Sola Scripture?

What are you talking about? Is there anything more than the Holy Word of God? It's not just "scripture" it's God-breathed truth. What else would you base anything on? I don't understand this.

 

Hi Nate..it is good to meet you.

I understand your point and you make some good statements for debate... but one small thing. Your wrong.

You need to study history a bit closer. There are 3 major levels of authority systems that a church group ascribes to. This has been called "tradition 0", "tradition 1" and "tradition 2". The reformers hold to the tradition 1.

Tradition 0 is what you describe above. This was held by what was called the "radical reformers". The Radical Reformers challenged not only Roman Catholic doctrine and authority, but also that of other Protestant Reformers themselves, including figures such as Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and others. About the only remaining group today that comes from the radical reformers are the Mennonites. The Anabaptist were the longest group. The Baptist of today, did NOT come from this line of faith. Many today are trying to rewrite history in order to trace a blood line back to the Bible days with the Baptist being the "lone remanent" of the truth. This view is nothing other then "landmarkism"....a herasey of history.

The Radical Reformers were the only ones that held to Scripture only...or tradition 0

Tradition 2 is basically the Roman Catholic Church View. This means they hold to Scripture push 2 traditions as authority. The other 2 authorities are, a creed and the Church.

Reformers held to tradition 1..or Scripture and a creed as authority. Anyone that left the bounds of scripture or the creed writen to help interpret scripture was looked at as a group outside the faith....or a heretic.

The point you make is something we must deal with. We have people in the heath and welfare gospel, the name it claim it faith, the worshippers of a only ONE bible version, ..the list goes on..and on...ALL calling themselves the church. We are so afraid to speak up..because of what we THINK was the reformers views of solo scripture...for we do not want to go contrary to the reformers. Yet..this was not their view as you wrote above. They held to a creed with scripture also. We would not have this crazyness in the church, if we still held to a creed.


In Christ...James

 

The Baptist Creed of 1689

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

 

#1. In Acts 17:1-11 we see that "Sola Scriptura" was SOOO reliable, SO accurate, SO "blessed and approved" that EVEN NON-Christians could use it to validate THE APOSTLE Paul!!

You can not GET any more blatant than that!!

#2. To see the "result" of abandoning the Bible as your rule, standard and guide - for all doctrine... I refer you to the horrific errors introduced into Christianity in the dark ages. Purgatory, prayers to the dead, Mary "mother of God and sinless like Christ", "extermination of heretics", Priests with "magical powers", Bible burning for fear of what people might think if allowed to read the Bible...

The list of horrific dotrinal error in such an environment is almost endless! The "experiment was done" the dark ages are now a matter of historic record!

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is a false statement and a false misconception. I invite you to read the truth.

CHRISTIAN HISTORY

The primary and most important of all Baptist distinctives is that the Bible is the final authority in all things pertaining to faith and doctrine. This was taught by the prophets of the Old Testament (Isa.8:20), and by the Apostles of the New Testament (Acts 17:11). It is not new. It is Biblical.

This view of Scripture (esp. Revelation) holds no water, and in itself is unscriptural. The 7 churches in Revelation 2 and 3 were historic churches that existed at that time in the first century that Christ wrote to. They were actual historical churches. When one man in modern history arbitrarily decided to assign historical periods to each church, does that make it Biblical? Hardly! What if Christ doesn't come for another thousand years? Then will some scholar have to re-calibrate all the eras that the churches represent. Certain the era which the so-called "Laodicean Age" will have represented will far outweigh any of the other eras. The whole theory will have to be revamped according to more recent events of history. This interpretation is guess work, and has no basis in Scripture. To say that we live in the "Laodicean Age" is baseless and has no foundation in Scripture. How would John have known that??

Revelation 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

So was this church in Laodicea that Christ was addressing at the time of the first century that doesn't exist today. So your point is??

