the birth of Christianity all certainly doomed to hell until somebody stumbled on Sola Scripture? Can you really believe this and claim yourself to be a rational person?

So, I went back to your original post to see what you meant by not answering the first part. I'll give it a gooo...

• Am I willing to die based on what someone else believes? No. I don't trust ANY church leaders/theologians to be 100% correct.
• How can you throw out history, etc? I agree with you. The Holy Spirit has been with the Church of God for 2,000 years. It is not perfect, but we can learn much from Orthodox & Catholic history. That does not mean either one is 100% correct, but neither are you and I.
• Why was the Bible changed? A good question. The deuterocanonical books have never had the same import as the primary canon. The Protestant reformers believed that the Jews were the "authority" on what was OT Scripture. The second canon is only found in the Greek OT, not the Hebrew. The Jews did not recognize the Apocrypha as OT canon. Does it matter? For hundreds of years most Christian churches did not have the entire NT, but only portions. I think we get overly superstitious about the canon of Scripture. I think the deuterocanonical books have value, but don't put them in first place. So do Catholics and Orthodox by the way.
• Was the Church in the wilderness before the Protestants came along? No, Baptist successionism is just as suspect as Catholic successionism.
• Sola Scriptura? It is in one sense a fiction, because we all have our traditions. It is in another sense an ideal, because of the human tendency to add a Christian version of the Pharisaic Talmud, rules of touch not, taste not.

For my personal faith, I apply the idealistic principal of sola scriptura to help me weed out man-made rubbish while I also learn from the wonderful good things God has taught the Orthodox, Catholics and orthodox Protestant churches which are more educated in the Scriptures (some are pretty ignorant). I'm guessing I have lots of company. I believe that lay people often have more common sense than denominationally bigoted theologians. Not all theologians are denominationally bigoted though and their numbers seem to be growing.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Was the Church in the wilderness before the Protestants came along? No, Baptist successionism is just as suspect as Catholic successionism.

Just a point of clarification, but if you are referring to valid Apostolic Succession, the Catholic Church indeed has it; She can trace an unbroken line of Papal successors back through time to the disciple Peter.

 

[Koey]

Just a point of clarification, but if you are referring to valid Apostolic Succession, the Catholic Church indeed has it; She can trace an unbroken line of Papal successors back through time to the disciple Peter.

Yes, that's the theory. Although I haven't seen the proof or documentation myself. You apparently have a wonderful line of history as do those awesome and faithful Orthodox Christians. However, being in a line of succession means absolutely nothing if you have no love.

Some Baptists claim an unbroken line of immersionists from Christ. Some Saturday Sabbatarians claim an unbroken line of Sabbath keepers from Christ. Some Pentecostals claim an unbroken line of tongues speakers from Christ.

All successionism theories are worthless if we do not love God with our whole hearts and love our neighbor as ourselves. Even Jesus praised the schismatic Samaritan who was not in succession yet had more love than two religious leaders in the line of Jewish succession.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Some Baptists claim an unbroken line of immersionists from Christ. Some Saturday Sabbatarians claim an unbroken line of Sabbath keepers from Christ. Some Pentecostals claim an unbroken line of tongues speakers from Christ.

Yes brother, I am familar with those claims. I just wanted to clarify that ours are actually founded, well documented, and supported by all histroical evidence.


Just for your personal edification (and, I apologize to others for this taking up so much space. forgive me.)


