Sola Scriptura Does NOT mean use Just The Bible!

[JesusFan]

This doctrine does not mean that baptists must use only the Bible to study and teach from, but it is to be our "only" authotatative source of revelation from God, but still able to use other authors/books to learn, correct?

Not wrong to use Calvin, Grudem, Erickson etc for theological helps, but Bible ONLY authoritative source?

 

[MB]

Books other than the Bible is not sola scriptura. The term means scripture alone. We all read other books however when they disagree with scripture, scripture is the only athority.
MB

 

[jbh28]

Books other than the Bible is not sola scriptura. The term means scripture alone. We all read other books however when they disagree with scripture, scripture is the only athority.
MB

Which is what the OP said. We should use others to help in study. Pastors are good for this. With that being said, Scripture is the final authority(sola scriptura) and when a book is different from the Bible, the Bible wins.

 

[webdog]

sola scriptura means simply Scripture is our ultimate authority as it is God breathed. Nothing to do with reading anything but the Bible.

 

[Luke2427]

This doctrine does not mean that baptists must use only the Bible to study and teach from, but it is to be our "only" authotatative source of revelation from God, but still able to use other authors/books to learn, correct?

Not wrong to use Calvin, Grudem, Erickson etc for theological helps, but Bible ONLY authoritative source?

Yes. Exactly.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. Exactly.

Thought that was the case!

So why then do some accuse those of us falling into cal camp to be "just using Calvin" and not Bible, that we can ONLY use Bible alone for theology?

 

[preachinjesus]

Ah yes, the Calvinist spin had to come in at some point...

 

[webdog]

Thought that was the case!

So why then do some accuse those of us falling into cal camp to be "just using Calvin" and not Bible, that we can ONLY use Bible alone for theology?

The reason is it contradicts Scripture, the final authority.

Are you implying we CAN'T use the Bible alone for theology? People do it every day all over the world.

 

[JesusFan]

The reason is it contradicts Scripture, the final authority.

Are you implying we CAN'T use the Bible alone for theology? People do it every day all over the world.

Nope, just was saying that it can be both!
With scripture ALWAYS having authority to "trump" ANY doctrines by any other source!

 

[TomVols]

sola scriptura means simply Scripture is our ultimate authority as it is God breathed

(Emphasis mine)

Webdog gives a good qualifier here: as Scripture was breathed out by God, we rely on it as our final authority. While the church should utilize consensus and creeds, catechisms and statements of faith are useful and profitable, the Word of God alone possesses divine authority.

Nothing else does. Not our interpretations, not our speculations, not our...well, anything. Only God's Word carries its authority by its organic inspiration.

This is a warning to those who would follow teachers, creeds, and teachings that are void of Biblical basis.

Jesusfan wrote:

So why then do some accuse those of us falling into cal camp to be "just using Calvin" and not Bible, that we can ONLY use Bible alone for theology?

This is really off topic. Everyone throws this accusation around. But it's just as fallacious to bait people into it as it is to make it. Which is why when Webdog states:

The reason is it contradicts Scripture, the final authority.

...this is certainly Webdog's opinion. You and I might say Webdog's opinion contradicts Scripture, the final authority. But again, why do so based on the OP? It's just ridiculous.

 

[TomVols]

Administrative note

If we'd like to discuss whether or not Sola Scriptura means what it means, fine. But if this continues down to another "Why my soteirology is right and yours is wrong," let's close her down. It's off topic.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If we'd like to discuss whether or not Sola Scriptura means what it means, fine. But if this continues down to another "Why my soteirology is right and yours is wrong," let's close her down. It's off topic.

Heavens Tom.....I wish I had that authority! :laugh:

 

[Winman]

Read whatever you want, who's stopping you?

I simply look at it this way, if I want to truly know and understand God, why would I read a book written by fallible man, when I can read the book written by God himself?