Your absolutely wrong. The authority is the Word of God, the Bible. It is always the Bible. There is no other authority, thus the term: sola scriptura--not sola homo sapien. In that you err.
Are you a Christian. Are you born again. Does the Spirit of God dwell within, bearing witness with your spirit that you are a child of God? If so then you will have no problem understanding these verses:

1 Corinthians 2:11-12 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
--The Spirit of God enables the believer to understand the Word of God, compared to the unbeliever.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
--No matter how hard you try, if one is unsaved they will not understand the Word of God, for they have not the Spirit of God to illuminate their minds of the truths contained in the Word of God.

Those who did right in their own eyes were not saved. Israel was far away from God, even following idols at that time, when that verse was written at the end of Judges. They had sunk into the depths of sin and idolatry. The last two or three chapters of Judges are some of the most gruesome chapters in the Bible.
On the other hand those that are born again, that is, have the Spirit of God dwelling in them, agree more than disagree on things of the Word of God. I would venture to say that the evangelicals on this board from different denominational backgrounds such D28Guy and myself have more in common when it comes to doctrine than the Catholics do without the Catholics going outside their own church. Why? Because we believe in sola scriptura, and because the Spirit of God illuminates our mind to the truth of God's Word. Our differences are relatively minor when compared to the differences that we both have with the RCC's.

I don't interpret Scripture. The Scripture has but one interpretation. It is my duty to study and find out what that interpretation is. What does God say through the Scriptures. My opinion and yours are worthless. "Thus saith the Lord," is what is important. God has an opinion. God has something to say to mankind. What is it? You had better put away your biases and find it out. That is our obligation.

Whoa there! Check your statistics and verify them, or at least give a link to wherever you got them from. If you ask Squire, or Dr. Bob, you might find that there might be close to about 300 different kinds of Baptists alone much less 300 different kinds of Protestants.

Study church history. It sounds like you havven't picked up a church history book at all. Have you ever heard of the Montanists, Cathari, Waldenses, Albigenses, etc. There have always been groups of beleivers outside the heretical Catholic Church which only origiinated in the fourth century. All of the above originated before the Catholic Church even came into existence. And there are many more besides these. They are just the first ones that popped into my mind without going into the history books.

Even that is not a true statement. The Baptists, though not called Baptists throughout the ages, believe that different groups of believers that believe as they believe, have existed outside the Catholic Church from the time of the Apostles onward. The same can't be said of other groups. The Catholic Church started with Constantine. The Lutheran Church started with Luther. The Calvinists or Presbyterians started with both Calvin and John Knox. And so it goes on. The Baptists have no such leader.

There never was "a church" but only churches. What "church" are you talking about? The church at Jerusalem, at Ephesus, at Antioch? Which church? The Bible only speaks of local churches. The word church has one meaning: congregation or assembly. To think that you can assembly all these assemblies together here on earth is ludicrous. God never intended for such an event to take place. Sola Scriptura is God's way for man to study himself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed but rightly dividing the Word of truth. Do you do that?
There is no other authority that we have but God's revelation to mankind. Is not God sufficient enough for you??
DHK

 

DHK, re the so-called Christian groups outside the Catholic Church - the same challenge to you as to Mike on the other thread - produce your documents from that time which support your claim.

 

Nate, you may be interested to know that we thrashed this out HERE about a year ago.

My main objection to SS is who has the authority to interpret Scripture?

 

Three possible choices come to mind:

1. Holy See Dogma

2. Holy See Dogma--reformed

3. The Holy Spirit leading born again believers in a New Testament Assembly.

"All of the above" is not a choice.

Choose wisely.

Selah,

Bro. James

[ April 18, 2006, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

Acts 17:1-11 invites us all to choose option 3.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Except that the Bereans only had the Old Testament - so I presume you're putting in a claim for 'sola OT' by proof-texting in this way?

 

I am MORE THAN happy to admit that the NT authors ALWAYS considered "Scripture to SUFFICIENT" as we also see in 2Tim 3 where AGAIN scripture is said to be "sufficient" and primarily refers to the OT!!

The fact that they ALSO allow for the NT text to eventually be added to that document as SCRIPTURE changes nothing about the OT scripture.