1) St. Peter (42-67)
2) St. Linus (67-76)
3) St. Cletus (76-88)
4) St. Clement 1 (88-97)
5) St. Evaristus (97-105)
6) St. Alexander I (105-1l5)
7) St. Sixtus I (1l5-125)
8) St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9) St. Hyginus (136-140)
10) St. Pius I (140-155)
11) St. Anicetus (155-166)
12) St. Soter (166-175)
13) St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14) St. Victor I (189-199)
15) St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16) St. Callistus (217-222)
Hippolytus St. (217-235)
17) St. Urban I (222-230)
18) St. Pontian (230-235)
19) St. Anterus (235-236)
20) St. Fabian (236-250)
21) St. Cornelius (251-253)
Novatianus (251)
22) St. Lucius I (253-254)
23) St. Stephen I (254-257)
24) St. Sixtus I1 (257-258)
25) St. Dionysius (256-268)
26) St. Felix I (269-274)
27) St. Eutychian (275-283)
28) St. Caius (283-296)
29) St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30) St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31) St. Eusebius (309)
32) St. Miltiades (31l-314)
or Melchiades
33) St. Sil Vester I (314-335)
34) St. Mark (336)
35) St. Julius I (337-352)
36) Liberius (352-366)
Felix II (355-365)
37) St. Damasus I (366-384)
Ursjnus (366-384)
38) St. Siricius (384-399)
39) St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40) St. Innocent I (401-417)
41) St. Zosimus (417-418)
42) St. Boniface I (418-422)
Eulallo (418-419)
43) St. Celestine I (422-432)
44) St. Sixtus III (432-440)
45) St. Leo I (440-461)
46) St. Hilarus (461-468)
47) St. Simplicius (468-483)
48) St. Felix III (483-492)
49) St. Gelasius I (492-496)
50) Anastasius II (496-498)
51) St. Symmachus (498-514)
Laurence (498-501-505)
52) St. Hormisdas (514-523)
53) St. John I (523-526)
54) St. Felix IV (526-530)
55) Boniface II (530-532)
Dioscoro (530)
56) John II (533-535)
57) Agapitus I (535-536)
58) St. Silverius (536-537)
59) Vigilius (537.555)
60) Pelagius I (556-561)
61) John III (561-574)
62) Benedict I (575-579)
63) Pelagius II (579-590)
64) St. Gregory I (590-604)
65) Sabinian (604-606)
66) Boniface III (607)
67) St. Boniface IV (608-615)
68) St. Adeodatus (615-618)
or Deusdeit I
69) Boniface V (619-625)
70) Honorius I (625-638)
71) Severinus (640)
72) John IV (640-642)
73) Theodore I (642-649)
74) St. Martin I (649-655)
75) St. Eugene I (654-657)
76) St. Vitalian (657-672)
77) Adeodatus II (672-676)
78) Donus (676-678)
79) St. Agatho (678-681)
80) St. Leo II (682-683)
81) St. Benedict II (684-685)
82) John V (685-686)
83) Conon (686-687)
Theodore (687)
Paschal (687)
84) St. Sergius I (687-701)
85) John VI (701-705)
86) John VII (705-707)
87) Sissinius (708)
88) Constantine (708-715)
89) St. Gregory II (715-731)
90) St. Gregory III (731-741)
91) St. Zacharias (741-752)
92) Stephen II (752-757)
93) St. Paul I (757-767)
Constantine (767-769)
Philip (768)
94) Stephen III (768-772)
95) Hadrian I (772-795)
96) St. Leo III (795-816)
97) Stephen IV (816-817)
98) St. Paschal I (817-824)
99) Eugene II (824-827)
100) Valentine (827)
101) Gregory IV (827-844)
John (844)
102) Sergius II (844-847)
103) St. Leo IV (847-855)
104) Benedict III (855-858)
Anastasius (855-880)
105) St. Nicholas (858-867)
106) Hadrian II (867-872)
107) John VIII (872-882)
108) Marinus I (882-884)
109) St. Hadrian III (884-885)
1l0) Stephen V (885-891)
1ll) Formosus (891-896)
1l2) Boniface VI (896)
1l3) Stephen VI (896-897)
1l4) Romanus (897)
115) Theodore II (897)
1l6) John IX (898-900)
117) Benedict IV (900-903)
1l8) Leo V (903)
Christopher (903-904)
1l9) Sergius III (904-91l)
120) Anastasius III (91l-913)
121) Lando (913-914)
122) John X (914-928)
123) Leo VI (928)
124) Stephen VII (928-931)
125) John XI (931-935)
126) Leo VII (936-939)
127) Stephen VIII (939-942)
128) Marinus II (942-946)
129) Agapitus II (946-955)
130) John XII (955-964)
131) Leo VIII (963-965)
132) Benedict V (964-966)
133) John XIII (965-972)
134) Benedict VI (973-974)
Boniface VII (974-985)
135) Benedict VII (974-983)
136) John XIV (983-984)
137) John XV (985-996)
138) Gregory V (996-999)
