Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Philothei]

You accuse us of being having a "legalistic mindset" so certainly
you alone know what you mean by that.

I am curious to know.

Also, what do you mean when you refer to the RCC legalistic mindset?

Sunlover the whole west is considered legalistic comparing to the East this was not a comment about YOU as a Protestant This is what scholasticism brought about in the West. The PC and the RC do have that thread of mindset in common. You also have the fillioque in your Creed do you?

Ah...also to the ones who say that we and or the RC gave teh Bible

We were ONE Chruch back then so either one it does not matter ...It also includes the Protestant Chruch We were ONE big family back then

 

[Rick Otto]

We were ONE big family back then

"We" didn't exist back then.
The filioque did not exist.
Quartodecimens - what part of the family were they back then & where did they all go?

 

[Heavens]

It sure turns into some goofy conversations here when folk depart from the simplicity in Christ that we know by sola scriptura;

(2Ti 3:15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

(1Th 5:21) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

(Act 17:11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

It is by this means by which we have a clear, carnally untainted path.
Church "history" beyond the apostles age, means nothing, and is less than edifying.
For none of it lends itself to being perfect, throughly furninshed unto all good works. Only sola scriptura does.
Only a personal relationship with Christ matters. None of the rest of the junk we read here can substitute for that.

It should be obvious... This OP continually degrades into worthless surmisings by those who use their history and secular verbage to try to make a case against Bible students who have come into salvation in Christ by Bible study and prayer.

THAT is of the enemy against the body of Christ.

 

[Rick Otto]

I think this whole idea about establishing 'rule of scripture' idea seems kind of legalistic...at least that is my opinion.

I know what you mean.
I remember feeling vaguely like my artistic license was being challenged the first time I was taught & shown what a ruler is.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think this whole idea about establishing 'rule of scripture' idea seems kind of legalistic...at least that is my opinion.

Of course, if truth doesn't matter in Christian doctrine, if the disputes we have in Christian doctrine just don't matter (because truth is moot or Pontius Pilate was right in his sarcasism), then - yes, accountability is also moot and the whole issue here is a waste of time. "Everybody's right - nobody's right - who cares - it's only Christian doctrine anyway!" Yeah, that's heard these days.

But if truth DOES matter (even in - especially in?) Christian doctrine, then accountability matters. And ergo norming (the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness) of those disputed doctrines also matters, and yes - the first issue becomes WHAT serves as the rule/canon/norma normans for that norming, that evaluation.

I agree with you, Ortho cat - in my discussions of this point, it all comes down to whether one thinks truth matters (especially vis-a-vis their own views - nearly everyone thinks everyone ELSE'S veiws are accountable since they can't disagree or reject or ignore them otherwise, but their OWN views are somehow too special to be accountable).


On another point, since accountability seems too "legal" for you, what alternative would you have for our driving if we eliminate the Rule of Law and all accountability for how one drives, what people do?




.

 

[Heavens]

I know what you mean.
I remember feeling vaguely like my artistic license was being challenged the first time I was taught & shown what a ruler is.

Lol, for sure. When I was first taken to swim lessons as a kid, I couldn't stop telling the swim instructor how great a swimmer I was. So, in front of the other kids, she took me from the 3' end down to the deep end and told me to jump in. In all my proud ignorance, I did. There was some splashing and frothing that didn't do any good, then I sank outta site. Of course she had to jump in and save me hehe...

Scriptura sola is the instructor. Any else are as that loud mouthed kid who sunk in the deep end.

 

[Standing Up]

I think this whole idea about establishing 'rule of scripture' idea seems kind of legalistic...at least that is my opinion.

c'mon, really?

 

[Dorothea]

Originally Posted by Thekla

It seems to me based on these SS discussions (again, I may be wrong), but it seems that many Sola Scriptura adherents have retained the legalistic mindset (apologies to RCs here) that is to some extent identified with RCatholicism. It seems to be an "inherited" mindset ...
​

All right, break it up, ladies.
You are more in bed with the pope than we are. Soteriology, sacramentology, funny hats,... it's mainstream orthodoxy stylin'.
We don' play dat. No triflin' he-uh.

Nothin' to see here, people. Move along...

Naw, we actually aren't. The mindsets are totally different, you see, and what we see is that the Protestants share the Western mindset from the RCC. They, in fact, adopted much from the RCC because that's where they broke off from. Not from the EOC, hence much of how we Orthodox talk and practice seems quite foreign to those of the Western mindset. The Western mindset is abundant with rationalism, legalism, and analytical thinking, if you will. It is not so in the EOC, generally speaking, esp. legalistically.