IF your argument is that "scripture is NOT sufficient we need the Pope to tell us what to believe" - then with only the OT in view your argument would need to be TEN fold that same point for they have NEITHER Pope NOR NT text to guide them in Acts 17!!

"YET" it is that VERY case -- NON Christians with only the "SCRIPTURES" that is STILL SUFFICIENT to judge EVEN the words of the Apostle Paul HIMSELF! And the write of Acts shows them to be blessed and approved for such methods!!

Hardly will one in your position today even allow a Christian to use that "sola scriptura method" with ALL 66 books! (Let alone just the scriptures of the NT saints (the OT)!

-- But these are NON CHRISTIANS and STILL being approved in using that SAME method with JUST the "scriptures in use by the NT saints" scriptures used as a test - a method that you condemn today even with Christians AND ALL 66 books!

How can you pretend not to see this?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I don't think anyone is making a case in favour of the Pope - Nate is Anglican after all and neither he nor I are Catholic.

You still have the basic problem of interpretation if you just have Scripture. Here's what I put on the old thread on that point;

I'd be interested to see what others have to say about that problem...

 

Except that in reality choice #3 has multiple subsections as there are a plethora of different assemblies of "born again New Testament believers", all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, yet who come up with contradictory interpretations of what the New Testament actually teaches on a variety of issues and who some times can't even agree on the who/what/when/how of "being born again".

(But there is a fourth choice.... )

 

God does not author confusion. Jesus said to the first assembly that He would send another Comforter to lead them is all Truth.

He is still keeping His promise. God is faithful, even when we are not.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Which church is the Pillar of Truth? Are you claiming that Roman Catholic Church is the only church?

Do you know that there were vast numbers of believers outside Europe, apart from Roman Church and Greek Orthodox?

God knows how many believers were in Asia, in India since the first century AD thru 16 c AD. but the people start to realize there existed millions of believers in India, China, Mongolia, Armenia, etc. They may have had their own tradition, which is Truth if the traditions of the churches are different and contradict each other?


What if you find Tradition contradict Bible Scriptures?

Here are the teachings for that:

Mark 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition , which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men , after the rudiments F8 of the world, and not after Christ.

Which would you choose to follow if Tradition and Bible Scripture contradict each other?

Would you say Tradition of Roman Catholic Church is always correct?

Sometimes even Pope or Council change the doctrines, they try to rescind Limbo, or they are quiet about No Salvation outside Holy Roman Catholic Church. They now retreat from Papal Infallibility to limit to Ex-Cathera.

What do you think about?

 

Same question to you - why do you assume that anyone is talking about the Catholic Church?

 

Minor point: The Holy See has never been lead by the The Spirit, The Holy, the Third Person of the Trinity which is referenced in Acts Ch. 2, who came to indwell the first assembly. He continues to indwell the New Testament Assembly even today. Mt. 16:18. This has nothing to do with papacy, never did. This is a pivotal scripture. The Holy See is authorized by this scripture or it is not. If it is, all others are schismatics and usurpers of authority. If the Holy See is without authority, then so are her daughters. This is the real dilemma for the majority of non-catholic Christendom--who has scriptural authority to baptize? Does it matter? Who cares?

This is also why the Holy See cannot be reformed---nihil ex nihil fit.

We have the commandments of men versus the doctrines of God's Word. Carnal man cannot understand the things of God--but he loves to follow men--and women--even though the path is into the ditch/pit.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

You're ignoring the Orthodox, there.

 

Yet there is no uniform agreement among sola Scripturists about the correct New Testament teaching on many important doctrines. Yet all claim to be going by the Bible alone with the Holy Spirit's guidance. Since they all can't be right, and the Holy Spirit does not author confusion, how am I to know which of those groups is telling the truth without falling into pure subjectivism? I mean, they all claim to have "an anointing" (if not a "burning in the bosom"), but how does one tell which group is actually getting it right without begging the question?

Selah.

True, God is faithful, but, again, how does one objectively determine which among the multitude of so-called New Testament assemblies of born again believers has the "faithful", correct interpretation of a given doctrine when many who profess the Holy Spirit's leadership fundamentally disagree?

Selah.