Article: What is a Reformed Pastor?

Interesting piece. Thanks for linking.

 

Part of the discourse states:

“Under the guise of upholding Sola Scriptura, many Christians today seek to read the Bible independently and come to their own private conclusions about what it means without consulting the church’s authorized teachers or the orthodox confessions of faith. But that’s not what Sola Scriptura historically meant. Scripture teaches that the church is the “pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). The church as a whole is charged with interpreting the Bible, and God has authorized teachers in the church throughout history. Therefore, while every individual Christian is responsible to understand Scripture for himself, no Christian should study the Bible without any consideration of what the great teachers of the past have taught about the Bible.“
​

There is dangerous thinking in this part, and had it been held there would have been no reformation!

Paul told Tim to study and teach the word, not rely on what his church instructed him. Rather, look for God’s approval.

The Hebrew writer admonishes the assembly that they need someone to teach them again. Some individual to again lay foundational teaching.

The thinking that the church has possession of all wisdom and knowledge in which they determine what is truth is just wrong thinking.

The best an assembly may do is agree to the truth, learn as individual members the truth, but the church is not some clearing house in which truth is determined.

The writer appeals to INDIVIDUALS in history (the great teachers) as whom to look for wisdom, yet wants the church to be The determiner?

This paragraph can be and is regularly distorted by papists who gladly rely upon the truth to be told them irregardless of the Scriptures.

 

There is a difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura. Please read Ephesians 4:11-16. Every church should have a Statement of faith based upon the Scripture, and if someone comes to the church and doesn't agree with it, that is his prerogative, but he can take himself off and join another church more to his taste. 'Reject a divisive man [Gk. haeretikos, KJV. 'heretic'] after the first and second admonition' (Titus 3:10). I have been in a church where people came in and tried to change its theological direction, and it was not a pleasant experience.

 

Of course there is a difference. The difference of the two words was not specifically addressed.

I attempted to state that Solo Scriptura in practice lead the earliest reformers to adopt Sola Scripture.

But the argument the writer attempts is to place all “Solo” as dangerous and that only the church has the authority to determin the teaching of Scripture.

As such, the reformation would have never occurred for the “church” was the determiner of Scripture interpretation. Perversion ruled the policies, unhindered, because the church bore all the responsibility. So the earliest “Solo” reformed and developed such documents based upon “Sola.”

I attempted to state that it is the individual believer who is responsible to handle Scriptures both alone and in the assembly. It is the responsibility of pastors and teachers to educate the individual assembly members that they know the Scriptures as thoroughly as the leadership.

More often the assembly is vulnerable, not because of some written statement of faith or even creed recited, rather because the individuals of the assembly do not have the wisdom of God’s Word so implanted in their hearts, they fail before any smoke and mirrors.

Imo, the Finny- ists would have never gotten a toehold in the Baptists if the individuals had been truly taught.

To disregard the “Solo” and rely only upon the “Sola” may be dangerous, perhaps more so.

I am all for the church having such confessions and statements necessary to keep the unity and the focus, but that does not replace individual responsibility.