Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[Dark_Lite]

The Bereans were not a good example of Sola Scriptura. The Thessalonians are actually a better example of the consequences of such an erroneous theology. The Thessalonians did exactly what Protestants do today. They argued against Paul with reasoning from the Scriptures. The Bereans were receptive to Paul's teaching, and though they checked it against the Scriptures, they did not question Paul's teaching. They are a good example of how to verify teaching, but a bad example of Sola Scriptura. Also keep in mind that it's not like they were checking the New Testament. They were checking the Old Testament.

 

[MamaZ]

The Bereans were not a good example of Sola Scriptura. The Thessalonians are actually a better example of the consequences of such an erroneous theology. The Thessalonians did exactly what Protestants do today. They argued against Paul with reasoning from the Scriptures. The Bereans were receptive to Paul's teaching, and though they checked it against the Scriptures, they did not question Paul's teaching. They are a good example of how to verify teaching, but a bad example of Sola Scriptura. Also keep in mind that it's not like they were checking the New Testament. They were checking the Old Testament.

can you expand more on the thessalonians?

 

[mark46]

I agree with your position, but I don't find the article especially strong.

For me, radical fundamentalism, or inerrant biblicism is a Tradition like any other, albeit with a much shorter history than that of orthodoxy. See below, An article I found interesting.
http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=943&journal=1&type=pdf

One can judge this view by the fruit of its proponents and their view of God as an authroritative judge enacting punishment on those who do not chose to accept (whether or not they have any real free will at all). I much prefer the God of Love, the parent who created us in His image and gave us the prevenient Grace of free will to accept the Way of Light, and the path of ongoing transformation and perfection.

I find sola scriptura (as it is understood by fundamentalists) as being totally unacceptable and also non-biblical, no matter how na=many times they repeat theri slogans "No creed but the bible" and "Everyone is their own interpreter". What utter prideful rubbish. One should be reminded that scripture does not speak of scripture as the ONLY authority, rather it tells us to listen to our traditions, what is passed down to through the apostles and even to that knoledge that we were yet too immature to receive.
==============================
PRIMA SCRIPTURA
Scripture is indeed the prime authority, and, properly transalted, interpreted, and understood, scripture does provide all that the "knowledge" we need for our salvation. All that means is that secret knowledge is not "needed". We all understand what we need to be justified, and yes this is certainly within scripture.

Scripture is also the final authority and standard of reference, the authority to which interpretations and teachings of the Holy Spirit must be judged. No doctrine shall be in conflict with scripture. That does NOT imply that there shall be no revelations of doctrine that is not in scripture.

Scripture MUST be viewed through the lens of Tradition. In the end, interpretations of scripture (and all Tradition) also must be viewed through the lens of reason the experience of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit DID NOT leave us orphans. He speaks to us today, individually and through His Church.

Scripture is indeed authoritative. After all, Jesus speaks of the OT as being inspired and useful for teaching, correctin, rebuking and teaching of rightiousness.

AND JUST BTW, WHAT SCRIPTURE ARE FUNDAMENTALISTS USING?
Jesus said the OT he used was God-breathed. Of course, he was using a Greek OT translated by the 70, the same OT that EO uses today, as translated from the Greek. Some OO use that same OT translated very early back into Aramaic, the language of Jesus. Are fundamentalists using this scripture or are they using the OT of the Reformation in which several books are omitted? Understand that it only Protestants that so limit the OT. EO, RCC, OO and Anglicans have more books in our OT. And which translation are we using?

With regard to the New Testament, we are all agreed on the 27 books of the canon. Why do we read only these holy books? There were many more. Perhaps fundamentalists have accepted the decisions of the Tradition of the undivided Church at Nicea and the decisions by the Tradition of the reformers to accept these 27 (Luther was overruled when he objected to the inclusion of Revelation and even some of the letters). Other books could have been inspired, but not canon. Should we reject these because of the decision of Athanasius to burn the offending volumes?