I am not saying it is not useful to read what theologians have to say on occasion. If you come across a difficult passage of scripture that is hard to understand, I will on occasion consult a commentary. When I do so, I usually try to look at several commentaries to get different points of view. I look at the arguments and supporting scripture and then compare them to the Bible to see if they are correct.

But honestly, just my personal opinion, I have never found commentaries by theologians very helpful. I had a great pastor years ago, very knowledgeable of the scriptures. He once told me he quit reading commentaries years ago. I asked him why, and he said that the same passages that gave him difficulty also gave the theologians difficulty. They weren't any more certain of the correct interpretation than he was when he read it. So, he said he just asks God to help him understand difficult scripture.

And I have found this great advice. Oh, I know many will disagree, but I have found if you study enough, and ask God to help you understand the scriptures, he will.

Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

This is a wonderful promise, but it is conditional. You have to really BELIEVE it.

I do find books on history useful. It is helpful to know and understand how people lived in ancient times, this often will help a person to better understand scripture. For instance, our pastor preached this week on Genesis chapter 15.

Gen 15:9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.
12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

Gen 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Our pastor explained this covenant or treaty. It had some long theological name I can't remember. But in ancient days when kings would make treaties, they would cut animals in half and separate one end of their body from the other forming an aisle. Then they would walk through the center of the animals and say, "May I be as these animals if I do not perform my oath!" Then the other party would do the same thing.

In this particular story, only God walked through the divided animals. In other words, he was going to keep his oath or promise to Abraham. But he did not require Abraham to swear to be faithful to him.

The Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant. God made promises to Abraham that required nothing of Abraham. Genesis 15:18-21 describes a part of the Abrahamic Covenant, specifically dealing with the dimensions of the land God promised to Abraham and his descendants.

Perhaps someone here knows the name of this type of covenant, I can't remember, it was a difficult name, and my pastor said it is even harder to spell!

Edit- I found it with a little looking online, it is called the Ketoctin Covenant (I think).

 

[TomVols]

Winman wrote:

I had a great pastor years ago, very knowledgeable of the scriptures. He once told me he quit reading commentaries years ago. I asked him why, and he said that the same passages that gave him difficulty also gave the theologians difficulty.

With all due respect to your pastor (whom I praise God for along with you), this is not a very good reason to abandon commentators who happen to be theologians. Is the alternative to only use the commentaries penned by exegetes? At any rate, while there may be "troublesome" or difficult passages, the answer is not less help, but more help. Why not utilize those who have sought God as I have to give me help?

And I have found this great advice. Oh, I know many will disagree, but I have found if you study enough, and ask God to help you understand the scriptures, he will.

I don't know if anyone would disagree with you. However, if you are attempting to dichotomize between a "seeking God" vs. reading and study, then yes, of course one would have to disagree with you.

For instance, our pastor preached this week on Genesis chapter 15......

Sounds like someone read a commentary by a theologian :tongue3:

Grace and peace to you! :jesus:

 

[jaigner]

I simply look at it this way, if I want to truly know and understand God, why would I read a book written by fallible man, when I can read the book written by God himself?

Of course, one could also say "Why read the KJV when you could read a more accurate translation." This kind of logic doesn't pan out in the end.

I agree pretty much with the OP here, and I appreciate the distinction given between nuda scriptura and sola scriptura. It also bears mentioning that there are many very helpful resources when it comes to biblical interpretation, as well, such as commentaries, ANE history, etc.

Those are not authoritative sources, but they help us understand the Bible.

 

[Winman]

Winman wrote:

With all due respect to your pastor (whom I praise God for along with you), this is not a very good reason to abandon commentators who happen to be theologians. Is the alternative to only use the commentaries penned by exegetes? At any rate, while there may be "troublesome" or difficult passages, the answer is not less help, but more help. Why not utilize those who have sought God as I have to give me help?

If that's what you want to do, fine. But what do you do when theologians disagree? For example, I have read there are three popular explanations for Original Sin, and each refutes the other two. So, how do you know what is correct? Wouldn't you have to go to scripture?