 

[Standing Up]

All this talk about legalism seems to ignore that the church was at one time united. Whatever "habits" the Protestants have, so do Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. And vice-versa.

Point still remains that Jesus, the apostles, and very early church used scripture as their rule of faith. It is written.

That's not to say believers don't have dreams and visions and whatever else doesn't fall under "legalism".

Okay? Peace.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

All this talk about legalism seems to ignore that the church was at one time united. Whatever "habits" the Protestants have, so do Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. And vice-versa.

Point still remains that Jesus, the apostles, and very early church used scripture as their rule of faith. It is written.

That's not to say believers don't have dreams and visions and whatever else doesn't fall under "legalism".

Okay? Peace.

Not true. The differing approaches between how the east and the west approached theology developed gradually, and although they agreed on the basic doctrines, their approaches differed quite a bit. This was shaped by their surrounding culture as well. The Greeks were philosophers, and the Romans built roads.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Point still remains that Jesus, the apostles, and very early church used scripture as their rule of faith. It is written.

Then why didn't they all just stay practicing Jews?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Scriptura sola is the instructor. Any else are as that loud mouthed kid who sunk in the deep end.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Of course, if truth doesn't matter in Christian doctrine, if the disputes we have in Christian doctrine just don't matter (because truth is moot or Pontius Pilate was right in his sarcasism), then - yes, accountability is also moot and the whole issue here is a waste of time. "Everybody's right - nobody's right - who cares - it's only Christian doctrine anyway!" Yeah, that's heard these days.

But if truth DOES matter (even in - especially in?) Christian doctrine, then accountability matters. And ergo norming (the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness) of those disputed doctrines also matters, and yes - the first issue becomes WHAT serves as the rule/canon/norma normans for that norming, that evaluation.

I agree with you, Ortho cat - in my discussions of this point, it all comes down to whether one thinks truth matters (especially vis-a-vis their own views - nearly everyone thinks everyone ELSE'S veiws are accountable since they can't disagree or reject or ignore them otherwise, but their OWN views are somehow too special to be accountable).


On another point, since accountability seems too "legal" for you, what alternative would you have for our driving if we eliminate the Rule of Law and all accountability for how one drives, what people do?




.

OF course truth matters, which is why Christ built his Church to preserve it! You guys can continue to argue about this 'rule' which no one will ever agree upon or be able to define, but I know where the truth faith is...Christ never talked about a 'rule', he talked about his church! It's been there all along, for those who are willing to look for it Seek and ye shall find...(hint...look towards the east for your answers...where Christianity was founded...not to western europe or elsewhere )

 

[Thekla]

You accuse us of being having a "legalistic mindset" so certainly
you alone know what you mean by that.

I am curious to know.

Also, what do you mean when you refer to the RCC legalistic mindset?

No it wasn't an accusation Sunlover, sorry !
As I said, it was an observation qualified by "it seems" - and based on discussions (and non-discussions ) here on GT.

Maybe examples will help ...

There is the apparently consistent view per the posts in the past week that "not Sola Scriptura" means "not valuing Scripture".

There seems to also be an emphasis among SS adherents that what is said (in the Scriptures) is more important than what is done. Laws are statements, and Scripture seems to be treated almost wholly as a set of statements which are treated as laws.

For example:
"Call no man father" is typically treated as a commandment (covering the address of presbyters and sometimes the biological parent) , yet several times men are called, addressed, and referred to as "father" in the NT.
"Vain repetition" is often treated as a command against repetition, yet repetition occurs throughout the Scriptures.
"...There is none righteous,no, not one" is used repeatedly in reference to individuals, yet the Scriptures attest of many who were righteous.

In this way - isolating verses as an instructive finality where counterexamples exist, honoring statement without considering demonstration which also teaches - per my discussions here, it seems there is a focus on "letter" without also considering "spirit".
The examples I mentioned above may instead draw us into a fuller understanding of the Scriptures, to find as it were the heart of the Scriptures.

As a concomitant of this approach, there seems to be a tendency to ignore the overarching purpose and instructive approach of the OT and NT. To some extent, some SS adherents seem to interpret the NT through the OT, instead of interpreting the OT through the NT - through the person of Christ if you will. As well, the approach to instruction in the NT seems to be missed - the loving acknowledgment of God that we are human, and thus learn in part through our God created/given humanness.