Or should we follow the those in the 1st century (perhaps before all this pesky tradition). If one follows the early Christians, certainly one read the Gospel of Thomas as scripture, and some of the others they held so dear (certainly much more so than Revelation).

Fundamentalists have 27 books yet reject the important of the Church and the Council that determined this canon. This makes little sense.

.

I came across this article a while ago:

The Practical Problems With Sola Scriptura

Protestant apologists, please read and counter the above criticism against sola scriptura.

Thanks!

 

[Dark_Lite]

can you expand more on the thessalonians?

Before Paul came to the Bereans, he was arguing with the Thessalonians. The difference between the two is not that one group checked teaching against Scripture and the other didn't but rather one group accepted the teaching of an Apostle of Jesus Christ and the other didn't.

 

[Rick Otto]

The Bereans were not a good example of Sola Scriptura. The Thessalonians are actually a better example of the consequences of such an erroneous theology. The Thessalonians did exactly what Protestants do today. They argued against Paul with reasoning from the Scriptures. The Bereans were receptive to Paul's teaching, and though they checked it against the Scriptures, they did not question Paul's teaching. They are a good example of how to verify teaching, but a bad example of Sola Scriptura. Also keep in mind that it's not like they were checking the New Testament. They were checking the Old Testament.

That's the testament I already said they were checking, & the fact they were checking constitutes "questioning" of validity - without arguing, which is why the Bereans are characterized "receptive", not that they didn't question.

 

[Rick Otto]

Before Paul came to the Bereans, he was arguing with the Thessalonians. The difference between the two is not that one group checked teaching against Scripture and the other didn't but rather one group accepted the teaching of an Apostle of Jesus Christ and the other didn't.

Sola Scriptura led the Bereans to acceptance.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Sola Scriptura led the Bereans to acceptance.

Not really, no. Most of the New Testament did not exist at this point in the history of Christianity. The Bereans examined the Old Testament.

The point is that just as much as Sola Scriptura led the Bereans to acceptance it also led many of the Thessalonians to rejection.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Dark_Lite;Not really, no. Most of the New Testament did not exist at this point in the history of Christianity. The Bereans examined the Old Testament.

"Sola Scriptura" includes both, it isn't "Sola NT Scriptura".

The point is that just as much as Sola Scriptura led the Bereans to acceptance it also led many of the Thessalonians to rejection.

Nonsense, brother. The Bereans were more noble for doing so. The Thessalonicans didn't bother with Sola Scriptura like the Bereans. Probably tradition-bound, judging from the rest of the text;
Acts.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.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Nonsense, brother. The Bereans were more noble for doing so. The Thessalonicans didn't bother with Sola Scriptura like the Bereans. Probably tradition-bound, judging from the rest of the text;
Acts.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.

Um.

The Thessalonians argued against Paul. What do you think they were using to argue against him with? They were using the Old Testament, just like the Bereans. The Thessalonians had their own interpretation of the Old Testament, and that's what they used to argue against Paul. It's precisely what Protestants do today.

Sola Scriptura doesn't work. It can't work. The divisions in Protestantism are a testament to that fact.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Dark_Lite;Um.The Thessalonians argued against Paul.

Um.
not all of them;
Acts17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

What do you think they were using to argue against him with? They were using the Old Testament, just like the Bereans.

I only think what only scripture tells me. It says the Bereans didn't argue at all, and it doesn't say the Thessalonian Jews who objected to the gospel did so using scripture at all.
This is what is says they used:
[5] But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
[6] And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
[7] Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
[8] And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.

The Thessalonians had their own interpretation of the Old Testament, and that's what they used to argue against Paul. It's precisely what Protestants do today.

Everyone has his own interpretation of what is rather plain text. Not everyone gets it right.

Sola Scriptura doesn't work. It can't work. The divisions in Protestantism are a testament to that fact.

