The Reformers and Sola Scriptura

[seeingeyes]

I reckon that the things you write are more authoritative for you than what any pope ever writes for the Church.

I rule with an iron fist!

 

[seeingeyes]

So you would suggest what... monolithic hierarchy?

An excellent question.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I rule with an iron fist!

I thought it was Margaret Thatcher who was the Iron Lady

 

[seeingeyes]

I thought it was Margaret Thatcher who was the Iron Lady

"Was" being the operative word...

:flex:

 

[faroukfarouk]

"Was" being the operative word...

:flex:

I'm afraid she wasn't particularly into Sola Scriptura.

 

[seeingeyes]

But, to be serious, Morecoffee, surely you have seen teachers from your own tradition that are well-versed in both scripture and the catechism who, theologically speaking, couldn't find their own ass with both hands. And you surely have seen people who couldn't tell you where to find a copy of the catechism or the scriptures, yet who shine with God's grace.

There is something that these debates always leave out. Something is missing.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I think it's good also to make a distinction between a statement of Biblical faith, and a creed.

A statement of Biblical faith is a summary of truths which commend themselves as a result of looking at the generally plain meaning of Scripture.

A creed is a construction of the so called ecclesiastical authorities, which tries to impose on the subscriber how s/he should read and interpret the Bible.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But, to be serious, Morecoffee, surely you have seen teachers from your own tradition that are well-versed in both scripture and the catechism who, theologically speaking, couldn't find their own ass with both hands. And you surely have seen people who couldn't tell you where to find a copy of the catechism or the scriptures, yet who shine with God's grace.

There is something that these debates always leave out. Something is missing.

The chats in GT are text based, images can be included and even video clips but we don't get the same experience as speaking face to face.

 

[seeingeyes]

I think it's good also to make a distinction between a statement of Biblical faith, and a creed.

A statement of Biblical faith is a summary of truths which commend themselves as a result of looking at the generally plain meaning of Scripture.

A creed is a construction of the so called ecclesiastical authorities, which tries to impose on the subscriber how s/he should read and interpret the Bible.

I'm not sure I see the difference, to be honest.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm not sure I see the difference, to be honest.

Nor do I; the Nicene creed is a statement of biblical faith. And since all the folk chatting in this thread have signed up to the Nicene creed as expressing their faith (though many will have extras not mentioned in the creed) it isn't really up for debate, is it? ...

 

[seeingeyes]

The chats in GT are text based, images can be included and even video clips but we don't get the same experience as speaking face to face.

Yes, that's true. But I was speaking on this specific debate topic.

Neither scripture alone nor scripture in light of tradition is sufficient.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, that's true. But I was speaking on this specific debate topic.

Neither scripture alone nor scripture in light of tradition is sufficient.

That's true but I doubt that any Christian thinks that either is sufficient by itself or even taken together.

 

[seeingeyes]

That's true but I doubt that any Christian thinks that either is sufficient by itself or even taken together.

Judging by the number of people who feel that their reading of scripture is completely unbiased, I would have to argue with that.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

How did Jesus establish doctrine? (Honest question.)

On his own authority as the Messiah and as God, with reference to both Scripture and Jewish tradition, but without being confined to either. He could do that because he was both Messiah and God. We are neither, and therefore are confined to Scripture and Christian tradition.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I think it's good also to make a distinction between a statement of Biblical faith, and a creed.

A statement of Biblical faith is a summary of truths which commend themselves as a result of looking at the generally plain meaning of Scripture.

A creed is a construction of the so called ecclesiastical authorities, which tries to impose on the subscriber how s/he should read and interpret the Bible.

False dichotomy. The Nicene (Constantinople) Creed is a good example of both. So is the Definition of Chalcedon.

 

[Albion]

I think it's good also to make a distinction between a statement of Biblical faith, and a creed.

A statement of Biblical faith is a summary of truths which commend themselves as a result of looking at the generally plain meaning of Scripture.

A creed is a construction of the so called ecclesiastical authorities, which tries to impose on the subscriber how s/he should read and interpret the Bible.

I'm not convinced that there is a difference, unless you are thinking of some church's statement of Biblical faith accompanied by a proviso that the Church doesn't think it to be necessarily correct and that it isn't expected that the church members will agree with it or should.

Maybe you could give us an actual example of what you are referring to when you say "statement of Biblical faith." Then we can see how it differs from something like the Nicene Creed.

 

[seeingeyes]

On his own authority as the Messiah and as God, with reference to both Scripture and Jewish tradition, but without being confined to either. He could do that because he was both Messiah and God. We are neither, and therefore are confined to Scripture and Christian tradition.

If you say so...

I guess I'd ask this though: Why should men who are as limited as you say be establishing any doctrine at all?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

If you say so...

I guess I'd ask this though: Why should men who are as limited as you say be establishing any doctrine at all?

Because Christ instructed us to teach his word, and appointed a teaching office in the church for that very reason. Doctrine is simply an English word that translates the Latin word for "teaching," doctrina. And the church should not be the author of confusion, so we need to have some mechanism for agreeing on that teaching- whether the source is only scripture or some combination of scripture with tradition, and whether the agreement process involves worldwide church councils or denominational assemblies or specially authoritative individuals (from the pope to the non-denominational pastor). In some way, we all end up doing it, and we have to do it, because otherwise we would not be following Christ's final command: to teach all that he taught us (Matt 28:20).

 

[~Anastasia~]

If you say so...

I guess I'd ask this though: Why should men who are as limited as you say be establishing any doctrine at all?

I think it brings up a good question of where our doctrines and practices come from. Originally I mean.

The OT temple, its furnishings, and its worship were handed down directly from God.

So those things that continued into the NT period that were derived from those have a legitimate origin, though it is fair to question their continued application. To the degree that Christ or the Church He established embraced them, one would think they would be above question.

If we consider the writers of the Scriptures to be inspired by the Holy Spirit (which what that means exactly, who was inspired, was there inspiration involved in judging them as being inspired, etc. is worth considering) ... then whatever traces back to them, particularly (imo) within the interpretations known originally are concerned.

Somewhere along the way though ... what about one of the great reformers? Was he inspired? Or is that doctrine established by man? What about the preacher's sermon last Sunday? Was he inspired by the Holy Spirit? Is he able to develop doctrine? What about a person who picks up the Bible and reads it prayerfully? Can he establish his own doctrine and say it is inspired?

And most importantly of all - are we willing to be HONEST with ourselves about where our doctrines and practices come from, and evaluate them honestly? And is that even possible, when the original sources are thousands of years old, and we see them filtered through numerous prejudices on all sides ...

 

[seeingeyes]

Because Christ instructed us to teach his word, and appointed a teaching office in the church for that very reason. Doctrine is simply an English word that translates the Latin word for "teaching," doctrina. And the church should not be the author of confusion, so we need to have some mechanism for agreeing on that teaching- whether the source is only scripture or some combination of scripture with tradition, and whether the agreement process involves worldwide church councils or denominational assemblies or specially authoritative individuals (from the pope to the non-denominational pastor). In some way, we all end up doing it, and we have to do it, because otherwise we would not be following Christ's final command: to teach all that he taught us (Matt 28:20).

The idea that man has been given the authority but not the wisdom of Christ is not very comforting...