I am interested in a conversation

This ought to be good

 

The foundation for this thread must be a source that we all accept as neutral and inerrant in the original autograph--and of course I am referring to the Wikipedia definition and explication!

"Sola Scriptura (Latin: by scripture alone) is a theological doctrine held by some Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

While the scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of subordinate authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of a denominated church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the catholic church, and so on - sola scriptura, on the other hand, rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all subordinate 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.

Sola scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations, and one of the five solae. It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by many of the Reformers, who taught that authentication of scripture is governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Some evangelical and Baptist denominations state the doctrine of sola scriptura more strongly: scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.[1]

By contrast, Anglicanism and Methodism, also considered forms of Protestantism, uphold the doctrine of prima scriptura,[2][3] with scripture being illumined by tradition, reason and experience as well, thus completing the four sides of, in Methodism, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.[4] The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that to "accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".[5] The Roman Catholic Church officially regards tradition and scripture as equal, as interpreted by the Roman magisterium.[6] The Roman Catholic Church describes this as "one common source ... with two distinct modes of transmission",[7] while some Protestant authors call it "a dual source of revelation"."

 

If you're not sola scriptura, then why don't you allow non-sola scriptura reasoning for sola scriptura? Scripture is the word of God. Your and my words are not the word of God. So, what then shall we follow?

Most theological differences are caused by rejection of the utmost authority of scripture. Catholics and cults proudly base theology on non-scriptural claims. In the Protestant church, we have liars and the the ignorant who reach conclusions that no honest or competent reading of scripture support, people who implicitly reject the authority of scripture else they wouldn't impose their unqualified claims upon scripture.

Scripture is the only common source of theology for Christians, therefor any other source causes differences.

 

Shoostie: "Scripture is the word of God...So, what then shall we follow?"

But the Gospels and other New Testament documents don't even claim to be "the Word of God." The New Testament does not even exist as a canonical collection of books until the 3rd century. So it does not and cannot comment on its own divine inspiration. So the distinction between revelatory intent and human cultural bias and distortion by the transmitters of God's Word needs to be recognized and addressed. The New Testament does not even claim that the Old Testament is inerrant. The inerrancy claim is a modern Fundamentalist imposition on Greek terms like "theopneustos" (2 Timothy 3:16) which the Greeks commonly use vaguely to allege the inspiration of Greek secular literature.

And what exactly do you mean by Scripture? Baptists here must remedy their deafening silence at repeated Catholic challenges on this site to identify a pre-Reformation source for precisely 66 canonical books, no more and no less. They must also address (1) Jude's use of revelatory material from The Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch and (2) Paul's citation of The Apocalypse of Elijah, using the standard phrase for Scripture, "It is written" (1 Corinthians 2:9). And, despite somewhat similar wording, no Greek wording of Isaiah 64:4 contains the same wording in the way that the Apocalypse of Elijah does!

shoostie: "Most theological differences are caused by rejection of the utmost authority of scripture."

On the contrary, most theological differences arise from the obvious fact that the Bible is not a book of systematic theology and is therefore incomplete in its revelation, leaving many important questions unanswered and left to our efforts to impose relevance and interpretive assumptions on certain texts to answer burning questions.

Shoostie: "Scripture is the only common source of theology for Christians, therefor any other source causes differences."
/
On the contrary, Scripture must be interpreted even to be translated and certainly to be understood; and interpretations by their very nature derive from extrabiblical sources--our notions of common sense, our denominational tradition, the harmonizations we impose on texts that many deem inconsistent with each other or at least not obviously coherent, etc.

The bottom line is this: even Fundamentalist Baptists rely heavily on early Catholic tradition without acknowledging it. I will demonstrate this with several examples as the thread develops.

 

Deadworm,

Your posts are logical and well-reasoned, and I appreciate them very much. What happens, though, when church doctrine contradicts scripture? Do you go with the church, or with scripture? That's what happened with me in the Eastern Orthodox Church on some doctrines. Bottom line: I chose scripture over "tradition" when tradition contradicted scripture. I asked this same question to a fellow Orthodox member once, and he said he would choose scripture, too. Without going into detail, I then asked him how he could remain Orthodox and explained to him why I could no longer be.

 

First things first. Nothing of orthodox Christian theology (Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) is based on non-scriptural claims, everything orthodoxy teaches is based in the Holy Scriptures- from the 1st sacrament to the 7th sacrament. The big difference that there is between us is how we interpret the Holy Writ and in the end that is all you folks have - a different interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

 

Time for you to look at the historical reality of all Christendom. Are you trying to tell me that God would allow a lie (orthodoxy) to be taught for thousands of years until suddenly, magically, some human stood up and started a new Christian sect to propagate the real truth? Okay, which new sect is now the purveyor of all Christian truth?

 

Have you read any of the Old Testament? Specifically Judges, Samuel, Kings...Josiah finding the Law?

 

In all fairness, most claim to believe Sola Scriptura. When the rubber meets the road, very few practice it.
The entire social justice mivement in the SBC is a back door evasion to being bound by Sola Scriptura

 

I've been asked this same question many times - and my answer is always the same:
The Church does not and cannot teach doctrines that are contrary to Scripture.