I don't believe you know wht Sola Scriptura is & your concept of division is stunted.

 

[Chesterton]

Everyone has his own interpretation of what is rather plain text. Not everyone gets it right.

So which ones get it right? That's what we'd all like to know.

 

[mark46]

Yes, it will be great when we have the next Council of the Church. Until then, each of 30,000 churches has its own interpretation of Scripture. The large differences are among Protestants. Even there, Methodist, Presbyterians and Lutherans seem to have a solid common ground.

Personally, I do not believe that EO, CC, Anglican and these Protestants have huge dogmatic dividing issues. Re-union is not likely to happen in my lifetime. HOWEVER, the separation of the past between these ecclesial parts of the Church could be long gone in my lifetime, if the Holy Spirit wills.
=============================

So which ones get it right? That's what we'd all like to know.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Sola Scriptura defies the error of OT/Levitical, clergy/laity division, by allowing the entire priesthood of believers to verify NT revelations in OT prophecies, types & shadows.(..)

...and all come to different conclusions. Emphasizing individual opinion increases collective disagreement. The proof is in the pudding...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Btw, from my experience, I was not raised to see differences in protestant theology as trivial matters. My father and his brother nearly came to fisticuffs over issues of eschatology, the rapture, and the millenial reign. In our family, we spoke of those who didn't believe in a pre-tribulation rapture to be at best utterly confused, and at worst, hopelessly lost.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Btw, from my experience, I was not raised to see differences in protestant theology as trivial matters. My father and his brother nearly came to fisticuffs over issues of eschatology, the rapture, and the millenial reign. In our family, we spoke of those who didn't believe in a pre-tribulation rapture to be at best utterly confused, and at worst, hopelessly lost.

That's so sad...man.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

That's so sad...man.

Well the really sad thing was, we were not open to hearing other's opinions about it. That was our interpretation that we had been raised to believe (and my parents likewise), and we were going to defend it. To betray that was to betray what they learned from their parents, and so on. So it was in a way a carrying on of tradition, so to speak, only this tradition was imbedded in a particular interpretation of a particular portion of scripture.

 

[mark46]

The problem comes from one's view of scripture, tradition, reason and experience. One should always be allowed to discuss issues of doctrine and theological opinion. Dogma needs to be dealt with a bit more carefully, but this is not about dogma.

I would note that millenialism has been an issue that folks were arguing about before Christ's birth, shortly after, and ever since.
Premillennialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, when I recall the pastor, I and couple of others teaching about all the various options on one Sunday night when I was in the baptist church. We took the position that mid-tribulation pre-millennialism made the most sense. We were being wise guys, but our point was clear. This is not a matter of dogma, and not really very important to our lives as Christians.

What I found saddest was their timelines for the end of the world, and their constant looking at every
earthquake and hurricane as a sign that we are near the end. You would have thought this would have ended after all the nonsense around the year 2000, but it did not. They're at it again predicting the end of the world this year,
http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21/ or next
http://wwhttp://www.endoftheworld2012.net/bible.htmw.2012endofdays.org/more/Bible-Prophecy.php
Of course the Mayan think December this year or early next and Nostradamus thought 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon

Well the really sad thing was, we were not open to hearing other's opinions about it. That was our interpretation that we had been raised to believe (and my parents likewise), and we were going to defend it. To betray that was to betray what they learned from their parents, and so on. So it was in a way a carrying on of tradition, so to speak, only this tradition was imbedded in a particular interpretation of a particular portion of scripture.

 

[sunlover1]

So which ones get it right? That's what we'd all like to know.

The one's who get it that it's about love and not about 'rightness'.




IMHO

 

[GQ Chris]

So we have to have had "good nutrition" when reading the Scriptures in order to understand it? Hogwash. I have gained much wisdom from reading scripture and eating Ho ho's.

 

[GQ Chris]

It is the Holy Spirit that illumines scripture, not three squares a day.