The Sola Scriptura is erroneous

[Soyeong]

The Bereans were doing the opposite of “sola scriptura”. The jews who chased St. Paul out of Thessalonica were the ones who were following “sola scriptura”.

The Bereans were treating Scripture as though it had a higher authority than man, which is what Sola Scriptura is essentially about, so it is the best example of Sola Scriptura is action, so I have no idea why you would not only reject it as an example, but consider it to be the opposite. In Acts 17:1-9, Paul did not speak on his own authority, but appealed to Scripture as his authority to persuade them. However, it does not say that the Jews who threw him out appealed to Scripture as their authority, but rather it says that they were jealous, so I again have no idea why you would consider this to be an example of following Sola Scriptura.

 

[Radagast]

The Bereans were doing the opposite of “sola scriptura”.

No, they were doing exactly Sola Scriptura.

Acts of the Apostles 17:10-11: The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

The Gospel Coalition: The “formal principle” of the Reformation was this principle of “Scripture alone.” Whatever the church and others may have taught, it can be given no credence unless it conforms to this “norming norm”: what does the Bible say? Every doctrine must be grounded in and measured by what God has said in his Word, Scripture. God has indeed given teachers to the church; we profit by them and are thankful for them. But it is “the Bible alone” that provides the standard of truth and error and of right and wrong.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The Bereans were treating Scripture as though it had a higher authority than man, which is what Sola Scriptura is essentially about, so it is the best example of Sola Scriptura is action, so I have no idea why you would not only reject it as an example, but consider it to be the opposite. In Acts 17:1-9, Paul did not speak on his own authority, but appealed to Scripture as his authority to persuade them. However, it does not say that the Jews who threw him out appealed to Scripture as their authority, but rather it says that they were jealous, so I again have no idea why you would consider this to be an example of following Sola Scriptura.

If they were treating sacred scripture as the sole authority, they wouldn’t have listened to St. Paul at all.

 

[Radagast]

If they were treating sacred scripture as the sole authority, they wouldn’t have listened to St. Paul at all.

I really, really, really, really, really, really, really wish that people who don't understand Sola Scriptura would stop talking about it.

The Gospel Coalition: The “formal principle” of the Reformation was this principle of “Scripture alone.” Whatever the church and others may have taught, it can be given no credence unless it conforms to this “norming norm”: what does the Bible say? Every doctrine must be grounded in and measured by what God has said in his Word, Scripture. God has indeed given teachers to the church; we profit by them and are thankful for them. But it is “the Bible alone” that provides the standard of truth and error and of right and wrong.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I really, really, really, really, really, really, really wish that people who don't understand Sola Scriptura would stop talking about it.

The Gospel Coalition: The “formal principle” of the Reformation was this principle of “Scripture alone.” Whatever the church and others may have taught, it can be given no credence unless it conforms to this “norming norm”: what does the Bible say? Every doctrine must be grounded in and measured by what God has said in his Word, Scripture. God has indeed given teachers to the church; we profit by them and are thankful for them. But it is “the Bible alone” that provides the standard of truth and error and of right and wrong.

I really, really wish the people who talk about “sola scriptura” would agree on a single definition.

 

[Radagast]

I really, really wish the people who talk about “sola scriptura” would agree on a single definition.

We did. Several centuries ago.

 

[thecolorsblend]

We did. Several centuries ago.

Oh? Why then do some people who profess belief in "sola scriptura" believe that scripture must affirm every doctrine while others believe it must not forbid a particular doctrine while still others recognize other authorities but simply believe scripture supersedes them all?

As with so many Protestant doctrines, the unity of belief is entirely illusory.

But more broadly, affirming "sola scriptura" tends to gloss over the reality that the ultimate authority is someone's interpretation. Were it otherwise, "sola scriptura" would produce doctrinal unity among those who profess it. But clearly that is not the case. Protestants can scarcely agree on how to make Kool Aid, much less matters of doctrine and theology.

Someone must interpret scripture. On this basic truth, Christians of both Protestant and Catholic extraction will agree. The real source of disagreement is the implied belief many Protestants have that they should be their own Magisterium.

In any case, the Bereans did not adhere to "sola scriptura". They relied upon tradition (albeit a relatively new one at that time) to shape their beliefs. They verified the unity of this new revelation with the existing revelation to which they had access. But, unless we completely redefine what "sola scriptura" means (which, admittedly, a lot of Protestants are clearly willing to do based on their total lack of agreement as to the definition of the term itself), we must conclude that the Bereans did not affirm, exhibit or accept a belief in "sola scriptura".

 

[Radagast]

nm

 

[HwtChirino]

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you." (John 16.13-15) (I don't see any mention of councils.)

