Sola Scripture?

So what happens when two people both claiming the "anointing" come up with diametrically opposed interpretations of the Scripture? What then--does a third party also claiming the "anointing" referee, either siding with one or the other or declaring both wrong? And how does one know this third person actually has the "anointing" and is getting it right? The "anointing" doesn't contradict itself, does it?

 

I believe that Sola Scriptura has the biblical suppport as well.

If we think any human doctrine or human teaching is equal to the Words of God or anyone can replace the Words of God with any scholars opinion or with any Tradition, then it means we are considering those as a kind of another Bible.
If anyone here believes that there exist anything which can abolish the Words of God, please show us here. I can evaluate and will let you know what is wrong with it.

If Sola Scriptura is not the doctrine in the Bible, the following verses would have not stood.

Deut 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverb 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


If there is any doctrine or any teaching other than the Bible Scripture which can be equal to Bible or which can supersede the Bible Scripture, or anything which can abolish or replace the Words of God, then it means that there exist another God which can be equal to the only True God, which can hardly be claimed by any True Believers in Jesus Christ.

No one can present anything equal to Bible or any literature or any doctrine which can supersede the Bible Scripture.
If any tradition contradict Bible, then the tradition is invalid. If the Tradition is the same as Bible, then such tradition is not necessary because Bible covered it already. Therefore Sola Scriptura is quite Biblical and correct.

 

I don't think anyone is denying the authority and sole authorship of the original manuscripts. We are talking about understanding what the scriptures are all about. For this we use historical context, timely customs, original recipients and trying to understand how they understood the words of God delivered to them.

We can also examine what godly people have said about the given texts. Isn't this the purpose we consult commentaries on the scriptures? Isn't this why we exam history texts?

Isn't this why we study creeds and church documents passed on down through the centuries?

If we totally ignore history then we do a disservice to the scriptures at hand. In this sense we reject sola scriptura because we don't have the original documents and we depend on the works of men to pass on that information.

If tradition contradicts what we perceive the Bible in our hands is saying, it may just mean that our perception is wrong, and we ought to correct it.

Cheers,

Jim

 

And this is a sensible and Scriptural approach.

 

Galatien,

Wheres this "crashing"? I've never seen any of that.

Your right. The source of the scriptures is Almighty God.

And He is the authority, and interpreter.

Praise God for it!

These were the regular folk. Using the scriptures alone to check out the apostle Paul to make sure what he was teaching was true.

And they were commended for doing that.

God bless,

Mike

 

Mike

 

Jim,

Thats the Holy Spirits job.

Hmmmm, yes, but always understanding that God is also speaking directly to us right now.

Yes, but always being more concerned with what God is saying to us right now.

Thats all well and good, but we never never never never NEVER consider what those reputable teachers and commentaries say as authoritative.

Personally I have absolutly no concern with creeds. They are 100% irrelavent in my experience.

Church documents from long ago are interesting as history, but I turn to the scriptures to hear from God and for doctrine.

In this sense we...?

No. In this sense you can reject sola scriptura, but please dont speak for me.

When Almighty God takes the time to clearly thunder home the truth that we are to turn to the scriptures ALONE as our authoritative truth standard, I am not going to decide that I know better.

If its a clear contradiction, than the tradition is to be thrown on the dung heep because what God says in His scriptures is absolutely true.

God bless,

Mike

 

i havn't read much of this thread... a litle bit. but yah. I bought this cd today. and one of the songs is titled "sola scriptura" ha. so i thought i'd post the lyrics eh.

