Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[sheina]

That was in English.

Well, you could have fooled me!

A lot of people come to an 'understanding' of scripture. So when asked a question they may answer by posting scripture only, as if that answers the question

Scripture should answer the question.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

They do this because for them their interpretation of scripture just 'is' what they think it is.

More than likely, it is not "their" interpretation. Did you ever stop to think that the Holy Spirit just might be interpreting the Scripture through that person? After all, ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16) and no prophecy of Scripture is of any 'private interpretation' (2 Peter 1:20)

I pointed out an example of someone citing scripture about the word. That person supports sola scriptura because of this they just assume that the text they cited about the 'word' simply means the written word. Unfortunately it doesn't mean that at all... certainly not to me.

That is your own opinion, which is YOUR own 'private interpretation' of what that Scripture means. Since you obviously don't believe in Sola Scriptura, by what standard do you base this 'private interpretation'?

Simply citing the verses of the Bible as if it just means something 100% apparent doesn't work.

That doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by "as if it just means something 100% apparent doesn't work"?

There is nothing wrong with citing verses in the Bible when one is attempting to explain something biblical.

People interpret it differently.

Yes, they certainly do. That's why we have so many false teachings flying around.

 

[Montalban]

Well, you could have fooled me!

I'm sure of that!

Scripture should answer the question.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

There's nothing there that says ONLY Scripture is God inspired.

Let's try an analogy.

You have a bottle of milk. You pour some into a glass.

It would be true to say

"That glass is full of milk"

It doesn't mean "Only that glass has milk in it" - because you have also a bottle.

This very simple mistake is oft repeated by those believing in sola scriptura

They quote verses praising scripture, as if it means it's praising sola scriptura

What you cited supports scripture. It doesn't support scripture alone.

In point of fact scripture supports both that which is written and that which is not...

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

There you go, I've produced evidence from scripture that supports my position.

Hopefully you can try and do the same.

 

[sheina]

In point of fact scripture supports both that which is written and that which is not...

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

There you go, I've produced evidence from scripture that supports my position

No, you didn't.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 refers to traditions that have been handed down from the Lord's Apostles by inspired doctrine. (inspired doctrine is Scripture)

 

[Studious One]

In point of fact scripture supports both that which is written and that which is not...

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

There you go, I've produced evidence from scripture that supports my position.

Actually, that verse does not support your position.

Many of the doctrines that are taught today are contrary to the Word of God. Doctrines such as: Mary being full of grace, Mary being a perpetual virgin, Mary being queen of heaven, Mary being co-Mediatrix, Mary being co-Redeemer, Mary being Advocate, Mary being able to bless people in the hour of their death, the doctrine of Purgatory, the Rosary, etc.; all of these doctrines are contrary to the Word of God and therefore cannot have been passed on by the Apostles by word of mouth.

So, in reality, you have just taken a Scripture verse out of context to justify doctrines that are not of God.

 

[Montalban]

No, you didn't.

Yes, I did! Furthermore, you've disregarded what I said about your quotes relating to sola scriptura

2 Thessalonians 2:15 refers to traditions that have been handed down from the Lord's Apostles by inspired doctrine. (inspired doctrine is Scripture)

He doesn't say that. He says keep to that which is written, and taught by word of mouth.

He doesn't qualify it and say "Follow lessons in scripture taught by word of mouth and scripture."

In fact it makes no sense to do so because we know that the Apostles taught first, by going from place to place and talking in the synagogues, etc., and then wrote down some of their lessons.

Unless you think that Paul went from town to town with his lessons already written down and just showed them some kind of flash-cards?

When they taught, do you think that they just used Scripture?

If they did, then the OT would have sufficed and there'd be no need for the NT

 

[Montalban]

Actually, that verse does not support your position.

It says to keep to that which is spoken, and written. What do you think it means?

Many of the doctrines that are taught today are contrary to the Word of God. Doctrines such as: Mary being full of grace, Mary being a perpetual virgin, Mary being queen of heaven, Mary being co-Mediatrix, Mary being co-Redeemer, Mary being Advocate, Mary being able to bless people in the hour of their death, the doctrine of Purgatory, the Rosary, etc.; all of these doctrines are contrary to the Word of God and therefore cannot have been passed on by the Apostles by word of mouth.

So, in reality, you have just taken a Scripture verse out of context to justify doctrines that are not of God.

That's a non-sequitur, that's also irrelevant as you're citing many Catholic doctrines at me and saying that these aren't supported.

However let's stick with the non-sequitur. IF a teaching by 'tradition' is in error it does not stand that all teachings by word are in error.

By your 'logic' (and I use the term here in the most liberal of definitions), as there are many errors taught by scripture, then we can disregard scripture.

This is not a position I advocate, I'm just applying YOUR logic.

Furthermore, the doctrine of the Trinity is set out not in the Bible, but in Church Council.

True it is based on the Bible, but the Bible can, and has been used to also support heresies in relation to the Trinity.

It can be used to support homoousios, as well as Homoiousianism, Homoianism and Heteroousianism ideas.

 

[Montalban]

There's a lot of knee-jerk reactions from Protestants. The moment someone debates against sola scriptura they're assumed to be

a) Catholic

and/or

b) debunking Scripture

This sort of reaction is a problem I think, because it shows a lack of thought about what's being said.

 

[sheina]

It says to keep to that which is spoken, and written. What do you think it means?


That's a non-sequitur, that's also irrelevant as you're citing many Catholic doctrines at me and saying that these aren't supported.

However let's stick with the non-sequitur. IF a teaching by 'tradition' is in error it does not stand that all teachings by word are in error.

By your 'logic' (and I use the term here in the most liberal of definitions), as there are many errors taught by scripture, then we can disregard scripture.