For example, although "vain repetition" seems to be wantonly attached to any repetition, this legalistic interpretation ignores counterexamples in Scripture, and also that humans learn through repetition. Something repeated is never in fact a repetition when one is prayerfully, spiritually acutely "present". And repetition can have the effect of eventually "cracking through" an atrophied human heart, spilling into it a great wealth as a gift from God.

That Christ lived among us, the manner and method of His teaching (its wholeness, not only what is spoken), the manner and method that God wills for our salvation, all point to a love towards mankind, and serve man's way of understanding, his way of learning, and indeed also man's (eventual) wholeness; all of God's actions honor His desire that we are to become whole. He ministers to us through body, heart, spirit -- to the complete man, to man as "soul" (in the Hebraic sense).

The dominant definition/description given for Sola Scriptura of late seems to be also symptomatic of this - the Scripture was given for man and thus is not Scripture unless it is used by man. To say that interpretation of Scripture is not part of Sola Scriptura makes of Scripture something above us instead of for our use -- Christ walked among (not over) us, God interacts with us, Scripture (and everything God provides for us) is for our use and benefit.

This definition of Sola Scriptura makes of Scripture something not in use - as something alien from the human experience, and not even God is 'alien' from us in the way SS has been described. As the sole norm, again it seems to me that the true and only norm - Christ - is removed from His place as norm; His wholeness and interaction with us recedes to be replaced by the text as the "firmest" most objective thing. Christ was never objective - He ministered to us as human beings; He was merciful not "objective".

Scripture is not a "rule" per se; there is only One Ruler, and He alone is the Rule. I understand that California Josiah's definition may be an attempt at guarding against misinterpretation as well as seeking a commonality for a "rule"; interpretation is in part product of the health (or not) of our spiritual heart. Of course we read it, study it, repeatedly (and if we are prayerful, patient, humble and alert it will never be "the same" Scripture twice).

And in humility, recognizing whether or not our calling is to teach, and the reality of our own spiritual state, and the method God has chosen to work through the ages, we can recognize that some have heard God's teaching more fully and accurately than we have. That someone else may "show us", may teach in a way that "lays open" the heart of the Scriptures. This is the way God has always worked - through the various callings, through others set aside, as well as to the whole person, and 'developmentally'.

Sorry this was so long in responding - it's been another "mom-bus" day

 

[Thekla]

It must mean our arguments are "arresting".

Well, yes !

Sola Scriptura (as here described) puts a limit on, arrests us away from the depth of the Scriptures and the manner in which God ministers to us as a whole.

We are not just mind, nor even heart; and God does not minister to us as bits - but to the whole human person (as in all of the person).

 

[Standing Up]

Then why didn't they all just stay practicing Jews?

I suppose you are serious, right? If so, the mystery was the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in one Body of Christ. It was hinted at in the OT and fulfilled/explained in the NT.

I'd suggest that the church lost lots of its root understandings long ago to its detriment.

 

[Standing Up]

Well, yes !

Sola Scriptura (as here described) puts a limit on, arrests us away from the depth of the Scriptures and the manner in which God ministers to us as a whole.

We are not just mind, nor even heart; and God does not minister to us as bits - but to the whole human person (as in all of the person).

You and Tertullian---we've put the Spirit in a book. (Whoops he was latin; so much for the "legalist" seemings.)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Sola Scriptura (as here described) puts a limit on, arrests us away from the depth of the Scriptures and the manner in which God ministers to us as a whole.

1. Where described?


2. I have no clue how God's Scripture "limits" anything except self exempting self from the issue of truth; it's a problem for Joseph Smith as well as for every "cult" known to me - but then all of them reject Scripture as the rule (for self anyway) thus it doens't limit THEM since they exempt self exclusively from Scripture or any other rule or anything having to do with accountability (for self anyway), it doesn't limit THEM at all. IMO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - eager to embrace accountability, perhaps insisting upon it - confident that God's Truth shines in the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, sheild self from accountability and norming, build around self HUGE walls of remarkable, accountability-evading claims of self for self, trying to change the topic from truth to the power self claims that self has, power to demand docilic submission.




.

 

[Thekla]

You and Tertullian---we've put the Spirit in a book. (Whoops he was latin; so much for the "legalist" seemings.)

I don't know the reference; I don't know what you (or Tertullian) means so I can't really respond

 

[Standing Up]

I don't know the reference; I don't know what you (or Tertullian) means so I can't really respond

Okay. Sorry. I thought sola scriptura was too legalistic for some, sorta as Tertullian once seemed to say ... never mind ...