Sola Scriptura

Verse 1: Lately man its been some problems the scriptures have been under attack and that’s crazy/ see God’s word is the final authority I’m sorry there’s no way you can sway can’t persuade me/ the holy scriptures is the only sufficient certain and infallible rule for the Christian/ nothing can be added at all so you can keep your revelation and religious traditions/ the-op-nyoo-stos (theopneustus) its God breathed/ 2 Timothy 3:16/ because the scriptures are the only example of God breathed revelation in possession of the church/ they form the only infallible rule of faith for and which we base the church/ let’s talk about inspiration/ God’s the author no mistaken man

Hook: Let me hear ya say yeah (yeah) REPEAT/ (S-O-L-A SCRIPTURA) REPEAT/ it’s the Bible man B-i-b-l-e/

Verse 2: People pick pick and choose/ what they will and won’t use from the holy scriptures/ but the Bible is not just a book that you can just look through and see what fits ya/ naw dawg it’s tota scriptura/ all of scripture/ was told by John Calvin/ so if you LDS Jehovah’s Witness or if you Roman Catholic/ please don’t insert your own authority in place of the scriptures that’s backwards/ the scriptures are perfect and they are able to guide the people of God into the truth God/ 1689 Baptist Confession is my point of reference in which I use for ya’ll/ how I’m talkin’ about sola scriptura but I’m using the confession I’m confusin’ ya’ll nope!

there ya have it.
gek.

 

gekko...

If thats rap then ((((THANK YOU!!!))) for only posting the lyrics and not posting a link to the "music"!

Seriously, those are good lyrics for sure.

God bless,

Mike

 

hahaha. i didn't have a link to the music... lol. but i wouldn'ta posted the music cause i know ya'lls view on that. haha.

God bless

 

....which is why we needed the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople to clarify the position ie: the whole Episcopate, not just individual Bishops.

No, it comes down to a need to trust what Jesus said when he said to His Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all Truth.

 

you have provided no "guide" telling us WHICh "voice of tradition" you prefer to listen to instead of "sola scriptura".

I have offerred the "non RC" option dumping sola scriptura and selecting another source ... namely "the hot dog vendor" - (virtuous and not tainted by the history of the dark ages of course).

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]No, I would accept the Episcopate, being the valid successors of the Apostles, and not just one (Western) part of it.

 

Thats the Holy Spirits job.

</font>[/QUOTE]I think we all agree on that point. Where we disagree is as to how exactly the HS does that. You and other SS-ists would say that He does this through individuals; DT and others including me have pointed out that, since that results in contradictory doctrines, that cannot be so, and that therefore the HS must work on a more corporate, collective basis

 

Matt,

Individuals and sometimes groups who all hold to sola scriptura.

Different does not always mean contradictory.

Many times 2 sides of an issue compliment one another beaufifully. Other times 2 different sides are noticing different "facets" of the same truth. And when they is a conflict, they serve as a great checks and balances system to prevent the kind of mind numbing overflow of unchecked heresy, idolatry and blashphemy as exists in the Catholic Church.

Of course it can. Its a very very healthy thing.

Many times God does indeed work that way.

But never through cultic and blashphemous groups like the Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons and the Catholic Church. Never through any organisation that proclaims that they and they alone are inerrant doctrinally, and that the members of the group are to never turn to the scriptures and test the group against those scriptures.

The regular folk in Berea were commended because they took it upon themselves to test the Apostle Pauls teaching up against the scriptures.

God bless,

Mike

 

No, I mean contradictory: DT has already given you the example of how the Calvinist god cannot co-exist with the Arminian god, since they are fundamentally different beings.

As far as I'm concerned Jesus' promise to His Apostles - and their successors - about the Holy Spirit leading them into all Truth, is good enough for me.

 

Sometimes these discussions remind me of three blind men describing an elephant...

 

Well, everybody is claiming to back it up. They just use different methods than yours, that's all.

No?Well,

That's what I was talking about, if you are referring to what you would see in an EOC mass today. All of that was omitted from the writings, and I have to trust you, or certeain "fathers" that they got it all wholesale fromt he apostles.

Then Galatian added:

But all that extravagant liturgy (which is what I am getting at) is not the SOURCE of the scripture. That proves what I have been saying. The true "oral traditions" are the same teachings and practices you do see written int he text. It just might be certain situation applications of them to specific congregations or individuals that might be missing. But it is nothing like all of the later Church's additions. That is quite a stretch to say that all of that was there, and the apostles Church was identical to the modern EOC, but it was all just omitted from the writings. Just face it. You're only trying to porject unbiblical teachings back, just like all the other groups you point out. And going to the fathers does not help, because all they show is the later practices gradually coming in. What you;re trying to suggest is that the whoile body of EOC practice was there all along, and it was only gradually slipped out in text by the fathers, proving it was already there. But that is a shoddy reading of history, and not any real substantiation.

