Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

[zoidar]

Someone made a good point earlier. Everyone is posting their case. It can go on and on. Using snippets from the Church Fathers to "prove" their point.

Jesus tells us to listen to the Church. He never told us to listen to the Bible. Is the Bible profitable? Absolutely.

In comes down to Authority. If you are obstinate and reject human authority, all you have left is the Bible, so therefore that argument is made.

I go back to the ante-nicene fathers, those who lived close to the apostles. Over time things tend to change in tradition and unbiblical things may sneak in. That's the danger of giving a church of today full authority.

 

[BobRyan]

But think about it. Everything isn't written down in the Bible. The apostles had more knowledge of matters that is written down.

"Sola scriptura" is about "testing" all doctrine - it is not an argument for "there is no useful information outside of scripture"

Most likely it's the same with those that knew the apostles. They could always ask the apostles about verses and chapters that was hard to understand. So the early Church is a very useful tool. God bless!

Indeed many useful.

But all tested by scripture so it is in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF the things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" we see both the usefulness of "things spoken by Paul" an apostle of the first order - of the first century -- and also the "testing of it" that is "sola scriptura".

 

[zoidar]

Good Day, Pete

Not sure how you are using tradition. I can say this the documentation line that represents what Scripture is historically is massive when compared to any documentary history for any other written work in antiquity.

History answers the question.

In Him,

Bill

"Sola scriptura" is about "testing" all doctrine - it is not an argument for "there is no useful information outside of scripture"



Indeed many useful.

But all tested by scripture so it is in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF the things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" we see both the usefulness of "things spoken by Paul" an apostle of the first order - of the first century -- and also the "testing of it" that is "sola scriptura".

Maybe I have the wrong use of the word "tradition".

Bill, your question how I use the word "tradition" gave me a thinker.

 

[concretecamper]

That's the danger of giving a church of today full authority.

I'm sorry, but people dont give the Church authority. Christ gave the Church authority. People are free to reject it or accept it.

 

[BBAS 64]

I'm sorry, but people dont give the Church authority. Christ gave the Church authority. People are free to reject it or accept it.

Good Day, Camper

No one here has stated that the church has no authority.... You may have missed it

Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

Even the church is under the infallible authority of Scripture.

In Him,

Bill

 

[zoidar]

I'm sorry, but people dont give the Church authority. Christ gave the Church authority. People are free to reject it or accept it.

You are very certain of your church organisation being the One Church. Makes me a bit sad. The body of Christ are those that are saved. If not saved you are not a member of the Church, even if you are a member of your church or any other church organisation, be it Christ gave it authority or not.

If we have our security in our church, we are on dangerous water. Memberships don't save anyone. It's a false security, that keeps us away from Christ.

 

[Albion]

Maybe I have the wrong use of the word "tradition".

Bill, your question how I use the word "tradition" gave me a thinker.

Every time this topic comes up, we get several different uses of the word and then most of the discussion goes off into Left Field somewhere, with posters not able to understand what the other person is saying.

Longstanding customs are called "traditions." That applies to religious practices as well as ordinary things that we do in society. They are not inherently good or bad.

In theology, the term is "Tradition" (in the singular but capitalized.) or, also, Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition. It refers to an extra-Biblical way of defining an essential doctrine--what one's church says is a necessary belief. This concerns a supplement to the Bible. One of the basics of Protestant Christianity is Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), meaning that what is essential to believe has to be in the Bible.

If the belief is already stated in the Bible, we're not talking about a doctrine by Tradition.

 

[concretecamper]

If the belief is already stated in the Bible, we're not talking about a doctrine by Tradition.

False.

The measuring stick used to determine which books were to be read at Liturgy was "did it agree with Sacred Tradition".

 

[Albion]

False.

.

Nope. That's it in a nutshell.

All you've done in reply is give readers an example of a mistaken use of the term Tradition or Sacred Tradition.

If the Bible is said to have been produced by a church council, then it has to be what they produced, right? That's obvious. And that means that its own contents which say it is the result of divine revelation and needs nothing in addition would govern the issue about us turning to something else like Tradition!

We wouldn't also have "Sacred Tradition" making dogmas out of the legend of Mary's Bodily Assumption into Heaven, Mary not being born witht sin like the rest of us, or the idea of Papal Infallibility.

 

[concretecamper]

If not saved you are not a member of the Church

Again, the Church according to scripture is not done unidentifiable thing.

even if you are a member of your church or any other church organisation, be it Christ gave it authority or not.

There is no record of Christ giving King Henry VII authority (founder of the Church of England) but there is scriptural record of Christ giving the Church Authority.

 

[concretecamper]

Nope. That's it in a nutshell.

All you've done in reply is give readers an example of a mistaken use of the term Tradition or Sacred Tradition.

Nope, they are free to research themselves and see who speaks the truth.

Btw, I didnt define Sacred Tradition. You may have read my response too fast, or maybe just assumed something. Re read it.

 

[Albion]

Btw, I didnt define Sacred Tradition.

I didn't say that you defined Sacred Tradition; I said that your reply gave us an example of how the term gets misused.

 

[Albion]

Again, the Church according to scripture is not done unidentifiable thing.
There is no record of Christ giving King Henry VII authority (founder of the Church of England) but there is scriptural record of Christ giving the Church Authority.

LOL
1. The topic here is not Henry VII.
2. Henry VII did not found the Church of England; nor did Henry VIII whom you did not mention. and
3. I'm the one here who's arguing for the reliability and sufficiency of Scripture!

 

[concretecamper]

I didn't say that you defined Sacred Tradition; I said that your reply gave us an example of how the term gets misused.

ah, becasue I exposed a mistake....sorry but truth needs to be told.

 

[concretecamper]

1. The topic here is not Henry VII.
2. Henry VII did not found the Church of England; nor did Henry VIII whom you did not mention. and

Henry VIII certainly did found the Church of England. Be proud!!!

3. I'm the one here who's arguing for the reliability and sufficiency of Scripture!

which is not a biblical position.

 

[zoidar]

Again, the Church according to scripture is not done unidentifiable thing.

There is no record of Christ giving King Henry VII authority (founder of the Church of England) but there is scriptural record of Christ giving the Church Authority.

Ok, how do i become part of the Church?

 

[concretecamper]

Ok, how do i become part of the Church?

follow what scripture tells you to do. Be Baptized and listen to Her.

 

[Albion]

Henry VIII certainly did found the Church of England. Be proud!!!

It's amusing how this fiction survives among members of certain denominations. Few of the people who parrot it ever give any reason for saying it, because they don't know. You didn't even know which king you were supposed to accuse! And it wasn't a typo because I've read it before.

 

[zoidar]

follow what scripture tells you to do. Be Baptized and listen to Her.

I still don't know what Church you mean Christ gave authority.

 

[concretecamper]

It's amusing how this fiction survives among members of certain denominations.

it is amusing how people try to distance themselves from this historical fact.

Few of the people who parrot it ever give any reason for saying it, because they don't know.

um, read history

. You didn't even know which king you were supposed to accuse! And it wasn't a typo because I've read it before

I'm proud to say Christ founded my Church, you be equally proud in The Church of Englands founder Henry VIII