Jesus guaranteed this at the Last Supper, when He told the leaders of His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15). Scripture is the WRITTEN Word of God - not the WHOLE Word.

The same was true for the Jews. They were bound by the Written Word and the Oral teachings. The Church is the fulfillment of Judaism, so it is NOT surprising that it would be the same.
This is why Paul wrote the following to the Thessalonians:

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an oral statement OR BY a letter from us."

Conversely, the "traditions" of the pharisees that Jesus condemned in Matt. 15:9 were minor customs and perversions of other Traditions that they placed ABOVE the Word of God - both written and spoken.

 

I could, but it's already been done on this forum, several times.
If memory serves, I've seen threads in this section where people object to the term, as well as the concept...

That a believer's trust is in God alone ( Proverbs 3:5-7 ), His words alone ( Psalms 119:42 ), that men cannot be trusted, but that God can ( Psalms 118:8 ), that He is not a man that He should lie ( Numbers 23:19 ), that His word, that the believer is sanctified by, is truth ( John 17:17 ), and God's word goes so far as to say that people who trust other people, rather than God, are accursed ( Jeremiah 17:5-6 ).

Therefore, if a man teaches something other than what the word of God teaches, they are liars and cannot be trusted ( Romans 3:4 ).

Good question.

When you can find a man or a group that everyone who professes Christ agrees upon as being suitable to define it, please let me know.
For now, I will stick to the composite that I see in God's word, since that is what tells me that we as men are liars and He is the only one who can be trusted.


May His grace be shown to you, each and every day, sir.

 

I agree.

Now...
Which "church"?

What exactly do you see as "the church"?
Is it a physical entity, or a spiritual one made up of born again believers?

 

To me, anything written after the time frame of the apostles, and by the apostles, is not Scripture.
The whole word of God is Scripture.


Basically put, Magisterium, if that is what is being addressed here, is not valid.
If it deviates from Scripture one iota, Magisterium is disqualified as a combination of man's words and teachings, plus God's words and teachings.

God, who cannot lie, and man, who does.
The two are diametrically opposed to one another.

The only time a man's words are to be trusted as coming from God, is if they line up with God's perfect and written words.
Even then, quoted Scripture is often misused by false teachers ( who are known by their lack of spiritual fruits ), and believer's are to mark and avoid them.



As for traditions, anything taught contrary to Scripture is in essence not to be trusted or treated as coming from God.
Teaching the commandments of men as doctrines, is also elevating man's words above God's.

Men's teachings and God's teachings are not mutually compatible.



May God, in His grace, bless you, sir.

 

I cannot believe that I am going to respond to this but here goes.

There is a little thing called the internet that provides the type of information that you claim that you want to study. Might want to try it.
If you really want to study it then get Bruce Metzgers book on it or FF Bruce. They are both good

Here are a couple of my answers

Thank you for desiring to study the WoG!


The New Testament does not even exist as a canonical collection of books until the 3rd century.

Not true. Marcions list is known from about 140 AD or so


The New Testament does not even claim that the Old Testament is inerrant. The inerrancy claim is a modern Fundamentalist imposition on Greek terms like "theopneustos" (2 Timothy 3:16) which the Greeks commonly use vaguely to allege the inspiration of Greek secular literature.

The Church only adopted the OT. We did not write it. The Jews certainly understood it was inerrant and so did Jesus and the Apostles. Please see the every jot and tittle phrase and think it through logically.


And what exactly do you mean by Scripture? Baptists here must remedy their deafening silence at repeated Catholic challenges on this site to identify a pre-Reformation source for precisely 66 canonical books

Again, Marcion is generally believed to have listed the 66 first in 140 AD

 

. They must also address (1) Jude's use of revelatory material from The Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch and (2) Paul's citation of The Apocalypse of Elijah, using the standard phrase for Scripture, "It is written" (1 Corinthians 2:9). And, despite somewhat similar wording, no Greek wording of Isaiah 64:4 contains the same wording in the way that the Apocalypse of Elijah does!

I have dealt with this previously on here and here goes again. So what?
Yes, they use material not found in Scripture. This means that only the parts that are quoted are scripture NOT the entire written work.

 

What happens, though, when church doctrine contradicts scripture? Do you go with the church, or with scripture?

The Scripture is always right. Some scripture we may not understand, but we know it to be true. Always side with Scripture, it is what glorifies God the most since it is His Word.

 

Christ built ONE Church (Matt. 16:18-19, John 17:20-23).


MEN splintered that Church to the tune of tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering “denominations” of that ONE Church – which ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim they were “led” by the Holy Spirit.

Christ’s Church is BOTH spiritual AND physical.
He called His Church the “light of the world.” He said that His Church was like a “city on a hill that cannot be hidden.”

The Church is a visible body of believers – not some secret, invisible gaggle of “believers” around the world.

 

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an oral statement OR BY a letterfrom us."

Correct! Please notice the last few words “oral statement or letter FROM US”. The from us is the Apostles. Yes, I believe in Apoatolic Authority, but it ended w thr Apostles and yes Your So Called 1st Pope Peter was wrong and rebuked by Paul in Galatians. So much for Papal Authority