That was actually based on what I am learning about what some things meant to the original readers, like things happening "shortly", in their generation.

Oh, I think you misunderstand. The rapture I was talking about was not the same as the "pre-trib" theory most believe today. I have never believed in that.

Still, you like them, are putting the cart before the horse, and making your group the standard by which this is judged. When asked to substantiate it, you just come up with a method of projecting the teachings back, and then it cycles arond to your church being the standard. That's what everyone else does, too.

You mean the later church, which had already developed a certain way, and was still not free from corruption, though they may have gotten most of the cardinal truths somewhat right.
(Do you actually believe that any prayers and hymns the EOC uses today, not written down in the scripture actually passed all the way down from the apostles?)

That's the difference. They saw Christ risen, and wrote down what they saw. that does not carry over to an institution tha arose a century or more later, building a whole system of ritualistic trappings off of the simple ordinances written down.

Nut still, everyonody is claiming that. evryone clains the historicl evidence points to their group. They just use different facets of history.

 

Still, that's what they all say

Once again, you blame us for their aberration. Your Church magesterium and its traditions has not prevented any of thos. You just keep isolate youselves from them, like every other group does; hence all the schism.

Unfortunately, the rhetoric in that issue often devolves to something like that. That is the fault of the people involved. Basically, your solution would be to just pick whichever one you can find the most evidence fo in the church fathers, call it the "apostolic tradition", and that would supposedly settle it. (And that, as you acknowledged ,can be ambiguous!) Men on the other side would still be unconvinced, and separate. Then, there would be schism. In contrast to where most of us, while disagreeing on it, will still accept each other as brethren.

Well, in that case, they haven't. You're only trying to narrow "the true Church" down to a particular government body.

Yeah, and all they neede to do wa claim some unwritten tradition of their own, and then it would be a matter of majority rules (populism). Bur actually, the so-called Catholic-Orthodox" Church was itself still working the exact nature of that out, and framed its traditions largely from the reactions to those groups (rather than the entire Nicene Creed being handed down orally from the apostles).

Still, everybody is claiming that for their group. It is just a matter oof which method one uses to project their group's peculiarities back, and on's interpretation of the historical evidence (which shows that you still can't escape human interpretation, even with the claim of an oral tradition.

Once again, I should have added last post, if all that stuff from the later Church was really apart of the same "source" material as the written text, it would have shown up there, rather than being omitted.

 

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

her·e·sy n., pl. her·e·sies. 1.a. An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member. b. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine. 2.a. A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science. b. Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion.

It's so easy to be heretic...

It's so easy to be ?free?

So, I'd guess in some cases being a heretic is a 'good' thing?

Again, who is a heretic, or what is heresy depends solely on the person claiming infallibility...

Which, as the 'wag' I am, means that they *are* the heretic!

I mean look at it this way...

If any man claims to have no sin, they lie and the truth is not in them...

So, claiming to be infallible means you don't have the truth!

Sorry guys... Couldn't resist...

 

....which is why we needed the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople to clarify the position ie: the whole Episcopate, not just individual Bishops.

No, it comes down to a need to trust what Jesus said when he said to His Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all Truth. </font>[/QUOTE]So basically, whatever the later Church teaches, that is it, whether it is scriptural or not. Just close your mind and let the "Fathers" do all the thinking for you.
Problem is, everyone could claim to be the true successor to the apostles. Your method of determining which is "the majority". But the majority could be wrong. The apostles warned that many would go stray. The few would find the truth.
What Christ told the apostles is that they would be guided into all the truth to write down and teach the Church. It is not talking about an infallible sucession, (and no matter how they measure up to the scriptures). And it is not talking about a body of hidden truth either.