This logic is not profitable to your point. I can just as easily confute the doctrine of the Holy Trinity by saying, "Oh, I don't see any where in the Scriptures where it mentions that God is Three Persons in One, All Co-Equal and Consubstantial and Fully God. Since Scripture doesn't exclusively say it, then I don't believe it."

Come on now... We should all believe in the Holy Trinity even though there is no explicit mention of this dogma in the Scriptures.

 

[Radagast]

I think it's pretty much time to put all the Catholics and Orthodox on ignore; because I see no prospect of having a civil discussion on anything.

 

[Soyeong]

If they were treating sacred scripture as the sole authority, they wouldn’t have listened to St. Paul at all.

Scripture alone is the highest authority, not the only authority. There is nothing wrong with listening to teachers and in fact that can be valuable, but if there is any conflict between what a teacher says and what Scripture says, then we should be quicker to disregard what the teacher says than to disregard what Scripture says. It is Solo Scriptura that says that the Bible is the only authority, so there is a difference between that and Sola Scriptura.

 

[ripple the car]

Scripture alone is the highest authority, not the only authority. There is nothing wrong with listening to teachers and in fact that can be valuable, but if there is any conflict between what a teacher says and what Scripture says, then we should be quicker to disregard what the teacher says than to disregard what Scripture says.

At face value, that seems like an awesome idea which *should work*. It should.

But look at Protestantism, friend. I am not saying that some Protestant denominations don't do a better job of sticking to Scripture than others, or that all are alike. I'd much, much rather worship with conservative Baptists than in a liberal Anglican parish, where I'd likely not be worshipping at all, and merely pray for everyone around me, including the female priest. And her domestic partner, Lizzie.

Scripture is awesome. It is Holy. It is True. But Protestantism itself seems like the best evidence that *we need help*. And not just from what we feel, hope, or presume the Holy Spirit is leading us to think, feel, or do. We need help.

 

[Soyeong]

At face value, that seems like an awesome idea which *should work*. It should.

But look at Protestantism, friend. I am not saying that some Protestant denominations don't do a better job of sticking to Scripture than others, or that all are alike. I'd much, much rather worship with conservative Baptists than in a liberal Anglican parish, where I'd likely not be worshipping at all, and merely pray for everyone around me, including the female priest. And her domestic partner, Lizzie.

Scripture is awesome. It is Holy. It is True. But Protestantism itself seems like the best evidence that *we need help*. And not just from what we feel, hope, or presume the Holy Spirit is leading us to think, feel, or do. We need help.

I agree that we need help, but I don't see how that is specific to Protestantism. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and Protestants are no different. You can could say that at face value refraining from pride is an awesome idea which should work, but the fact that we do a poor job of following a principle does not mean that it is not a good principle by which to live.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Scripture alone is the highest authority, not the only authority. There is nothing wrong with listening to teachers and in fact that can be valuable, but if there is any conflict between what a teacher says and what Scripture says, then we should be quicker to disregard what the teacher says than to disregard what Scripture says. It is Solo Scriptura that says that the Bible is the only authority, so there is a difference between that and Sola Scriptura.

So you believe in something more like "prima scriptura" then, it seems.

 

[ripple the car]

I agree that we need help, but I don't see how that is specific to Protestantism. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and Protestants are no different. You can could say that at face value refraining from pride is an awesome idea which should work, but the fact that we do a poor job of following a principle does not mean that it is not a good principle by which to live.

I agree, and clearly a Catholic or Orthodox Christian is just as able to fall into a private, incorrect view on something.

 

[Soyeong]

So you believe in something more like "prima scriptura" then, it seems.

From the all authoritative source of wikipedia:

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a theological doctrine held by some Christian denominations that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

The Scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the Christian Church, and so on. However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

 

[thecolorsblend]

From the all authoritative source of wikipedia:

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a theological doctrine held by some Christian denominations that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

The Scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the Christian Church, and so on. However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

 

[ripple the car]

From the all authoritative source of wikipedia:

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a theological doctrine held by some Christian denominations that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

The Scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the Christian Church, and so on. However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

A difficulty arises, though, when humans try to figure out what the Bible means. That is the major crux. Which inevitably leads to human thoughts / interpretations on what the Bible means, which leads to various schools of thought on what the Bible means, which in turn become a type of tradition interpreting Scripture in and of itself. With which someone will inevitably disagree, causing them to form their own school of thought / denomination / movement / sincere attempt to re-create Apostolic Christianity based on Scripture alone.

 

[ripple the car]

Everybody means well, but no one gets it right. Many come close, which is great, but still not perfect. And if Christ really did found a Church, it should keep saying the same thing and not turn away from itself.

 

[Soyeong]

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Solo Scripture and and Prima Scriptura both refer to the same concept, but with Prima Scriptura more precisely communicating the relationship between the Bible and other sources of authority.