John XVI (997-998)
139) Silvester II (999-1003)
140) John XVII (1003)
141) John XVIII (1004-1009)
142) Sergius IV (1009-1012)
143) Benedict VIII (1012-1024)
Gregory (1012)
144) John XIX (1024-1032)
145) Benedict IX (1032-1044)
146) Silvester III (1045)
147) Benedict IX (1045)
148) Gregory VI (1045-1046)
149) Clement II (1046-1047)
150) Benedict IX (1047-1048)
151) Damasus II (1048)
152) St. Leo IX (1049-1054)
153) Victor II (1055-1057)
154) Stephen IX (1057-1058)
Bened1ct X (1058-1059)
155) Nicholas II (1059-1061)
156) Alexander II (1061-1073)
Honorius II (1061-1072)
157) St. Gregory VII (1073-1085)
Clement III (1084-1100)
158) Bl. Victor III (1086-1087)
159) Bl. Urban II (1088-1099)
160) Paschal II (1099-1118)
Theodoric (1100-1102)
Albert (1102)
Sylvester IV (1105-1111)
161) Gelasius II (1118-1119)
Gregory VII (1118-1121)
162) Callistus II (1119-1124)
163) Honorius II (1124-1130)
Celestine II (1124)
164) Innocent II (1130-1143)
Cletus II (1130-1138)
Victor IV (1138)
165) Celestine II (1143-1144)
166) Lucius II (1144-1145)
167) Bl. Eugene III (1145-1153)
168) Anastasius IV (1153-1154)
169) Hadrian IV (1154-1159)
170) Alexander III (1159-1181)
Victor IV (1159-1164)
Paschal III (1164-1168)
Callistus III (1168-1178)
Innocent III (1179-1180)
17l) Lucius III (1181-1185)
172) Urban III (1185-1187)
173) Gregory VIII (1187)
174) Clement III (1187-1191)
175) Celestine III (1191-1198)
176) Innocent III (1198-1216)
177) Honorius III (1216-1227)
178) Gregory IX (1227-1241)
179) Celestine IV (1241)
180) Innocent IV (1243-1254)
181) Alexander IV (1254-1261)
182) Urban IV (1261-1264)
183) Clement IV (1265-1268)
184) Bl. Gregory X (1272-1276)
185) Bl. Innocent V (1276)
186) Hadrian V (1276)
187) John XXI (1276-1277)
188) Nicholas III (1277-1280)
189) Martin IV (1281-1285)
190) Honorius IV (1285-1287)
191) Nicholas IV (1288-1292)
192) St. Celestine V (1294)
193) Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
194) Bl. Benedict XI (1303-1304)
195) Clement V (1305-1314)
196) John XXII (1316-1334)
Nicholas V (1328-1333)
197) Benedict XII (1335-1342)
198) Clement VI (1342-1352)
199) Innocent VI (1352-1362)
200) Bl. Urban V (1362-1370)
201) Gregory XI (1371-1378)
202) Urban VI (1378-1389)
203) Boniface IX (1389-1404)
204) Innocent VII (1404-1406)
205) Gregory XII (1406-1415) Clement VII (1378-1394)
Benedict XII1 (1394-1423) Alexander V (1409-1410)
John XXI11 (1410-1415)
206) Martin V (1417-1431)
207) Eugene IV (1431-1447)
Felix V (1440-1449)
208) Nicholas V (1447-1455)
209) Calixtus III (1455-1458)
210) Pius II (1458-1464)
211) Paul II (1464-1471)
212) Sixtus IV (1471-1484)
213) Innocent VIII (1484-1492)
214) Alexander VI (1492-1503)
215) Pius III (1503)
216) Julius II (1503-1513)
217) Leo X (1513-1521)
218) Hadrian VI (1522-1523)
219) Clement VII (1523-1534)
220) Paul III (1534-1549)
221) Jules III (1550-1555)
222) Marcellus II (1555)
223) Paul IV(1555-1559)
224) Pius IV (1560-1565)
225) St. Pius V (1566-1572)
226) Gregory XIII (1572-1585)
227) Sixtus V (1585-1590)
228) Urban VII (1590)
229) Gregory XIV (1590-1591)
230) Innocent IX (1591)
231) Clement VIII (1592-1605)
232) Leo XI (1605)
233) Paul V (1605.1621)
234) Gregory XV (1621-1623)
235) Urban VIII (1623-1644)
236) Innocent X (1644-1655)
237) Alexander VII (1655-1667)
238) Clement IX (1667-1669)
239) Clement X (1669-1676)
240) Bl. Innocent XI (1676-1689)
241) Alexander VIII (1689-1691)
242) Innocent XII (1691-1700)
243) Clement XI (1700-1721)
244) Innocent XIII (1721-1724)
245) Benedict XIII (1724-1730)
246) Clement XII (1730-1740)
247) Benedict XIV (1740-1758)
248) Clement XIII (1758-1769)
249) Clement XIV (1769-1774)
250) Pius VI (1775-1799)
251) Pius VII (1800-1823)
252) Leo XII (1823-1829)
253) Pius VIII (1829-1830)
254) Gregory XVI (1831-1846)
255) Pius IX (1846-1878)
256) Leo XIII (1878-1903)
257) St. Pius X (1903-1914)
258) Benedict XV (1914-1922)
259) Pius XI (1922-1939)
260) Pius XII (1939-1958)
261) John XXIII (1959-1963)
262) Paul VI (1963-1978)
263) John Paul I (1978)
264) John Paul II (1978-