This is not a position I advocate, I'm just applying YOUR logic.

Furthermore, the doctrine of the Trinity is set out not in the Bible, but in Church Council.

True it is based on the Bible, but the Bible can, and has been used to also support heresies in relation to the Trinity.

It can be used to support homoousios, as well as Homoiousianism, Homoianism and Heteroousianism ideas.

Any heresy can be supported by Scriptures...it happens all the time. It's called "wresting the Scriptures"

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[Montalban]

Any heresy can be supported by Scriptures...it happens all the time. It's called "wresting the Scriptures"

I agree. It refutes what Studious One is doing.

He's rejecting ALL tradition based on some traditions he thinks are in error.

The problem with sola scriptura is that it provides so many divisions and errors. And it's not based on scripture.

 

[Thekla]

Um... God.

Jesus did rebuke the devil you know, using "it is written..."

Jesus said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

He also said, "It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’”

And again, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

And then Satan left Him. Jesus defeated Satan using "IT IS WRITTEN..." He defeated Satan with Scripture.

So that Jesus Christ is God had nothing to do with it ?

Satan said "it is written" and quoted Scripture; if Scripture is what defeats, why didn't Satan "win" with Scripture ?

 

[Thekla]

So Jesus' "it is written" isn't a good argument?

Of course Satan can counterfeit theology. He can introduce traditions into the church, cause schisms in the church, and draw people's conscience astray by forcing them, brainwashing them, threatening them to trust things that are not right. Adding more entities that Satan can counterfeit doesn't resolve this issue.

Is the tradition of Sola Scriptura immune from this ?

 

[heymikey80]

Is the tradition of Sola Scriptura immune from this ?

That depends on where you mean to ask about its immunity.

According to Scripture the human mind deceives itself, or evil people also deceive others. So sola scriptura is consistent with this viewpoint. Scripture can't be broken, either, so immunity on that level is also self-consistent.

But if you're asking whether an advocate of sola scriptura is immune to deception: no, they're not. Scripture says what it says. Humans are inherently sinful interpreting God's words.

On the other hand, councils are fallible. They are not immune from deception, neither is the church immune from deception.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

So that Jesus Christ is God had nothing to do with it ?

Satan said "it is written" and quoted Scripture; if Scripture is what defeats, why didn't Satan "win" with Scripture ?

You really seem to be grasping at straws here, Thekla. Of course Jesus is God and He had everything to do with it. It's HIS word. And how can satan possibly 'win' against God?! He tried to overpower God once and you can find out in Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 just what happened to him when he tried. No one can 'win' against God, Thekla. But God has given us His word to use against satan and defeat him. His word is the Sword of the Spirit in Ephesians 6:17 and the two-edged sword in Hebrews 4:12. Satan tried to tempt Jesus, but He overcame the devil's attack with Scripture, His word. He gave us an example of just how to overcome satan's attacks in our own lives. God said that His word would not return to Him to void and it would accomplish what He set it out to do (Isaiah 55:11).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by heymikey80 So Jesus' "it is written" isn't a good argument?

Is the tradition of Sola Scriptura immune from this ?

Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for KJV
("it is written")
occurs in 80 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 4 inexact matches (Jos 8:31 - Mat 26:24)

Last time used in Bible:

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Young) 1 Peter 1:16 because it hath been written, `Become ye holy, because I am holy;'


Textus Rec.) 1 Peter 1:16 dioti gegraptai agioi genesqe oti egw agioV eimi

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

LLOJ, there is also Romans 1:16-17.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'”

And there is 1 Peter 1:22-23.

"Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God."

 

[Thekla]

That depends on where you mean to ask about its immunity.

According to Scripture the human mind deceives itself, or evil people also deceive others. So sola scriptura is consistent with this viewpoint. Scripture can't be broken, either, so immunity on that level is also self-consistent.

But if you're asking whether an advocate of sola scriptura is immune to deception: no, they're not. Scripture says what it says. Humans are inherently sinful interpreting God's words.

On the other hand, councils are fallible. They are not immune from deception, neither is the church immune from deception.

If no human is immune from deception, how can Sola Scriptura be excluded ? It is, for example, Arius who wandered from Tradition and promulgated false teachings derived from Scripture. What makes Sola Scriptura different ?

 

[GQ Chris]

Okay... have we accomplished anything here yet? If I am not to believe Scripture? What should I believe, shall I just toss scripture aside?

 

[Thekla]

You really seem to be grasping at straws here, Thekla. Of course Jesus is God and He had everything to do with it. It's HIS word. And how can satan possibly 'win' against God?! He tried to overpower God once and you can find out in Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 just what happened to him when he tried. No one can 'win' against God, Thekla. But God has given us His word to use against satan and defeat him. His word is the Sword of the Spirit in Ephesians 6:17 and the two-edged sword in Hebrews 4:12. Satan tried to tempt Jesus, but He overcame the devil's attack with Scripture, His word. He gave us an example of just how to overcome satan's attacks in our own lives. God said that His word would not return to Him to void and it would accomplish what He set it out to do (Isaiah 55:11).

You seem to argue He overcame Scripture with Scripture.
But Jesus Christ did not overcome Satan with Scripture alone.

IMO, the Scripture LLoJ wave quotes points to something quite important; be becoming holy ... Scripture must be energized in us (per Paul), we must live Christ to understand Scripture.

(And to add, we keep all that has been handed over which includes the "crown" of what has been handed over - Scripture )

 

[Ortho_Cat]

On the other hand, councils are fallible. They are not immune from deception, neither is the church immune from deception.

Well, we do have one promise:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

 

[GQ Chris]

So one has to be an Orthodox Christian otherwise they're not part of God's church?