I don't know if anyone would disagree with you. However, if you are attempting to dichotomize between a "seeking God" vs. reading and study, then yes, of course one would have to disagree with you.

I'm OK with you disagreeing with me.

Sounds like someone read a commentary by a theologian :tongue3:

He went to college as did my pastor who did not like commentaries. Knowing the fancy theological name for this covenant was no big deal to me, however I found learning about this ancient form of treaty very interesting. I am not against learning if it is useful. Understanding this covenant was useful, knowing a fancy theological term was not (for me).

 

[Winman]

Of course, one could also say "Why read the KJV when you could read a more accurate translation." This kind of logic doesn't pan out in the end.

I agree pretty much with the OP here, and I appreciate the distinction given between nuda scriptura and sola scriptura. It also bears mentioning that there are many very helpful resources when it comes to biblical interpretation, as well, such as commentaries, ANE history, etc.

Those are not authoritative sources, but they help us understand the Bible.

I would disagree that other versions are more accurate, but this is not the forum for those discussions.

I have read books by scholars, one reason I am KJVO is because of many books I read on the subject years ago. But that is the point, there are many scholars who do not support the KJB. Where does that leave you?

So, in the end you have to drop your anchor somewhere or you will be swept away by endless theories. My anchor is the scriptures.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Of course, one could also say "Why read the KJV when you could read a more accurate translation." This kind of logic doesn't pan out in the end.

I agree pretty much with the OP here, and I appreciate the distinction given between nuda scriptura and sola scriptura. It also bears mentioning that there are many very helpful resources when it comes to biblical interpretation, as well, such as commentaries, ANE history, etc.

Those are not authoritative sources, but they help us understand the Bible.

Personally, I'm a prima scriptura guy.

WM

 

[quantumfaith]

Read whatever you want, who's stopping you?

I simply look at it this way, if I want to truly know and understand God, why would I read a book written by fallible man, when I can read the book written by God himself?

I am not saying it is not useful to read what theologians have to say on occasion. If you come across a difficult passage of scripture that is hard to understand, I will on occasion consult a commentary. When I do so, I usually try to look at several commentaries to get different points of view. I look at the arguments and supporting scripture and then compare them to the Bible to see if they are correct.

But honestly, just my personal opinion, I have never found commentaries by theologians very helpful. I had a great pastor years ago, very knowledgeable of the scriptures. He once told me he quit reading commentaries years ago. I asked him why, and he said that the same passages that gave him difficulty also gave the theologians difficulty. They weren't any more certain of the correct interpretation than he was when he read it. So, he said he just asks God to help him understand difficult scripture.

And I have found this great advice. Oh, I know many will disagree, but I have found if you study enough, and ask God to help you understand the scriptures, he will.

Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

This is a wonderful promise, but it is conditional. You have to really BELIEVE it.

I do find books on history useful. It is helpful to know and understand how people lived in ancient times, this often will help a person to better understand scripture. For instance, our pastor preached this week on Genesis chapter 15.

Gen 15:9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.
12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

Gen 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Our pastor explained this covenant or treaty. It had some long theological name I can't remember. But in ancient days when kings would make treaties, they would cut animals in half and separate one end of their body from the other forming an aisle. Then they would walk through the center of the animals and say, "May I be as these animals if I do not perform my oath!" Then the other party would do the same thing.

In this particular story, only God walked through the divided animals. In other words, he was going to keep his oath or promise to Abraham. But he did not require Abraham to swear to be faithful to him.



Perhaps someone here knows the name of this type of covenant, I can't remember, it was a difficult name, and my pastor said it is even harder to spell!

Edit- I found it with a little looking online, it is called the Ketoctin Covenant (I think).

I was going to suggest "Suzereignty" Covenant

 

[quantumfaith]

Personally, I'm a prima scriptura guy.

WM

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

I have read the "didache" (sp) and was amazed how much of the "language" and phraseology in that early christian document is "borrowed' and used by authors of the NT canon.