All successionism theories are worthless if we do not love God with our whole hearts and love our neighbor as ourselves.

Yes most definately. That is the heart of Christianity.

In Christ,
-Davide

 

[SumTinWong]

Here's some information on reasons why the Apocrypha is not considered canonical:

http://nc.essortment.com/whatapocrypha_rgcf.htm

-Michael

I wouldn't hang my hat on that website so quickly. The second reason may or may not be true:

2. Jesus Christ, nor any of the New Testament writers, ever quoted from the Apocrypha.

Well scholars are baffled by a verse in the NT by a man named Jude:
But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses, he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, Let the Lord rebuke you! Jude 1:9

The OT doesn't mention this at all. So where did he get this information?

Origen said it was possibly from a book called "the Ascension of Moses", which was one such book. Others have said that it was rabbinical teaching, or tradition. So we have no idea that this statement is true or not.

By the way i got this information from "John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible"

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Davide

Intresting list there not that I would think that it is not the offical list from the vatican. It in of it's self raises some good questions:

Peter, Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus

However Irenaeus and Eusebius say the order is:

Peter, Linus, Anencletus, Clement

Contrarily to both, Hippolytus in Canons, XXIII holds Clement to have been ordained by Peter, and thus his immediate successor.

I believe that there is a good book out ther by an RC Historian called the rise of the papacy the may address the error in the historical context of the list now used by the RCC. I hope some one may have this book and shed some historic back round on thius issue.

Peace to u,

Bill

Irenaeus, Adversus Omnes Haereses, III, iii, 3, and Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, ii, and IV, vi, give the order of the bishops of Rome as Peter, Linus, Anencletus, Clement. But Hippolytus, Canons, XXIII, says that Clement was ordained by Peter and thus regards Clement as Peter’s immediate successor. The present R.C. catalogue of popes follows the order Peter, Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus.

 

[Rising_Suns]

bras,
It did not come straight from the vatican so perhaps it could have one or two successors out of order from the Vatican list. However, whether Clement came before Anencletus or after him, my point still holds in that there exist an unbroken line of successors. That was the only reason for my clarification.

 

[BBAS 64]

bras,
It did not come straight from the vatican so perhaps it could have one or two successors out of order from the Vatican list. However, whether Clement came before Anencletus or after him, my point still holds in that there exist an unbroken line of successors. That was the only reason for my clarification.

Good Day, Rising_sun

Fair enough, the list that has been pointed to would lead one to a beleive that in and of it's self is self eveident. One may choose to look at a the historical support of any list and will find that some lists are differnet from others. One needs IMO to reconsile the obvious contradictions "if" that is even possible, with in the context of history and the information it provides.


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Koey]

I really appreciate the list. However, I have not seen any biblical evidence that such a list is even mandatory. Mat 16:18 has been greatly overstated. Sure Peter and rock were the same in Aramaic, but the writer chose TWO different Greek words, perhaps to clarify something for those of us who were not there to see Jesus' gestures and to whom he was pointing. Whatever is really meant is thus in dispute.

We do not create whole doctrines on unclear passages of Scripture. Even though I highly respect Catholic theologians because of their great depth and wisdom, this particular area is just bad theology and the pictures of a key on the pope's regalia thus show support for a particularly weak conclusion, which I can only conclude is based upon power rather than good theology.

What Mat 16:18 does NOT say is more interesting. It does not say Peter would be the first pope with an unbroken line of successors and that only those guys would be the authorities. What it does not say shouts rather loudly.

Continuing with your theory of petrine "authority" though: What if some of those on your list were carnal as a bed bug? What if some were actually evil liars? How can we honestly say that the line is an unbroken spiritual list? How can we actually say that heaven supports this theory and no other "authorities?" It just doesn't make sense.

Sorry to be a pain. Don't want to offend. I just don't believe men. My faith is in Jesus not institutions of men.

 

[Bulldog]

So you are not a Sola Scripturist to the point where others seem to take it today. I have seen Christians speak of the "Scripture Alone" and leave it at that, neglecting the wirtings of the Church fathers and other historical evidence.

That sounds like the doctrine of solo scriptura, which is different from different from sola scriptura.

Here is a sola scripturaist critique on solo scriptura:

http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html